Certain Carbon Steel Products From

Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland,

France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico,

Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan,

and the United Kingdom

Investigation Nos. AA1921-197 (Second Review); 701-TA-319, 320, 325-327, 348,

and 350 (Second Review); and 731-TA-573, 574, 576, 578, 582-587, 612,

and 614-618 (Second Review)

VOLUME II: Information Obtained in the Reviews

Publication 3899 January 2007
U.S. International Trade Commission

Robert A. Rogowsky

Director of Operations

COMMISSIONERS

Address all communications to

Secretary to the Commission

United States International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436

Jennifer A. Hillman

Shara L. Aranoff, Vice Chairman

Daniel R. Pearson, Chairman

Stephen Koplan

Deanna Tanner Okun

Charlotte R. Lane

Staff assigned

Elizabeth Haines, Investigator

Michael Szustakowski, Investigator

Kelly Clark, Economist

Gerald Houck, Industry Analyst

Heather Sykes, Industry Analyst

Mary Klir, Accountant

June Brown, Attorney

David Fishberg, Attorney

Mary Jane Alves, Attorney

Gabriel Ellenberger, Research Assistant

Steven Hudgens, Statistician

Douglas E. Corkran, Supervisory Investigator
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436

January 2007

www.usitc.gov

Publication 3899

Certain Carbon Steel Products From

Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland,

France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico,

Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan,

and the United Kingdom

Investigation Nos. AA1921-197 (Second Review); 701-TA-319, 320, 325-327, 348,

and 350 (Second Review); and 731-TA-573, 574, 576, 578, 582-587, 612,

and 614-618 (Second Review)

VOLUME II: Information Obtained in the Reviews
 
i

CONTENTS

Page

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

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

Separate and Dissenting Views of

Commissioner Stephen Koplan and Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane

with Respect to Certain Carbon Corrosion-Resistant Steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

Introduction and Overview

Introduction and overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OVERVIEW-1

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OVERVIEW-1

The original investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OVERVIEW-2

The Commission’s investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OVERVIEW-2

Subsequent proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OVERVIEW-4

The first reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OVERVIEW-4

The Commission’s reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OVERVIEW-4

Subsequent proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OVERVIEW-5

Previous and related title VII investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OVERVIEW-5

Previous and related safeguard investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OVERVIEW-10

Statutory criteria and organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OVERVIEW-12

Statutory criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OVERVIEW-12

Organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OVERVIEW-14

Cut-To-Length (CTL) Plate

Part I: Introduction and Overview

General information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-1

Commerce’s reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-6

Administrative reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-6

Results of expedited and full five-year reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-12

Distribution of Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-16

The subject merchandise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-17

Commerce’s scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-17

Tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-18

The domestic like product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-19

Description and applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-19

Manufacturing processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-19

Marketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-21

Domestic like product issues concerning wide flat bar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-22

Physical characteristics and uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-22

Interchangeability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-23

Channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-23

Common manufacturing facilities, employees, and processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-23

Producer and consumer perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-24

Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-24
ii

CONTENTS – Continued

Page

Part I: Introduction and overview – Continued

Domestic like product issues concerning micro-alloy CTL plate . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-25

Physical characteristics and uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-25

Interchangeability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-26

Channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-27

Common manufacturing facilities, employees, and processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-27

Producer and consumer perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-27

Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-28

U.S. market participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-28

U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-28

U.S. importers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-30

U.S. purchasers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-32

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-34

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

U.S. market characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-II-1

U.S. channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-II-1

Supply and demand considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-II-3

U.S. supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-II-3

U.S. demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-II-9

Substitutability issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-II-13

Factors affecting purchasing decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-II-15

Comparisons of domestic products, subject imports, and nonsubject imports . . . CTL-II-21

Elasticity estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-II-28

U.S. supply elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-II-28

U.S. demand elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-II-28

Substitution elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-II-28

Part III: Condition of the U.S. industry

U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-III-3

Anticipated changes in existing operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-III-5

Alternative products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-III-6

U.S. producers’ domestic shipments, company transfers, and export shipments . . . CTL-III-7

U.S. producers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-III-9

U.S. producers’ imports and purchases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-III-10

U.S. producers’ employment, wages, and productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-III-11

Financial experience of the\ U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-III-12

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-III-12

Operations on CTL plate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-III-12

Capital expenditures and research and development expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-III-15

Assets and return on investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-III-16
iii

CONTENTS – Continued

Page

Part IV: U.S. imports and the foreign industries

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

Cumulation considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-7

Fungibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-7

Geographic markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-8

Presence in the market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-10

U.S. importers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-11

The industry in Belgium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-11

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-11

CTL plate operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-12

Alternative products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-13

The industry in Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-13

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-13

CTL plate operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-14

Alternative products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-15

The industry in Finland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-15

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-15

CTL plate operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-16

Alternative products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-17

The industry in Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-17

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-17

CTL plate operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-18

Alternative products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-23

The industry in Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-24

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-24

CTL plate operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-25

Alternative products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-26

The industry in Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-26

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-26

CTL plate operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-27

Alternative products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-29

The industry in Romania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-29

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-29

CTL plate operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-30

Alternative products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-31

The industry in Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-31

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-31

The industry in Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-32

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-32

The industry in Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-34

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-34

CTL plate operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-35

Alternative products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-36

The industry in the United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-36

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-36

CTL plate operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-37

Alternative products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-39
iv

CONTENTS – Continued

Page

Part IV: U.S. imports and the foreign industries – Continued

Global market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-39

Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-39

Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-40

Prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-40

Additional global supply and demand factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-42

Consolidation among global producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-45

Global raw material availability and prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-45

Regional developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-46

Part V: Pricing and related information

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

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

Transportation costs to the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-V-2

U.S. inland transportation costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-V-3

Exchange rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-V-3

Pricing practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-V-9

Pricing methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-V-9

Sales terms and discounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-V-10

Price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-V-11

Price trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-V-15

Price comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-V-16
v

CONTENTS – Continued

Page

Corrosion-Resistant (CORE) Steel

Part I: Introduction and overview

General information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-1

Commerce’s reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-5

Administrative reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-5

Results of expedited and full five-year reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-10

Distribution of Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-12

The subject merchandise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-14

Commerce’s scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-14

Tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-15

The domestic like product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-15

Description and applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-15

Manufacturing processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-16

Marketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-16

Domestic like product issues concerning micro-alloy corrosion-resistant steel . . . . CORE-I-17

Physical characteristics and uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-17

Interchangeability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-18

Channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-18

Common manufacturing facilities, employees, and processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-18

Producer and consumer perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-19

Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-19

U.S. market participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-19

U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-19

U.S. importers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-21

U.S. purchasers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-23

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-25

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

U.S. market characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-II-1

U.S. channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-II-1

Supply and demand considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-II-3

U.S. supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-II-3

U.S. demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-II-9

Substitutability issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-II-13

Factors affecting purchasing decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-II-15

Comparisons of domestic products, subject imports, and nonsubject imports . . . CORE-II-21

Elasticity estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-II-25

U.S. supply elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-II-25

U.S. demand elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-II-25

Substitution elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-II-25
vi

CONTENTS – Continued

Page

Part III: Condition of the U.S. industry

U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-III-2

Anticipated changes in existing operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-III-4

Alternative products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-III-5

U.S. producers’ domestic shipments, company transfers, and export shipments . . . CORE-III-6

U.S. producers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-III-9

U.S. producers’ imports and purchases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-III-10

U.S. producers’ employment, wages, and productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-III-10

Financial experience of the U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-III-11

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-III-11

Operations on corrosion-resistant steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-III-12

Capital expenditures and research and development expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-III-15

Assets and return on investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-III-16

Part IV: U.S. imports and the foreign industries

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

Cumulation considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-4

Fungibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-5

Geographic markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-6

Presence in the market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-7

U.S. importers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-8

The industry in Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-9

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-9

Corrosion-resistant steel operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-9

Alternative products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-11

The industry in Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-11

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-11

Corrosion-resistant steel operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-12

Alternative products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-14

The industry in France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-15

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-15

Corrosion-resistant steel operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-16

Alternative products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-17

The industry in Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-18

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-18

Corrosion-resistant steel operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-19

Alternative products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-21

The industry in Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-21

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-21

Corrosion-resistant steel operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-23

Alternative products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-25

The industry in Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-25

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-25

Corrosion-resistant steel operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-26

Alternative products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-30
vii

CONTENTS – Continued

Page

Part IV: U.S. imports and the foreign industries – Continued

Global market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-32

Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-32

Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-31

Prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-33

Additional global supply and demand factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-35

Consolidation among global producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-38

Global raw material availability and prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-38

Regional developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-39

Part V: Pricing and related information

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

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

Transportation costs to the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-V-3

U.S. inland transportation costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-V-4

Exchange rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-V-4

Pricing practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-V-8

Pricing methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-V-8

Sales terms and discounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-V-8

Price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-V-9

Price trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-V-16

Price comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-V-17

Appendixes

Appendixes

A. Federal Register notices and statement on adequacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

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

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

D. Treatment of CTL plate and corrosion-resistant steel in the HTSUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

E. Excluded forms of carbon steel products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

F. Comments by U.S. producers, importers, purchasers, and foreign producers regarding 

 flat bar and other forms of CTL plate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1

G. Comments by U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers regarding carbon and micro-alloy 

 steel CTL plate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-1

H. Comments by U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers regarding carbon and micro-alloy 

 corrosion-resistant steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-1

I. Comments by U.S. producers, importers, purchasers, and foreign producers regarding 

 the effects of the orders on CTL plate and the likely effects of revocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

J. Comments by U.S. producers, importers, purchasers, and foreign producers regarding 

 the effects of the orders on corrosion-resistant steel and the likely effects of revocation . . . J-1

K. Additional purchasing factor comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . K-1

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

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

 1

 The term “certain carbon steel products” includes cut-to-length (“CTL”) carbon steel plate (report pages marked

“CTL” and referred to as “CTL plate”) and corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products (report pages marked

“CORE” and referred to as “corrosion-resistant steel”).

 2

 The Commission’s notice of institution, notice to conduct full reviews, scheduling notice, and statement on

adequacy appear in app. A and may also be found on the Commission’s web site (www.usitc.gov). Commissioners’

votes on whether to conduct an expedited or full review may also be found at the web site.

OVERVIEW-1

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

BACKGROUND

On November 1, 2005, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission” or “USITC”)

gave notice, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), that it had instituted second

reviews to determine whether revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on certain

carbon steel products1

 from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea,

Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom would likely lead to the

continuation or recurrence of material injury to a domestic industry. Effective February 6, 2006, the

Commission determined that it would conduct full reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Act. 

Table OVERVIEW-1 presents information relating to the background and schedule of these reviews.2

Table OVERVIEW-1

Certain carbon steel products: Background information

Effective date Action

November 20, 2000

The Commission makes affirmative determinations in the first reviews of the antidumping

and countervailing duty orders on CTL plate and/or corrosion-resistant steel from

Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico,

Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom. The Commission

makes negative determinations in the first reviews of the antidumping and countervailing

duty orders on CTL plate from Canada as well as the antidumping and countervailing

duty orders on cold-rolled steel from Germany, Korea, the Netherlands, and Sweden (65

FR 75301, December 1, 2000).

December 15, 2000

U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) issues continuation orders following the

first reviews (65 FR 78469)

April 1, 2004

Commerce revokes Germany’s CTL plate and corrosion-resistant steel countervailing

duty orders (69 FR 17131)

November 1, 2005 Commission’s institution of second reviews (70 FR 62324, October 31, 2005)

February 6, 2006 Commission’s decision to conduct full reviews (71 FR 8874, February 21, 2006)

March 8, 2006

Commerce’s final results of expedited reviews on antidumping duty orders on CTL plate

from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden,

Taiwan, and the United Kingdom (71 FR 11577)

March 22, 2006 Commission’s scheduling of the reviews (71 FR 16178, March 30, 2006)

June 6, 2006

Commerce’s final results of expedited reviews on countervailing duty orders on CTL

plate from Brazil (71 FR 32522), Mexico (71 FR 32521), and Spain (71 FR 32523);

countervailing duty order on corrosion-resistant steel from Korea (71 FR 32519); and 

antidumping duty orders on corrosion-resistant steel from Australia, Canada, France,

Germany, Japan, and Korea (71 FR 32508)

October 3, 2006 Commission revises schedule (71 FR 58431)

Table continued on next page. 
 3

 43 FR 49375, October 25, 1978.

 4

 44 FR 9639, February 14, 1979.

 5

 44 FR 11854, March 2, 1979.

 6

 The petitions were filed by Armco, Bethlehem, Geneva, Gulf States, Ispat/Inland, Laclede Steel, LTV, Lukens,

National, Sharon, USX, and WCI.

 7 Certain Flat-rolled Carbon Steel Products from Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada,

Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Romania, Spain,

Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-319-354 and 731-TA-573-620 (Preliminary), USITC

Publication 2549, August 1992, pp. 2-4.

OVERVIEW-2

Table OVERVIEW-1--Continued

Certain carbon steel products: Background information

Effective date Action

October 4, 2006

Commerce’s final results of full reviews on countervailing duty orders on CTL plate from

Belgium (71 FR 58585), Sweden (71 FR 58587), and the United Kingdom (71 FR 58587)

and on corrosion-resistant steel from France (71 FR 58584)

October 4, 2006

Commission terminates countervailing duty review on CTL plate from the United

Kingdom (71 FR 62121, October 23, 2006) following Commerce’s revocation of the CVD

order (see above)

October 17, 2006 Commission’s hearing on corrosion-resistant steel1

October 19, 2006 Commission’s hearing on CTL plate1

December 14, 2006 Commission’s vote

January 25, 2007 Commission’s determination transmitted to Commerce

 1 App. B contains a list of witnesses appearing at the hearings.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

THE ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS

The Commission’s Investigations

On October 25, 1978, the U.S. Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”) instituted an

antidumping duty investigation on imports of plate from Taiwan in conjunction with its administration of

the Trigger Price Mechanism, a program established to monitor prices at which certain steel mill products

enter the United States.3

 On February 14, 1979, Treasury published a dumping finding with respect to

plate from Taiwan.4

 The Commission instituted investigation AA1921-197 on February 26, 1979,5 and

made its final determination on May 12, 1979. The Commission found that the U.S. industry that was

injured or likely to be injured was a regional industry consisting of domestic producers in California,

Washington, and Oregon. Treasury issued an antidumping finding on June 13, 1979.

On June 30, 1992, petitions6

 were filed with Commerce and the Commission alleging that an

industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of subsidized imports of CTL plate from 10

countries; hot-rolled products from 7 countries; cold-rolled products from 11 countries; and corrosionresistant products from 8 countries. The petitions further alleged that an industry in the United States was

materially injured by reason of dumped imports of CTL plate from 15 countries; hot-rolled products from

9 countries; cold-rolled products from 15 countries; and corrosion-resistant products from 9 countries.7

Following affirmative final determinations of subsidization and sales at LTFV by Commerce and material

injury by the Commission, Commerce published the countervailing duty orders on August 17, 1993 and

the antidumping duty orders on August 19, 1993. With respect to the CTL plate product at issue in these

reviews, the Commission made final affirmative determinations regarding subject imports from Belgium,
 8 Certain Flat-rolled Carbon Steel Products from Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France,

Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the

United Kingdom, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-319-322, 334, 336-342, 344, and 347-353 and 731-TA-573-579, 581-592, 594-

597, 599-609 and 612-619 (Final), USITC Publication 2664, August 1993, pp. 2-5.

 9

 As discussed in greater detail in the section entitled “The First Reviews,” Commerce revoked Canada’s CTL

plate antidumping and countervailing duty orders on December 15, 2000 (65 FR 78467). Subsequently, Commerce

revoked Germany’s CTL plate and corrosion-resistant steel countervailing duty orders on October 4, 2004 (69 FR

17131) and revoked the United Kingdom’s CTL plate countervailing duty order on October 4, 2006 (71 FR 58587).

OVERVIEW-3

Brazil, Canada, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. 

With respect to the corrosion-resistant steel product at issue in these reviews, the Commission made final

affirmative determinations regarding subject imports from Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan,

and Korea.8

 Table OVERVIEW-2 presents information on the merchandise still subject to order, the

dates of the original orders issued by Commerce, the types of orders, the countries covered, the

investigation numbers at both Commerce and the Commission, and the relevant Federal Register citations

for the issuance of the subject orders.9

Table OVERVIEW-2

Certain carbon steel products: Subject merchandise, dates of original orders, types of orders, countries,

investigation numbers, and Federal Register notices

Subject

merchandise

Order

date Type of order Country

Investigation number Federal

Commerce Commission Register notice

Carbon steel

plate 

6/13/79 Antidumping duty Taiwan A-583-080 AA1921-197 44 FR 33877

8/17/93 Countervailing duty Belgium C-423-806 701-TA-319 58 FR 43749

8/17/93 Countervailing duty Brazil C-351-818 701-TA-320 58 FR 43751

8/17/93 Countervailing duty Mexico C-201-810 701-TA-325 58 FR 43755

8/17/93 Countervailing duty Spain C-469-804 701-TA-326 58 FR 43761

8/17/93 Countervailing duty Sweden C-401-804 701-TA-327 58 FR 43758

8/19/93 Antidumping duty Belgium A-423-805 731-TA-573 58 FR 44164

8/19/93 Antidumping duty Brazil A-351-817 731-TA-574 58 FR 44164

8/19/93 Antidumping duty Finland A-405-802 731-TA-576 58 FR 44165

8/19/93 Antidumping duty Germany A-428-816 731-TA-578 58 FR 44170

8/19/93 Antidumping duty Mexico A-201-809 731-TA-582 58 FR 44165

8/19/93 Antidumping duty Poland A-455-802 731-TA-583 58 FR 44166

8/19/93 Antidumping duty Romania A-485-803 731-TA-584 58 FR 44167

8/19/93 Antidumping duty Spain A-469-803 731-TA-585 58 FR 44167

8/19/93 Antidumping duty Sweden A-401-805 731-TA-586 58 FR 44168

8/19/93 Antidumping duty

United

Kingdom A-412-814 731-TA-587 58 FR 44168

Corrosionresistant steel8/17/93 Countervailing duty France C-427-810 701-TA-348 58 FR 43759

8/17/93 Countervailing duty Korea C-580-818 701-TA-350 58 FR 43752

8/19/93 Antidumping duty Australia A-602-803 731-TA-612 58 FR 44161

8/19/93 Antidumping duty Canada A-122-822 731-TA-614 58 FR 44162

8/19/93 Antidumping duty France A-427-808 731-TA-615 58 FR 44169

8/19/93 Antidumping duty Germany A-428-815 731-TA-616 58 FR 44170

8/19/93 Antidumping duty Japan A-588-824 731-TA-617 58 FR 44163

8/19/93 Antidumping duty Korea A-580-816 731-TA-618 58 FR 44159

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.
 10 Stalexport and Huta Czestochowa v. United States, 890 F. Supp. 1053 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1995).

 11 Stalexport and Huta Czestochowa v. United States, 890 F. Supp. 1053, p. 1076 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1995).

 12 Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 19 CIT 450 (1995).

 13 Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 19 CIT 827 (1995).

 14 Certain Carbon Steel Products From Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan,

Korea, Mexico, The Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and The United Kingdom, Invs. Nos.

AA1921-197, 701-TA-231, 319-320, 322, 325-328, 340, 342, and 348-350, and 731-TA-573-576, 578, 582-587, 604,

607-608, 612, and 614-618, USITC Publication 3364, November 2000, p. 2.

OVERVIEW-4

Subsequent Proceedings

The Commission’s determinations in the original flat-rolled carbon steel investigations faced

several legal challenges before the U.S. Court of International Trade (“Court” or “CIT”). In addition to

litigation involving cold-rolled steel, a product that is not at issue in these second reviews, the

Commission’s CTL plate determinations regarding Belgium, Poland, Finland, and Romania were

appealed.10 The Court sustained the Commission’s determinations to cumulate South African imports as

well as those from Belgium, Poland, Finland, and Romania, and its decision to exclude imports from

France and Korea.11

The Commission’s corrosion-resistant steel determinations were appealed and upheld as well. 

The CIT affirmed both the Commission’s affirmative determinations and its negative determinations.12

The CIT remanded one Commissioner’s separate determination with respect to application of the

negligibility exception to imports from Mexico. Upon remand, the Court sustained the Commissioner’s

clarified views.13

THE FIRST REVIEWS

The Commission’s Reviews

On September 1, 1999, the Commission gave notice, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, that it

had instituted reviews to determine whether revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders

on certain carbon steel products from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany,

Japan, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United

Kingdom would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to a domestic industry. 

Effective December 3, 1999, the Commission determined that it would conduct full reviews pursuant to

section 751(c)(5) of the Act. 

On November 20, 2000, the Commission, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, determined that

the revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on CTL plate from Belgium, Brazil,

Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom would be

likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within

a reasonably foreseeable time. Additionally, the Commission determined that the revocation of the

antidumping and countervailing duty orders on corrosion-resistant steel from Australia, Canada, France,

Germany, Japan, and Korea would be likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to

an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. The Commission further

determined that revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on CTL plate from Canada,

and on cold-rolled steel from Germany, Korea, the Netherlands, and Sweden, would not be likely to lead

to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably

foreseeable time.14 On December 15, 2000, Commerce published notice of the continuation of the

antidumping and countervailing duty orders on CTL plate and corrosion-resistant steel from Australia,

Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain,
 15 65 FR 78469, December 15, 2000.

 16 65 FR 78467, December 15, 2000.

 17 Usinor Industeel, S.A. v. United States, 26 CIT __, Slip Op. 02-39 at 25 (2002).

 18 Usinor Industeel, S.A. v. United States, 26 CIT __, Slip Op. 02-152 at 23 (2002).

 19 Duferco Steel, Inc. v. United States, 296 F.3d 1087, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

 20 Usinor Industeel, S.A. v. United States, 27 CIT __, Slip Op. 03-118 (2003), aff’d, 112 Fed. Appx. 59 (2004).

 21 Usinor v. United States, 342 F.Supp. 2d 1267 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2004).

 22 Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Canada, USA-CDA-2000-1904-11.

OVERVIEW-5

Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom.15 Also on December 15, 2000, Commerce published notice of

the revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on CTL plate from Canada, and on

cold-rolled steel from Germany, Korea, the Netherlands, and Sweden.16

Subsequent Proceedings

The Commission’s affirmative final determinations in its first five-year review of the

antidumping and countervailing duty orders on CTL plate from Belgium and Germany were the subject of

appeal. Initially, the CIT remanded the case for the Commission to apply the meaning of “likely” as

“probable” in conducting both its cumulation analysis under 19 U.S.C. §1675a(a)(7) and its likelihood of

material injury analysis.17 The Commission provided further explanation for its views, and the CIT found

that the Commission had adequately explained all the issues on which the determinations were

remanded.18 However, because the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) had ruled in a

Commerce case that floor plate was not within the scope of the 1993 antidumping and countervailing duty

orders on Belgium (contrary to Commerce’s finding),19 the CIT again remanded the determinations so that

the Commission could review the pertinent data without consideration of floor plate. On the second

remand, the Commission once again determined that revocation of the countervailing and antidumping

duty orders on CTL plate from Belgium and Germany would be likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. The

CIT and, ultimately, the CAFC, affirmed.20

The Commission’s affirmative determinations in the first review with respect to corrosionresistant steel from France and Germany were appealed, but ultimately upheld by the CIT following

remand.21 In May 2005, a NAFTA Panel affirmed the Commission’s affirmative determination in the first

review with respect to corrosion-resistant steel from Canada.22

PREVIOUS AND RELATED TITLE VII INVESTIGATIONS

The Commission has conducted a number of previous import relief investigations on certain

carbon steel products or substantially similar merchandise. Table OVERVIEW-3 presents data on

previous and related title VII investigations for CTL plate, and table OVERVIEW-4 presents data on

previous and related title VII investigations on corrosion-resistant steel.
OVERVIEW-6

Table OVERVIEW-3

CTL plate: Previous and related investigations, 1978-2006

Original Investigation First Review

Current Status

Date1 Number Country Outcome Date1 Outcome

1978 AA1921-179 Japan Affirmative - - ITA revoked 4/18/86

1979 AA1921-197 Taiwan Affirmative 1999 Affirmative Under review

1979 AA1921-203 Poland Negative - - -

1980 731-TA-18 Belgium Affirmative2 - - Terminated 10/1/80

1980 731-TA-19 Germany (West) Affirmative2 - - Petition withdrawn 10/8/80

1980 731-TA-20 France Affirmative2 - - Petition withdrawn 10/8/80

1980 731-TA-21 Italy Affirmative2 - - Petition withdrawn 10/8/80

1980 731-TA-22 Luxembourg Affirmative2 - - Petition withdrawn 10/8/80

1980 731-TA-23 Netherlands Affirmative2 - - Petition withdrawn 10/8/80

1980 731-TA-24 United Kingdom Affirmative2 - - Petition withdrawn 10/8/80

1981 701-TA-83 Belgium Affirmative2 - - Incorporated into 701-TA-86

1981 701-TA-84 Brazil Affirmative2 - - Incorporated into 701-TA-87

1982 731-TA-51 Romania Affirmative2 - - Incorporated into 731-TA-58

1982 701-TA-86 Belgium Affirmative - - Terminated 10/26/82

1982 701-TA-87 Brazil Affirmative - - Terminated 9/18/85

1982 701-TA-88 France Negative2 -- -

1982 701-TA-89 Italy Negative2 -- -

1982 701-TA-90 Luxembourg Negative2 -- -

1982 701-TA-91 Netherlands Negative2 -- -

1982 701-TA-92 United Kingdom Affirmative2 - - Terminated 10/26/82

1982 701-TA-93 Germany (West) Affirmative2 - - Terminated 10/26/82

1982 701-TA-155 Spain Affirmative - - ITA revoked 8/21/85

1982 701-TA-170 Korea Affirmative - - ITA revoked 10/10/85

1982 731-TA-53 Belgium Affirmative2 - - Terminated 10/26/82

1982 731-TA-54 France Negative2 -- -

1982 731-TA-55 Italy Negative2 -- -

1982 731-TA-56 Luxembourg Negative2 -- -

1982 731-TA-57 Netherlands Negative2 -- -

1982 731-TA-58 Romania Affirmative2 - - Terminated 7/3/85

1982 731-TA-59 United Kingdom Affirmative2 - - Terminated 10/26/82

1982 731-TA-60 Germany (West) Affirmative2 - - Terminated 10/26/82

Table continued on next page. 
OVERVIEW-7

Table OVERVIEW-3--Continued

CTL plate: Previous and related investigations, 1978-2006

Original Investigation First Review

Current Status

Date1 Number Country Outcome Date1 Outcome

1983 701-TA-204 Brazil Affirmative - - ITA revoked 9/6/85

1983 731-TA-123 Brazil Affirmative - - ITA revoked 8/21/85

1983 731-TA-146 Belgium Affirmative2 - - Terminated 12/10/84

1983 731-TA-147 Germany (West)

Affirmative

(on remand)2 - - Terminated 11/29/84

1983 731-TA-151 Korea Affirmative - - ITA revoked 4/17/86

1984 701-TA-225 Sweden Negative - - -

1984 701-TA-226 Venezuela Affirmative2 - - Terminated 7/31/85

1984 731-TA-169 Finland Affirmative2 - - Petition withdrawn 1/18/85

1984 731-TA-170 South Africa Affirmative2 - - Petition withdrawn 6/07/84

1984 731-TA-171 Spain Affirmative2 - - Terminated 1/22/85

1984 731-TA-213 Czechoslovakia Affirmative2 - - Petition withdrawn 5/28/85

1984 731-TA-214 Germany (East) Affirmative2 - - Terminated 8/12/85

1984 731-TA-215 Hungary Affirmative2 - - Petition withdrawn 5/28/85

1984 731-TA-216 Poland Affirmative2 - - Terminated 8/12/85

1984 731-TA-217 Venezuela Affirmative2 - - Petition withdrawn 7/19/85

1992 701-TA-319 Belgium Affirmative 1999 Affirmative Under review

1992 701-TA-320 Brazil Affirmative 1999 Affirmative Under review

1992 701-TA-321 France Negative - - -

1992 701-TA-322 Germany Affirmative 1999 Affirmative ITA revoked 4/1/04

1992 701-TA-323 Italy Negative - - -

1992 701-TA-324 Korea Negative - - -

1992 701-TA-325 Mexico Affirmative 1999 Affirmative Under review

1992 701-TA-326 Spain Affirmative 1999 Affirmative Under review

1992 701-TA-327 Sweden Affirmative 1999 Affirmative Under review

1992 701-TA-328 United Kingdom Affirmative 1999 Affirmative ITA revoked 10/4/06

Table continued on next page. 
OVERVIEW-8

Table OVERVIEW-3--Continued

CTL plate: Previous and related investigations, 1978-2006

Original Investigation First Review

Current Status

Date1 Number Country Outcome Date1 Outcome

1992 731-TA-573 Belgium Affirmative 1999 Affirmative Under review

1992 731-TA-574 Brazil Affirmative 1999 Affirmative Under review

1992 731-TA-575 Canada Affirmative 1999 Negative -

1992 731-TA-576 Finland Affirmative 1999 Affirmative Under review

1992 731-TA-577 France Negative - - -

1992 731-TA-578 Germany Affirmative 1999 Affirmative Under review

1992 731-TA-579 Italy Negative - - -

1992 731-TA-580 Japan Negative2 -- -

1992 731-TA-581 Korea Negative - - -

1992 731-TA-582 Mexico Affirmative 1999 Affirmative Under review

1992 731-TA-583 Poland Affirmative 1999 Affirmative Under review

1992 731-TA-584 Romania Affirmative 1999 Affirmative Under review

1992 731-TA-585 Spain Affirmative 1999 Affirmative Under review

1992 731-TA-586 Sweden Affirmative 1999 Affirmative Under review

1992 731-TA-587 United Kingdom Affirmative 1999 Affirmative Under review

1996 731-TA-753 China Affirmative 2002 Affirmative Order in place

1996 731-TA-754 Russia Affirmative 2002 Affirmative Suspension agreement

1996 731-TA-755 South Africa Affirmative 2002 Negative -

1996 731-TA-756 Ukraine Affirmative 2002 Affirmative Suspension agreement

1999 731-TA-815 Czech Republic Negative2 -- -

1999 731-TA-816 France Affirmative 2005 Negative -

1999 731-TA-817 India Affirmative 2005 Affirmative Order in place

1999 731-TA-818 Indonesia Affirmative 2005 Affirmative Order in place

1999 731-TA-819 Italy Affirmative 2005 Affirmative Order in place

1999 731-TA-820 Japan Affirmative 2005 Affirmative Order in place

1999 731-TA-821 Korea Affirmative 2005 Affirmative Order in place

1999 731-TA-822 Macedonia Negative2 -- -

 1 “Date” refers to the year in which the investigation or review was instituted by the Commission.

 2

 Preliminary determination.

Source: Compiled from Commission determinations published in the Federal Register.
OVERVIEW-9

Table OVERVIEW-4

CORE: Previous and related investigations, 1978-2006

Original Investigation First Review

Current Status

Date1 Number Country Outcome Date1 Outcome

1980 731-TA-18 Belgium Affirmative2 - - Terminated 10/1/80

1980 731-TA-19 Germany (West) Affirmative2 - - Terminated 10/1/80

1980 731-TA-20 France Affirmative2 - - Terminated 10/1/80

1980 731-TA-21 Italy Affirmative2 - - Terminated 10/1/80

1980 731-TA-23 Netherlands Affirmative2 - - Terminated 10/1/80

1980 731-TA-24 United Kingdom Affirmative2 - - Terminated 10/1/80

1982 701-TA-110 Belgium Negative2 -- -

1982 701-TA-111 France Negative2 -- -

1982 701-TA-112 Italy Negative2 -- -

1982 701-TA-113 Luxembourg Negative2 -- -

1982 701-TA-114 Netherlands Negative2 -- -

1982 701-TA-115 United Kingdom Negative2 -- -

1982 701-TA-116 Germany (West) Negative2 -- -

1982 701-TA-158 Spain Affirmative - - ITA revoked 8/21/85

1982 701-TA-173 Korea Affirmative - - ITA revoked 10/10/85

1982 731-TA-75 Belgium Negative2 -- -

1982 731-TA-76 France Negative2 -- -

1982 731-TA-77 Italy Negative2 -- -

1982 731-TA-78 Luxembourg Negative2 -- -

1982 731-TA-79 Netherlands Negative2 -- -

1982 731-TA-80 United Kingdom Negative2 -- -

1982 731-TA-81 Germany (West) Negative2 -- -

1984 701-TA-212 Australia Affirmative2 - - ITA negative 5/10/84

1984 701-TA-233 Austria Negative2 -- -

1984 701-TA-234 Venezuela Negative2 -- -

1984 731-TA-178 Australia Affirmative2 - - Petition withdrawn 1/18/85

1984 731-TA-179 South Africa Affirmative2 - - Petition withdrawn 6/7/84

1984 731-TA-180 Spain Affirmative2 - - Petition withdrawn 1/18/85

1984 731-TA-230 Austria Negative2 -- -

1984 731-TA-231 Germany (East) Negative2 -- -

1984 731-TA-232 Romania Negative2 -- -

1984 731-TA-233 Venezuela Negative2 -- -

Table continued on next page. 
 23 19 U.S.C. § 2252.

 24 Institution and Scheduling of an Investigation under Section 202 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2252) (the

Act), 66 FR 35267, July 3, 2001.

 25 19 U.S.C. § 2251.

 26 Consolidation of Senate Finance Committee Resolution Requesting a Section 201 Investigation with the

Investigation Requested by the United States Trade Representative on June 22, 2001, 66 FR 44158, August 22,

2001.

OVERVIEW-10

Table OVERVIEW-4--Continued

CORE: Previous and related investigations, 1978-2006

Original Investigation First Review

Current Status

Date1 Number Country Outcome Date1 Outcome

1992 701-TA-342 Korea Affirmative 1999 Affirmative Under review

1992 701-TA-348 France Affirmative 1999 Affirmative Under review

1992 701-TA-349 Germany Affirmative 1999 Affirmative ITA revoked 4/1/04

1992 701-TA-354 Taiwan Negative2 -- -

1992 731-TA-612 Australia Affirmative 1999 Affirmative Under review

1992 731-TA-613 Brazil Negative - - -

1992 731-TA-614 Canada Affirmative 1999 Affirmative Under review

1992 731-TA-615 France Affirmative 1999 Affirmative Under review

1992 731-TA-616 Germany Affirmative 1999 Affirmative Under review

1992 731-TA-617 Japan Affirmative 1999 Affirmative Under review

1992 731-TA-618 Korea Affirmative 1999 Affirmative Under review

1992 731-TA-619 Mexico Negative - - -

1992 731-TA-620 Taiwan Negative2 -- -

 1 “Date” refers to the year in which the investigation or review was instituted by the Commission.

 2

 Preliminary determination.

Source: Compiled from Commission determinations published in the Federal Register.

PREVIOUS AND RELATED SAFEGUARD INVESTIGATIONS

Following receipt of a request from the Office of the United States Trade Representative

(“USTR”) on June 22, 2001, the Commission instituted investigation No. TA-201-73, Steel, under section

202 of the Trade Act of 197423 to determine whether certain steel products, including CTL plate and

corrosion-resistant steel, were being imported into the United States in such increased quantities as to be a

substantial cause of serious injury, or the threat thereof, to the domestic industries producing articles like

or directly competitive with the imported article.24 On July 26, 2001, the Commission received a

resolution adopted by the Committee on Finance of the U.S. Senate (“Senate Finance Committee” or

“Committee”) requesting that the Commission investigate certain steel imports under section 201 of the

Trade Act of 1974.25 Consistent with the Senate Finance Committee’s resolution, the Commission

consolidated the investigation requested by the Committee with the Commission’s previously instituted

investigation No. TA-201-73.26 On December 20, 2001, the Commission issued its determinations and
 27 Presidential Proclamation 7529 of March 5, 2002, To Facilitate Positive Adjustment to Competition From

Imports of Certain Steel Products, 67 FR 10553, March 7, 2002. 

 28 The increased duties were reduced from 30 percent to 24 percent on March 20, 2003.

 29 The Department of Commerce published regulations establishing such a system on December 31, 2002.

 30 Of the countries subject to these reviews, no safeguard measures were applied to imports from Canada, Mexico,

and Poland. While safeguard measures were applied to Romania for certain steel products, safeguard measures were

not applied to flat-rolled steel from that country. Imports of flat-rolled steel other than tin mill products from Brazil

were subject to the U.S. safeguard measures, notwithstanding that country’s designation as a developing country

WTO member.

 31 Steel: Monitoring Developments in the Domestic Industry, Inv. No. TA-204-9, USITC Publication 3632,

September 2003.

 32 Steel: Monitoring Developments in the Domestic Industry, Inv. No. TA-204-9, Volume I, USITC Publication

3632, September 2003, p. ix.

 33 Presidential Proclamation 7741 of December 4, 2003, To Provide for the Termination of Action Taken With

Regard to Imports of Certain Steel Products, 68 FR 68483, December 8, 2003.

OVERVIEW-11

remedy recommendations. The Commission reached an affirmative determination with respect to certain

flat-rolled steel (including CTL plate and corrosion-resistant steel). 

On March 5, 2002, following determinations regarding serious injury or threat of serious injury

by the Commission under section 202 of the Trade Act of 1974, the President announced the safeguard

measures that he planned to implement to facilitate efforts by various domestic steel industries and their

workers to make a positive adjustment to import competition with respect to certain steel products. The

safeguard measures encompassed 10 different product categories for which the Commission made

affirmative determinations or was evenly divided. Presidential Proclamation 7529 implemented the

safeguard measures, principally in the form of tariffs and tariff-rate quotas, effective March 20, 2002, for

a period of three years and one day. Import relief relating to CTL plate and corrosion-resistant steel

consisted of an additional tariff of 30 percent ad valorem on imports in the first year, 24 percent in the

second year, and 18 percent in the third year.27 28 The President also instructed the Secretary of the

Treasury and the Secretary of Commerce to establish a system of import licensing to facilitate the

monitoring of imports of certain steel products.29

The safeguard measures applied to imports of subject steel products from all countries except

Canada, Israel, Jordan, and Mexico, which had entered into free trade agreements with the United States,

and most developing countries that were members of the World Trade Organization.30 The President’s

initial proclamation also excluded numerous specific products from the measures, and was followed by

subsequent additional exclusions.

On September 19, 2003, the Commission submitted a mid-term report to the President and the

Congress on the results of its monitoring of developments in the steel industry, as required by section

204(a)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974.31 The Commission’s monitoring report noted that, although growth

in demand for carbon and alloy flat-rolled products (the product category that included both CTL plate

and corrosion-resistant steel) was at most modest and total imports increased, output-related indicators for

the domestic industry such as production, capacity utilization, and shipments increased in the first relief

year, as did labor productivity. Per-unit net sales rose while per-unit costs fell (despite rising raw material

costs), resulting in improved financial performance.32

On December 4, 2003, President Bush terminated the U.S. measure with respect to increased

tariffs, following receipt of the Commission’s mid-point monitoring report in September 2003, and after

seeking information from the U.S. Secretary of Commerce and U.S. Secretary of Labor, having

determined that the effectiveness of the action taken had been impaired by changed circumstances.33
 34 Proclamation 7741 terminated the tariff-rate quota and the increased import duties on certain steel products, but

directed the Secretary of Commerce to continue the monitoring system until the earlier of March 21, 2005, or such

time as the Secretary establishes a replacement program. On March 11, 2005, Commerce published an interim final

rule to implement a replacement program for the period beyond March 21, 2005. Steel Import Monitoring and

Analysis System, 70 FR 12133, March 11, 2005. On December 5, 2005, Commerce published its final rule. Steel

Import Monitoring and Analysis System, 70 FR 72373, December 5, 2005.

OVERVIEW-12

Import licensing, however, remained in place through March 21, 2005, and continues in modified form at

this time.34

On March 21, 2005, the Commission instituted an investigation under section 204(d) of the Trade

Act of 1974 for the purpose of evaluating the effectiveness of the relief action imposed by the President

on imports of certain steel products. The Commission’s report on the evaluation was transmitted to the

President and the Congress on September 19, 2005.

STATUTORY CRITERIA AND ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

Statutory Criteria

Section 751(c) of the Act requires Commerce and the Commission to conduct a review no later

than five years after the issuance or continuation of an antidumping or countervailing duty order, or the

suspension of an investigation, to determine whether revocation of the order or termination of the

suspended investigation “would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or a

countervailable subsidy (as the case may be) and of material injury.”

Section 752(a) of the Act provides that in making its determination of likelihood of continuation

or recurrence of material injury--

(1) IN GENERAL.-- . . . the Commission shall determine whether revocation of

an order, or termination of a suspended investigation, would be likely to lead to

continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. The

Commission shall consider the likely volume, price effect, and impact of imports of the

subject merchandise on the industry if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation

is terminated. The Commission shall take into account--

(A) its prior injury determinations, including the volume, price

effect, and impact of imports of the subject merchandise on the industry

before the order was issued or the suspension agreement was accepted, 

(B) whether any improvement in the state of the industry is

related to the order or the suspension agreement, 

(C) whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the

order is revoked or the suspension agreement is terminated, and 

(D) in an antidumping proceeding . . ., (Commerce’s findings)

regarding duty absorption . . ..

(2) VOLUME.--In evaluating the likely volume of imports of the subject

merchandise if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated, the

Commission shall consider whether the likely volume of imports of the subject

merchandise would be significant if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is

terminated, either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the

United States. In so doing, the Commission shall consider all relevant economic factors,

including--
OVERVIEW-13

(A) any likely increase in production capacity or existing unused

production capacity in the exporting country, 

(B) existing inventories of the subject merchandise, or likely

increases in inventories, 

(C) the existence of barriers to the importation of such

merchandise into countries other than the United States, and 

(D) the potential for product-shifting if production facilities in

the foreign country, which can be used to produce the subject

merchandise, are currently being used to produce other products.

(3) PRICE.--In evaluating the likely price effects of imports of the subject

merchandise if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated, the

Commission shall consider whether--

(A) there is likely to be significant price underselling by imports

of the subject merchandise as compared to domestic like products, and 

(B) imports of the subject merchandise are likely to enter the

United States at prices that otherwise would have a significant

depressing or suppressing effect on the price of domestic like products.

(4) IMPACT ON THE INDUSTRY.--In evaluating the likely impact of imports of

the subject merchandise on the industry if the order is revoked or the suspended

investigation is terminated, the Commission shall consider all relevant economic factors

which are likely to have a bearing on the state of the industry in the United States,

including, but not limited to--

(A) likely declines in output, sales, market share, profits,

productivity, return on investments, and utilization of capacity, 

(B) likely negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment,

wages, growth, ability to raise capital, and investment, and 

(C) likely negative effects on the existing development and

production efforts of the industry, including efforts to develop a

derivative or more advanced version of the domestic like product.

The Commission shall evaluate all such relevant economic factors . . . within the context

of the business cycle and the conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected

industry.
 35 Retrieved from http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html on November 20, 2006.

 36 Commerce described 19 programs with respect to Belgium. However, with the exception of the “Promotion

Brochure” and “Audio Visual Calling Card” programs, these programs do not fall within the meaning of Article 3.

 37 Commerce described 5 programs with respect to Brazil, none of which fall within the meaning of Article 3.

 38 Commerce described 11 programs with respect to Mexico, 2 of which were found to be export subsidies as

described in Article 3: Bancomext Export Loans and PITEX Duty-Free Imports for Companies that Export.

 39 Commerce described 6 programs with respect to Spain, none of which fall within the meaning of Article 3.

 40 Commerce described 7 programs with respect to Sweden none of which fall within the meaning of Article 3.

 41 Commerce described 9 programs with respect to France, none of which fall within the meaning of Article 3.

 42 Commerce described 11 programs with respect to Korea, 5 of which were found to be export subsidies as

described in Article 3: Reserve for Export Loss; Reserve for Overseas Market Development; Short-Term Export

Financing; Unlimited Deduction of Overseas Entertainment Expenses; and Duty Drawback.

OVERVIEW-14

Section 752(a)(6) of the Act states further that in making its determination, “the Commission may

consider the magnitude of the margin of dumping or the magnitude of the net countervailable subsidy. If

a countervailable subsidy is involved, the Commission shall consider information regarding the nature of

the countervailable subsidy and whether the subsidy is a subsidy described in Article 3 or 6.1 of the

Subsidies Agreement.” In these second reviews, Commerce discussed in its unpublished Issues and

Decision Memoranda35 countervailable subsidies for CTL plate from Belgium,36 Brazil,37 Mexico,38

Spain,39 and Sweden40 and corrosion-resistant steel from France41 and Korea.42

Organization of the Report

Information obtained during the course of these reviews that relates to the statutory criteria

presented above appears throughout this report. The report is divided into two primary sections based on

the Commission’s findings with respect to the domestic like products in the first reviews. The first

section relates to CTL plate. The second section relates to corrosion-resistant steel. A summary of data

collected in the reviews relating to CTL plate and corrosion-resistant steel is presented in appendix C. 

Appendix D reproduces portions of the tariff schedule to illustrate the treatment of CTL plate and

corrosion-resistant steel in the HTSUS. Appendix E identifies excluded forms of carbon steel products. 

Appendixes F, G, and H present comments by market participants regarding the domestic like product

(i.e., the product most “like” the subject imports). Appendixes I and J present the views of market

participants regarding the effectiveness of the subject orders and the likely effect of their revocation. 

Finally, appendix K elaborates on purchasing considerations for U.S. and nonsubject imported product.
 1

 Additional U.S. import data are compiled by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”).

 2 Certain Carbon Steel Plate from China, Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-753-756 (Final),

USITC Publication 3076, December 1997, pp. 10-12.

CTL-I-1

PART CTL-I: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

GENERAL INFORMATION

U.S. industry data are based on questionnaire responses of 27 firms that accounted for nearly all

of the U.S. production of CTL plate during the period for which data were collected in these second

reviews. U.S. import data are based on official Commerce statistics.1

 Responses by U.S. producers,

importers, and purchasers of CTL plate to a series of questions concerning the significance of the

countervailing duty orders and the existing antidumping duty orders and the likely effects of revocation

are presented in appendix I. Responses concerning the comparability of flat bar and micro-alloy plate

with carbon steel CTL plate are presented in appendixes F and G, respectively.

Table CTL-I-1 presents comparative information available from the original investigations, the

first reviews, and these second reviews. Data relating to the domestic industry for the period 1990-92 do

not include the operations of U.S. service centers engaged in processing hot-rolled steel coils in plate

thicknesses into individual plates. However, since 1997, the Commission has deemed such operations to

constitute “production” of CTL plate.2

 Accordingly, in these second reviews, as in the first reviews, both

U.S. mills’ and U.S. processors’ operations are included in data and descriptions pertaining to the

domestic industry.
Table CTL-I-1

CTL plate: Comparative data from the original investigations, first reviews, and current reviews, 1990-92, 1997-99, and 2000-05

Item

Calendar years

1990 1991 1992 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 

Quantity (short tons)

Apparent U.S. consumption 5,633,203 4,756,817 4,964,626 6,627,268 8,222,194 6,001,329 6,814,613 6,234,474 6,539,570 

Share (percent)

Producers’ share 84.9 85.4 84.1 83.6 79.4 89.8 89.7 89.7 91.6 Importers’ shares-- Belgium 2.0 1.8 1.0 (1) 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 

 Brazil 0.9 1.4 0.9 0.1 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) 

 Finland 1.5 1.2 0.9 (1) (1) (1) 0.0 (1) 0.0 

 Germany 1.1 0.8 0.4 0.2 (1) (1) 0.1 (1) 0.6 

 Mexico2 0.7 0.4 1.2 (1) 0.6 1.2 (1) (1) (1)  Poland 0.5 0.8 0.5 0.1 (1) (1) (1) (1) 0.0  Romania 0.6 0.8 0.4 (1) (1) (1) (1) 0.1 0.7 

 Spain 1.2 1.5 1.1 0.0 (1) (1) (1) 0.0 (1) 

 Sweden 1.6 1.4 1.8 (1) 0.0 (1) (1) (1) (1) 

 Taiwan3 -- -- -- 0.0 (1) 0.0 (1) (1) (1) 

 United Kingdom 0.8 0.7 0.4 (1) 0.2 (1) (1) (1) (1) 

 All subject sources 10.9 10.9 8.7 0.3 1.0 1.5 0.4 0.4 1.5  All other sources3 4.2 3.8 7.2 16.1 19.6 8.7 9.8 9.8 6.9 

 Total imports 15.1 14.6 15.9 16.4 20.6 10.2 10.3 10.3 8.4 

Value (1,000 dollars)

Apparent U.S. consumption 2,553,215 2,054,628 1,952,410 2,885,058 3,566,250 2,196,369 2,454,787 2,101,040 2,229,060 

Share (percent)

Producers’ share 85.9 86.4 85.8 86.2 81.8 91.2 91.3 90.9 92.0 Importers’ shares– Belgium 2.0 1.8 1.0 (1) 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 

 Brazil 0.8 1.3 0.8 0.1 (1) (1) 0.1 0.1 (1) 

 Finland 1.4 1.1 0.9 (1) (1) (1) 0.0 (1) 0.0  Germany 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.1 (1) (1) 0.2 (1) 0.8 

 Mexico2 0.6 0.3 1.0 (1) 0.5 1.0 (1) (1) (1)  Poland 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.1 (1) (1) (1) (1) 0.0  Romania 0.5 0.7 0.3 (1) (1) (1) (1) 0.1 0.6 

 Spain 1.1 1.3 0.9 0.0 (1) (1) (1) 0.0 (1) 

 Sweden 1.6 1.4 1.7 (1) 0.0 (1) (1) 0.1 (1) 

 Taiwan3 -- -- -- 0.0 (1) 0.0 (1) (1) (1) 

Table continued on next page. 

CTL-I-2
CTL-I-3

Table CTL-I-1--ContinuedCTL plate: Comparative data from the original investigations, first reviews, and current reviews, 1990-92, 1997-99, and 2000-05

Item

Calendar years

1990 1991 1992 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 

Share (percent)

Importers’ shares–continued United Kingdom 0.7 0.6 0.4 (1) 0.3 (1) (1) (1) (1) 

 All subject sources 10.2 10.1 8.1 0.3 1.0 1.3 0.5 0.5 1.6  All other sources3 3.9 3.5 6.1 13.5 17.2 7.5 8.1 8.6 6.4 

 Total imports 14.1 13.6 14.2 13.8 18.2 8.8 8.7 9.1 8.0 

Quantity (short tons), Value (1,000 dollars), Average unit value (per short ton)

U.S. Imports from— Belgium: Quantity 114,073 87,654 48,951 66 8,051 8,591 15,614 16,575 11,615  Value 51,827 36,953 18,760 33 4,046 3,537 6,458 6,511 4,951  Average unit value $454 $422 $383 $507 $503 $412 $414 $393 $426  Brazil Quantity 52,680 67,481 46,380 4,172 1,430 1,358 3,243 2,978 1,477  Value 21,512 26,920 16,295 2,357 801 553 1,546 1,386 288  Average unit value $408 $399 $351 $565 $560 $407 $477 $465 $195  Finland Quantity 83,287 55,648 46,875 34 1,024 28 0 19 0  Value 36,591 22,587 18,020 29 387 11 0 10 0  Average unit value $439 $406 $384 $848 $378 $411 -- $537 --  Germany Quantity 59,479 38,482 20,665 10,716 2,512 1,296 8,783 129 40,536  Value 26,736 17,207 11,172 3,990 1,623 594 4,030 92 17,028  Average unit value $450 $447 $541 $372 $646 $458 $459 $710 $420  Mexico:2

 Quantity 41,520 19,343 59,993 225 50,366 74,696 153 271 273  Value 15,143 6,505 19,331 98 16,968 21,757 65 141 81  Average unit value $365 $336 $322 $434 $337 $291 $428 $521 $298  Poland: Quantity 25,546 38,357 24,605 4,312 477 71 3 386 0  Value 9,521 13,309 7,427 1,544 167 23 4 95 0  Average unit value $373 $347 $302 $358 $351 $321 $1,270 $247 -- Table continued on next page. 
CTL-I-4

Table CTL-I-1--ContinuedCTL plate: Comparative data from the original investigations, first reviews, and current reviews, 1990-92, 1997-99, and 2000-05

Item

Calendar years

1990 1991 1992 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 

Quantity (short tons), Value (1,000 dollars), Average unit value (per short ton)

U.S. Imports–continued Romania: Quantity 31,650 36,428 18,078 56 620 348 6 5,981 44,339  Value 12,476 14,578 6,656 21 166 114 6 1,433 12,627  Average unit value $394 $400 $368 $387 $267 $327 $890 $240 $285  Spain: Quantity 68,136 69,560 54,054 0 446 356 5 06 Value 28,367 26,871 18,377 0 191 191 2 02 Average unit value $416 $386 $340 -- $427 $538 $444 -- $358  Sweden: Quantity 91,269 68,337 89,741 123 0 188 354 1,312 198  Value 41,200 29,479 33,968 27 0 90 198 1,095 192  Average unit value $451 $431 $379 $220 -- $478 $559 $835 $970  Taiwan:3

 Quantity (1) (1) (1) 0 223 0 75 66 226 

 Value (1) (1) (1) 0 55 0 26 20 270  Average unit value (1) (1) (1) -- $247 -- $353 $309 $1,194  United Kingdom: Quantity 43,489 34,869 21,276 781 18,726 2,706 847 125 79  Value 18,287 13,224 7,672 336 11,545 924 246 88 49  Average unit value $421 $379 $361 $430 $617 $342 $291 $708 $624  All subject sources: Quantity 611,129 516,159 430,618 20,486 83,875 89,638 29,083 27,842 98,749  Value 261,660 208,179 157,678 8,436 35,949 27,794 12,581 10,873 35,489  Average unit value $428 $403 $366 $412 $429 $310 $433 $391 $359  All other sources:3

 Quantity 239,074 178,658 357,008 1,069,578 1,611,887 522,600 669,666 611,424 452,321  Value 99,555 70,995 119,732 389,369 613,822 165,821 199,956 180,362 143,493  Average unit value $416 $397 $335 $364 $381 $317 $299 $295 $317  All sources: Quantity 850,203 694,817 787,626 1,090,064 1,695,762 612,238 698,749 639,266 551,069  Value 361,215 279,174 277,410 397,805 649,771 193,615 212,537 191,235 178,982  Average unit value $425 $402 $352 $365 $383 $316 $304 $299 $325 Table continued on next page. 
CTL-I-5

Table CTL-I-1--ContinuedCTL plate: Comparative data from the original investigations, first reviews, and current reviews, 1990-92, 1997-99, and 2000-05

Item

Calendar years

1990 1991 1992 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 

Quantity (short tons), Value (1,000 dollars), Average unit value (per short ton)

U.S. producers’– Capacity 7,413,000 7,347,000 6,958,000 7,338,833 9,090,730 8,367,246 10,086,195 10,382,440 10,600,470  Production 4,915,000 4,219,000 4,342,000 5,763,807 6,830,947 5,534,481 6,322,806 5,676,017 6,089,710  Capacity utilization4 66.3 57.4 62.4 78.5 75.1 66.1 62.7 54.7 57.4 

 U.S. shipments Quantity 4,783,000 4,062,000 4,177,000 5,537,204 6,526,432 5,389,091 6,115,864 5,595,208 5,988,501  Value 2,192,000 1,776,000 1,675,000 2,487,253 2,916,479 2,003,204 2,242,250 1,909,806 2,050,077  Unit value $458 $437 $401 $449 $447 $372 $367 $341 $342  Ending inventories 222,000 231,000 243,000 390,001 467,710 403,893 698,145 609,687 564,800  Inventories/total shipments4 4.6 5.5 5.6 6.8 6.9 7.2 11.0 10.6 9.1 

 PRWs (number) 3,743 3,557 3,515 8,021 8,337 6,558 5,547 4,869 4,477  Hours worked (1,000) 7,785 7,340 7,331 17,086 17,835 13,401 12,515 10,928 10,241  Net sales Quantity 4,688,000 3,990,000 4,073,000 5,010,162 5,929,487 4,532,809 4,830,187 4,367,368 4,745,921  Value 2,183,000 1,770,000 1,652,000 2,260,302 2,664,135 1,738,319 1,758,271 1,477,637 1,609,886  Unit value $466 $444 $406 $451 $449 $384 $364 $338 $339  COGS 1,890,000 1,663,000 1,660,000 2,097,346 2,436,994 1,834,144 1,800,011 1,572,475 1,628,547  Gross profit or (loss) 293,000 107,000 (9,000) 162,956 227,141 (95,825) (41,740) (94,838) (18,661)  Operating income or (loss) 211,000 29,000 (84,000) 89,650 134,291 (177,067) (153,340) (200,090) (115,190)  Unit COGS $403 $416 $408 $419 $411 $405 $373 $360 $343  Unit operating income or (loss) $45 $7 ($21) $18 $23 ($39) ($32) ($46) ($24)  COGS/sales4 86.6 93.9 100.5 92.8 91.5 105.5 102.4 106.4 101.2 

 Operating income or (loss)/ sales4 9.7 1.6 (5.1) 4.0 5.0 (10.2) (8.7) (13.5) (7.2) 

1 Less than 0.05 percent.2 AHMSA’s posthearing brief contains revised 1998-99 import statistics, listing the volume of imports from Mexico at 568 tons and 181 tons in 1998 and 1999, 3 U.S. imports of carbon steel plate from Taiwan were 0 short tons in 1976, 1,000 short tons in 1977, and 91,000 short tons in 1978. Carbon Steel Plate From 

USITC Publication 970, May 1979, p. A-2. In the 1992-93 investigations, however, U.S. imports from Taiwan were considered nonsubject imports and thus are inperiod 1990-92. “All other sources” also include U.S. imports from Canada, pursuant to the Commission’s negative determination with respect to such imports in t

4 In percent.

Note.–Comparability of data from the original investigations and the first reviews to data from the current reviews is mitigated by changes in coverage. These curr

bar facilities and several larger processors not included in the original investigations and first reviews.

Note.– Part CTL-IV presents data on imports from Belgium and Germany for which countervailing and antidumping duties were collected between January 2000 a

Source: Certain Carbon Steel Products From Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, The Netherlands, Poland, Rothe United Kingdom (Review) Inv. Nos. AA1921-197 and 701-TA-231, 319-320, 322, 325-328, 340, 342, and 348-350 and 731-TA-573-576, 578, 582-587, 604, 60

Publication 3364, November 2000, official Commerce import statistics, and data compiled from responses to Commission questionnaires.
 3

 There were no administrative reviews for firms covered by the antidumping duty orders or countervailing duty

orders on CTL plate from Poland or Spain.

 4

 For previously reviewed or investigated companies not included in an administrative review, the cash deposit

rate continues to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period.

 5

 63 FR 10589, March 4, 1998.

 6

 59 FR 56056, November 10, 1994.

CTL-I-6

COMMERCE’S REVIEWS

Administrative Reviews

The following tables present information on Commerce’s administrative reviews of the subject

orders.3 4

Belgium

Commerce completed only one antidumping duty administrative review of producers/exporters of

subject merchandise. A review for the period August 1, 1996 through July 31, 1997 was terminated.5

The results of the completed administrative review are presented in table CTL-I-2.

Table CTL-I-2

CTL plate: Administrative review of the antidumping duty order for Belgium

Date results published Period of review Producer or exporter Margin

January 20, 1998 (63 FR 2959)1 8/01/1995 - 7/31/1996

Fafer (now Industeel) 12.96

All others 6.752

 1 Results amended in accordance with final court decision affirming redetermination on May 17, 2002. 67 FR 35098. First

amended results published on March 20, 1998. 63 FR 13261.

 2

 Rate from duty order.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

Commerce completed one countervailing duty administrative review of producers/exporters of

subject merchandise. A review for December 7, 1992 to December 31, 1993 was terminated.6

 The results

of the completed administrative review are presented in table CTL-I-3.

Table CTL-I-3

CTL plate: Administrative review of the countervailing duty order for Belgium

Date results published Period of review Producer or exporter Margin

March 16, 1999 (64 FR 12982)1 1/01/1996 - 12/31/1996

Fafer 0.69

All others 5.92

 1 Results amended on April 13, 1999. 64 FR 18001.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.
 7

 63 FR 42000, August 6, 1998.

 8

 61 FR 64066, December 3, 1996.

 9

 63 FR 5501, February 3, 1998.

CTL-I-7

Brazil

Commerce completed two administrative reviews of producers/exporters of subject merchandise. 

A review for the period August 1, 1996 through July 31, 1997 was initiated and then rescinded.7

 The

results of the completed administrative reviews are presented in table CTL-I-4.

Table CTL-I-4

CTL plate: Administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order for Brazil

Date results published Period of review Producer or exporter Margin

April 15, 1997 (62 FR 18486) 8/01/1994 - 7/31/1995

CST 0.0

All others 75.54

March 16, 1998 (63 FR 12744)1 8/01/1995 - 7/31/1996

Cosipa 11.70

Usiminas 11.70

All others 36.00

 1 Results amended on April 27, 1998. 63 FR 20570.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

Commerce initiated and then terminated one countervailing duty administrative review of

producers/exporters of subject merchandise for the period of January 1, 1995 to December 31, 1995.8

Finland

Commerce completed three antidumping duty administrative reviews of producers/exporters of

subject merchandise. A review for the period August 1, 1996 to July 31, 1997 was initiated and then

rescinded.9

 The results of the completed administrative reviews are shown in table CTL-I-5.

Table CTL-I-5

CTL plate: Administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order for Finland

Date results published Period of review Producer or exporter Margin

January 29, 1996 (61 FR 2792) 2/04/1993 - 7/31/1994

Rautaruukki 0.00

All others 32.25

April 15, 1997 (62 FR 18468)1 8/01/1994 - 7/31/1995

Rautaruukki 30.70

All others 32.80

January 20, 1998 (63 FR 2952) 8/01/1995 - 7/31/1996

Rautaruukki 0.0

All others 40.36

 1 Results amended in accordance with final court decision on December 8, 1999. 64 FR 68669.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.
 10 62 FR 13595, March 21, 1997; 63 FR 4429, January 29, 1998; and 65 FR 66524, November 6, 2000.

 11 69 FR 17131, April 1, 2004.

 12 60 FR 4592, January 24, 1995.

CTL-I-8

Germany

Commerce completed four antidumping duty administrative reviews of producers/exporters of

subject merchandise and published the preliminary results of a fifth administrative review, the results of

which are shown in Table CTL-I-6. Reviews for the periods August 1, 1995 to July 31, 1996; August 1,

1996 to July 31, 1997; and August 1, 1999 to July 31, 2000 were initiated and then rescinded by

Commerce.10

Table CTL-I-6

CTL plate: Administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order for Germany

Date results published Period of review Producer or exporter Margin

March 28, 1996 (61 FR 13834)1 2/04/93 - 7/31/94

Dillinger 2.61

All others 19.32

April 15, 1997 (62 FR 18389)2 8/01/1994 - 7/31/1995

Dillinger 0.163

All others 36.00

January 16, 2001 (66 FR 3545) 8/01/1997 - 7/31/1998

Reiner Brach 36.00

All others 36.00

January 16, 2001 (66 FR 3545) 8/01/1998 - 7/31/1999

Reiner Brach 36.00

All others 36.00

September 11, 2006 

(71 FR 53382)4 8/01/2004 - 7/31/2005

Dillinger 0.163

All others 36.00

 1 Results amended on May 24, 1996. 61 FR 26159.

 2

 Results amended on August 22, 2001. 66 FR 44114.

 3

 De minimis margin (i.e., margin is less than 0.5 percent), therefore no cash deposit was required to be paid to Customs.

 4

 Preliminary results.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

Commerce revoked Germany’s countervailing duty order in 2004.11 Prior to the order’s

revocation, Commerce completed two countervailing duty administrative reviews of exporters/producers

of subject merchandise. Commerce initiated and then rescinded one countervailing duty administrative

review of subject merchandise from Germany for the period December 7, 1992 to December 31, 1993.12

The results of the completed administrative reviews are shown in table CTL-I-7.

Table CTL-I-7

CTL plate: Administrative reviews of the countervailing duty order for Germany

Date results published Period of review Producer or exporter Margin

January 17, 2001 (66 FR 3985) 1/01/1997 - 12/31/1997

Novosteel/Reiner Brach 0.001

Co. KG 0.001

January 17, 2001 (66 FR 3985) 1/01/1998 - 12/31/1998

Novosteel/Reiner Brach 0.001

Co. KG 0.001

 1 De minimis margin (i.e., margin is less than 0.5 percent), therefore no cash deposit was required to be paid to Customs.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.
 13 62 FR 26472, May 14, 1997; 65 FR 6359, February 9, 2000; 65 FR 64422, October 27, 2000; and 68 FR

19189, April 18, 2003, respectively.

 14 59 FR 66939, December 28, 1994; 61 FR 2492, January 26, 1996; 61 FR 68239, December 27, 1996; and 62

FR 63920, December 3, 1997, respectively.

CTL-I-9

Mexico

Commerce completed three antidumping administrative reviews of exporters/producers of subject

merchandise. Reviews for the periods August 1, 1995 to July 31, 1996, August 1, 1998 to July 31, 1999,

August 1, 1999 to July 31, 2000, and August 1, 2001 to July 31, 2002 were initiated and then rescinded.13

The results of the completed administrative reviews are shown in table CTL-I-8.

Table CTL-I-8

CTL plate: Administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order for Mexico

Date results published Period of review Producer or exporter Margin

January 4, 1999 (64 FR 76) 8/01/1996 - 7/31/1997

AHMSA 49.25

All others 49.25

February 18, 2000 

(65 FR 8338)1 8/01/1997 - 7/31/1998

AHMSA 0.072

All others 49.25

March 19, 2003 (68 FR 13260) 8/01/2000 - 7/31/2001

AHMSA 0.00

All others 49.25

 1 Results amended in accordance with final court decision on February 20, 2003. 68 FR 8202. First amended results

published on November 2, 2000. 65 FR 65830. Second amended results published on December 12, 2000, 65 FR 77566. Third

amended final results published on January 24, 2001. 66 FR 7619.

 2

 De minimis margin (i.e., margin is less than 0.5 percent), therefore no cash deposit was required to be paid to Customs.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

Commerce completed three countervailing duty administrative reviews. Four reviews were

initiated and then terminated for the periods of December 7, 1992 to December 31, 1993, January 1, 1994

to December 31, 1994, January 1, 1995 December 31, 1995, and January 1, 1996 December 31, 1996.14

The results of the completed administrative reviews are shown in table CTL-I-9.

Table CTL-I-9

CTL plate: Administrative reviews of the countervailing duty order for Mexico

Date results published Period of review Producer or exporter Margin

March 13, 2000 (65 FR 13368) 1/01/1997 - 12/31/1997

AHMSA 10.42

All others 20.25

March 13, 2001 (66 FR 14549) 1/01/1998 - 12/31/1998 AHMSA 11.68

January 13, 2004 (69 FR 1972) 1/01/2001 - 12/31/2001 AHMSA 13.37

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.
 15 65 FR 69734, November 20, 2000, and 66 FR 56057, November 6, 2001.

CTL-I-10

Romania

Commerce completed four antidumping duty administrative review of subject merchandise from

Romania and published preliminary results of a fifth administrative review. Commerce initiated and then

rescinded reviews for the periods of August 1, 1999 to July 31, 2000 and August 1, 2000 to July 31,

2001.15 The results of the administrative reviews are shown in table CTL-I-10.

Table CTL-I-10

CTL plate: Administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order for Romania

Date results published Period of review Producer or exporter Margin

January 12, 2000 

(65 FR 1847) 8/01/1997 - 7/31/1998

Windmill 21.07

All others 75.04

January 12, 2001 

(66 FR 2879) 8/01/1998 - 7/31/1999

MEI 0

All others 75.04

March 15, 2005 

(70 FR 12651)1 8/01/2002 - 7/31/2003

MEI 13.50

Ispat Sidex 13.50

All others 75.04

February 10, 2006 

(71 FR 7008)2 8/01/2003 - 7/31/2004

MEI 75.04

MS Galati 75.04

All others 75.04

September 11, 2006

(71 FR 53377)3, 4 8/01/2004 - 7/31/2005

MS Galati 0.075

All others 75.04

 1 CSR and MINMET included in initial review, but rescinded because did not ship subject merchandise to the United States

during period of review.

 2

 Metanef, MINMENT, CSR, and COST included in initial review, but rescinded.

 3

 Preliminary results.

 4

 MEI included in initial review, but rescinded. 

 5

 De minimis margin (i.e., margin is less than 0.5 percent), therefore no cash deposit was required to be paid to Customs.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

Sweden

Commerce completed four antidumping duty administrative reviews of subject merchandise. 

The results of the administrative reviews are shown in table CTL-I-11.
 16 61 FR 64066, December 3, 1996.

CTL-I-11

Table CTL-I-11

CTL plate: Administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order for Sweden

Date results published Period of review Producer or exporter Margin

February 12, 1996 (61 FR 5381)

12/7/1992 - 4/05/1993 All companies 2.98

4/06/1993 - 8/19/1993 All companies --

8/17/1993 - 12/31/1993 All companies 2.98

April 9, 1996 (61 FR 15772)1 2/04/1993 - 7/31/1994

SSAB 7.25

All others 24.23

April 15, 1997 (62 FR 18396) 8/01/1994 - 7/31/1995

SSAB 24.23

All others 24.23

September 5, 1997 

(62 FR 46947)2 8/01/1995 - 7/31/1996

SSAB 34.00

All others 24.23

 1 Results amended on May 18, 1998. 63 FR 27260.

 2

 Commerce found duty absorption on all sales; see also results of preliminary determination, 62 FR 26473, May 14, 1993.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

Commerce completed four countervailing duty administrative reviews. A review for calender

year 1995 was terminated.16 The results of the administrative reviews are shown in table CTL-I-12.

Table CTL-I-12

CTL plate: Administrative reviews of the countervailing duty order for Sweden

Date results published Period of review Producer or exporter Margin

February 12, 1996 (61 FR 5378) 12/07/1992 - 4/05/1994 All companies 2.98

February 12, 1996 (61 FR 5378) 4/06/1993 - 8/19/1993 All companies 0.00

February 12, 1996 (61 FR 5381) 8/17/1993 - 12/31/1993 All companies 2.98

April 7, 1997 (62 FR 16549) 1/1/1994 - 12/31/1994

SSAB 1.91

All companies 2.98

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

Taiwan

Commerce completed three antidumping duty administrative reviews of exporters/producers of

subject merchandise. The results of the administrative reviews are shown in table CTL-I-13.
 17 63 FR 70388, December 21, 1998, and 65 FR 13714, March 14, 2000.

 18 71 FR 58587, October 4, 2006.

 19 63 FR 2959, June 20, 1998.

 20 62 FR 46947, September 5, 1997.

 21 Caterpillar argues that the ITC cannot consider these duty absorption because the Federal Circuit has held that

Commerce has no authority to conduct duty absorption inquiries with respect to transition orders. Caterpillar CTL

plate respondent interested parties’ prehearing brief, p. 11.

CTL-I-12

Table CTL-I-13

CTL plate: Administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order for Taiwan

Date results published Period of review Producer or exporter1 Margin

October 1, 1981 (46 FR 48280) 2/14/1979 - 5/31/1980 CSC 19.97

March 31, 1982 (47 FR 13547) 6/01/1980 - 5/31/1981 CSC 19.97

September 23, 1983 

(48 FR 43366) 6/01/1981 - 5/31/1982 CSC 0.00

 1 CSC was the only known exporter to the United States.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

United Kingdom

Commerce initiated and then rescinded antidumping duty administrative reviews for the periods

of August 1, 1997 to July 31, 1998 and August 1, 1998 to July 31, 1999.17 Commerce revoked the United

Kingdom’s countervailing duty order in 2006.18 Prior to revocation, Commerce initiated no

countervailing duty administrative reviews for the United Kingdom.

Duty Absorption Findings

Commerce made two duty absorption findings in its antidumping administrative reviews. For the

August 1, 1995 to July 31, 1996 review period for Belgium, Commerce found that Fafer (now Industeel)

absorbed duties on 100 percent of its sales.19 Additionally, for the August 1, 1995 to July 31, 1996

review period for Sweden, Commerce found that SSAB absorbed duties on 100 percent of its sales.20 21

Results of Expedited and Full Five-Year Reviews

Commerce has issued final determinations with respect to all subject countries. Tables CTL-I-14

and CTL-I-15 present the margins calculated by Commerce in its original investigations, first reviews,

and its recent second reviews.
CTL-I-13

Table CTL-I-14

CTL plate: Commerce’s original and five-year antidumping duty review margins for producers/exporters, by

subject country

Producer/exporter

Original margin

(percent)

First five-year review

margin (percent)

Second five-year review

margin (percent)

Belgium1

Forges de Clabecq, S.A.2 6.78 6.78 6.78

Industeel (formerly Fafer) 13.31 27.50 13.31

All others 6.84 6.75 6.84

Brazil3

Usiminas/Cosipa4 (

5

) 42.08 42.68

Cosipa 109.00 (5

) (5)

Usiminas 42.08 (5

) (5)

All others 75.54 75.54 75.54

Finland6

Rautaruukki 32.80 40.36 40.36

All others 32.80 40.36 40.36

Germany7

Dillinger 36.00 36.00 36.00

All others 36.00 36.00 36.00

Mexico8

AHMSA 49.25 49.25 49.25

All others 49.25 49.25 49.25

Poland9

Country-wide 61.98 61.98 61.98

Romania10

Metalexportimport, S.A. 75.04 75.04 75.04

All others 75.04 75.04 75.04

Spain11

Ensidesa 105.61 105.61 105.61

All others 105.61 105.61 105.61

Table continued on next page.
CTL-I-14

Table CTL-I-14–Continued

CTL plate: Commerce’s original and five-year antidumping duty review margins for producers/exporters,

by subject country

Producer/exporter

Original margin

(percent)

First five-year review

margin (percent)

Second five-year review

margin (percent)

Sweden12

SSAB 24.23 24.23 24.23

All others 24.23 24.23 24.23

Taiwan13

CSC 34.00 34.00 34.00

All others 34.00 34.00 34.00

United Kingdom14

British Steel15 109.22 109.22 109.22

All others 109.22 109.22 109.22

 1 Amended final determination of sales at LTFV and antidumping duty order, 58 FR 44164, August 19, 1993; final results of

first expedited sunset review, 65 FR 18292, April 7, 2000; final results of second expedited sunset review, 71 FR 11577, March

8, 2006.

 2

 Commerce has never conducted a changed circumstance review finding that Duferco is the successor-in-interest to Forges

de Clabecq, S.A. As a result, Duferco is subject to the all others rate. 71 FR 11577, March 8, 2006.

 3

 Antidumping duty order, 58 FR 44164, August 19, 1993; final results of first expedited sunset review, 65 FR 18052, April 6,

2000; final results of second expedited sunset review, 71 FR 11577, March 8, 2006.

 4

 Commerce reported only one margin for Usiminas and Cosipa in their first and second sunset reviews because they had

done so in the administrative review completed prior to the first sunset review. 

 5

 Not applicable.

 6

 Amended final determination of sales at LTFV and antidumping duty order, 58 FR 44165, August 19, 1993; final results of

first expedited sunset review, 65 FR 18054, April 6, 2000; final results of second expedited sunset review, 71 FR 11577, March

8, 2006.

 7

 Amended final determination of sales at LTFV and antidumping duty order, 58 FR 44170, August 19, 1993; final results of

first expedited sunset review, 65 FR 18056, April 6, 2000; final results of second expedited sunset review, 71 FR 11577, March

8, 2006.

 8

 Antidumping duty order, 58 FR 44165, August 19, 1993; final results of first expedited sunset review, 65 FR 18052, April 6,

2000; final results of second expedited sunset review, 71 FR 11577, March 8, 2006.

 9

 Antidumping duty order, 58 FR 44166, August 19, 1993; final results of first expedited sunset review, 65 FR 18054, April 6,

2000; final results of second expedited sunset review, 71 FR 11577, March 8, 2006.

 10 Antidumping duty order, 58 FR 44167, August 19, 1993; final results of first full sunset review, 65 FR 47382, August 2,

2000; final results of second expedited sunset review, 71 FR 11577, March 8, 2006.

 11 Antidumping duty order, 58 FR 44167, August 19, 1993; final results of first expedited sunset review, 65 FR 18056, April 6,

2000; final results of second expedited sunset review, 71 FR 11577, March 8, 2006.

 12 Antidumping duty order, 58 FR 44168, August 19, 1993; final results of first expedited sunset review, 65 FR 18054, April 6,

2000

 13 See "Notice of Withholding of Appraisement and Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value," 44 FR 9639, February

14, 1979, and Treasury Decision 79-166 as published in 44 FR 33877, June 13, 1979; final results of first expedited sunset

review, 65 FR 18054, April 6, 2000; final results of second expedited sunset review, 71 FR 11577, March 8, 2006.

 14 Antidumping duty order, 58 FR 44168, August 19, 1993; final results of first expedited sunset review, 65 FR 18056, April 6,

2000; final results of first expedited sunset review, 65 FR 18054, April 6, 2000.

 15 Commerce has never conducted a changed circumstance review finding that Corus is the successor-in-interest to British

Steel. As a result, Corus is subject to the all others rate. 71 FR 11577, March 8, 2006.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.
CTL-I-15

Table CTL-I-15

CTL plate: Commerce’s original and five-year countervailing duty review margins for producers/exporters,

by subject country

Producer/exporter

Original margin

(percent)

First five-year review

margin (percent)

Second five-year review

margin (percent)

Belgium1

Cockerill 23.15 23.15 2.82

Industeel (formerly Fafer) (2

) 1.05 0.56

All others 5.92 5.92 0.50

Brazil3

Usiminas 5.44 5.44 5.44

Cosipa 48.64 48.64 48.64

All others 23.10 23.10 23.10

Germany4, 5

Ilsenburg 0.80 0.80 (6)

Preussag 1.72 0.77 (6

)

Thyssen 0.51 0.51 (6

)

Country-wide (Dillinger) 14.84 14.84 (6

)

Mexico7

AHMSA (2) 25.87 28.32

All others 20.25 20.25 20.25

Spain8

Country-wide 36.82 36.86 33.68

Sweden9

Country-wide 4.27 4.27 De minimis

United Kingdom10

Glynwed Steels Ltd 0.73 23.15 (11)

All others 12.00 1.05 (11)

 1

 Original countervailing duty order, 58 FR 43749, August 17, 1993; amended countervailing duty order, 62 FR 37880, July

15, 1997; final results of first expedited sunset review, 65 FR 18066, April 6, 2000; final results of second full sunset review, 71

FR 58585, October 4, 2006.

 2

 No rate specified

 3

 Countervailing duty order, 58 FR 43751, August 17, 1993; final results of first expedited sunset review, 65 FR 18065, April 6,

2000; final results of second expedited sunset review, 71 FR 32522, June 6, 2006.

 4

 Countervailing duty order, 58 FR 43756, August 17, 1993; final results of first full sunset review, 65 FR 47407, August 2,

2000.

 5

 Commerce stated that "Although Salzgitter is a successor-in-interest for both Ilsenburg and Preussag, without an

appropriate review, we cannot discern the appropriate rate for the successor. Therefore, for Ilsenburg and Preussag, we are

reporting the rates for the original investigation, as adjusted. The country-wide rate applies to Dillinger, and TKS (Thyssen Krupp

Stahl AG) is the successor-in-interests of Thyssen." 65 FR 47409, August 2, 2000.

 6

 Commerce revoked the countervailing duty order against CTL plate from Germany in 2004. 69 FR 17131, April 1, 2004.

 7

 Countervailing duty order, 58 FR 43755, August 17, 1993; final results of first expedited sunset review, 65 FR 18067, April 6,

2000; final results of second expedited sunset review, 71 FR 32521, June 6, 2006.

 8

 Countervailing duty order, 58 FR 43761, August 17, 1993; final results of first expedited sunset review, 65 FR 18307, April 7,

2000; final results of second expedited sunset review, 71 FR 32523, June 6, 2006.

 9

 Countervailing duty order, 58 FR 43758, August 17, 1993; final results of first expedited sunset review, 65 FR 18307, April 7,

2000; final results of second full sunset review, 71 FR 58587, October 4, 2006.

 10 Countervailing duty order, 58 FR 43748, August 17, 1993; final results of first expedited sunset review, 65 FR 18309, April

7, 2000.

 11 Commerce revoked the countervailing duty order against CTL plate from the United Kingdom in 2006. 71 FR 58587,

October 4, 2006.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.
 22 Section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)).

 23 19 CFR 159.64 (g).

CTL-I-16

DISTRIBUTION OF CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT FUNDS

The Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (“CDSOA”) (also known as the Byrd

Amendment) provides that assessed duties received pursuant to antidumping or countervailing duty

orders must be distributed to affected domestic producers for certain qualifying expenditures that these

producers incur after the issuance of such orders.22 During the review period, qualified U.S. producers of

CTL plate were eligible to receive disbursements from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(“Customs”) under CDSOA relating to 7 countervailing duty and 12 antidumping duty orders on the

subject product beginning in Federal fiscal year 2001.23 Tables CTL-I-16 and CTL-I-17 present CDSOA

disbursements and claims for Federal fiscal years (October 1-September 30) 2001-05 by source and by

firm, respectively.

Table CTL-I-16

CTL plate: CDSOA disbursements, by source, Federal fiscal years 2001-05

Item

Federal fiscal year

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Disbursements (1,000 dollars)

Belgium (AD) 275 100 (290) 778 6

Belgium (CVD) 0 85 0 669 0

Brazil (AD) 162 2 22 20 (1

)

Brazil (CVD) 0 6 0 12 1

Canada2 196 110 32 260 5

Finland 0 0 (1

) 1(1)

Germany (AD) 2 1 55 175 14

Germany (CVD)2 0 4 42 66 24

Mexico (AD) 15 (1

) 0 115 10

Mexico (CVD) 0 (1

) 0 58 4

Poland 0 2 6 0 (1

)

Romania 0 0 4 50 285

Spain (AD) 0 0 0 0 0

Spain (CVD) 0 0 0 0 0

Sweden (AD) 0 (1

) 7 198 11

Sweden (CVD) 0 2 0 30 2

Taiwan (AD) 0 0 0 0 (1

)

United Kingdom (AD) 228 0 (12) 42 0

United Kingdom (CVD)2 00020

 Total 878 313 (134) 2,477 363

 1 Less than $500.

 2

 Order revoked.

Note.--Negative disbursement amounts are the result of refunds to importers as a result of liquidations or court cases. Because of

rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s CDSOA Annual Reports. Retrieved from www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import/add_cvd.
CTL-I-17

Table CTL-I-17

CTL plate: CDSOA disbursements and claims, by firm, Federal fiscal years 2001-05

Item

Federal fiscal year

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Disbursements (1,000 dollars)

Bethlehem Steel 4910000

Bethlehem Steel aka

Pennsylvania Steel 0 178000

Bethlehem Steel aka

Pennsylvania Steel (successor to

Lukens Steel) 0 34 0 0 0

California Steel Industries 0 0 1 16 2

Geneva Steel 780000

International Steel Group 0 0 113 1,558 0

Lukens Steel (Bethlehem aka

Pennsylvania Steel) 1050000

Mittal Steel USA ISG Inc. 0 0 0 0 245

National Steel 83000

Thompson Steel Co. Inc. 0 0 0 88 0

U.S. Steel 196 97 0 0 0

United States Steel Corp.1 0 0 (49) 816 115

United Steelworkers of America (2

) (2) (2) (2)

 Total2 878 313 (134)3 2,477 363

Claims (1,000 dollars)

 Total 175,620,995 203,084,133 92,583,063 224,590,940 303,833,079

 1 United States Steel Corp. became the successor to National Steel and U.S. Steel after 2003.

 2

 Less than $500.

 3

 Figures do not add up to total because some of the negative payments were by companies that did not file a claim in 2003

(Staff telephone interview with ***, July 18, 2006).

 

Note.--Negative disbursement amounts are the result of refunds to importers as a result of liquidations or court cases. Because of

rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s CDSOA Annual Reports. Retrieved from www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import/add_cvd.

THE SUBJECT MERCHANDISE

Commerce’s Scope

The scope definition for the imported product subject to the countervailing duty and antidumping

duty orders under review, as defined by Commerce, is as follows:

Hot-rolled carbon steel universal mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on four faces

or in a carbon steel cut-to-length plate (“cut-to-length plate”) closed box pass, of a width

exceeding 150 millimeters but not exceeding 1,250 millimeters and of a thickness of not

less than 4 millimeters, not in coils and without patterns in relief), of rectangular shape,

neither clad, plated nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated

with plastics or other nonmetallic substances. Certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat-rolled

products in straight lengths, of rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither clad, plated, nor

coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other

nonmetallic substances, 4.75 millimeters or more in thickness and of a width which
 24 62 FR 30569, June 4, 1997.

 25 United States Court of International Trade, Judgement Order in Duferco Steel, Inc. V. United States, et al., No.

01-1443, October 12, 2002.

http://www.cit.uscourts.gov/slip_op/Slip_op02/SlipOp02-125.pdf#search=%22court%20of%20international%20trad

e%2001-1443%22, retrieved September 12, 2006.

 26 Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Finland, Germany, and United Kingdom: Final

Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Reviews, and Revocation of Orders

in Part, 64 FR 46343, August 25, 1999.

CTL-I-18

exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness. Included in these

orders are flat-rolled products of non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-section

is achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have been “worked

after rolling”)--for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. 

Additionally, as a result of a scope ruling, profile slabs have been determined to be within

the scope of the order.24

Excluded from these reviews is grade X-70 plate and micro-alloy steel. 

With Respect to Subject Merchandise from Belgium:

As a result of a decision by the Court of International Trade, excluded from the scope of the

antidumping duty order of cut-to-length plate from Belgium is cut-to-length floor plate imported by

Duferco Steel, Inc. “with patterns in relief derived directly from the rolling process.”25

With Respect to Subject Merchandise from Finland, Germany, and the United Kingdom:

As a result of a changed circumstance review, the order was revoked with respect to certain

carbon cut-to-length steel plate with a maximum thickness of 80mm in steel grades BS 7191, 355 EM and

355 EMZ, as amended by Sable Offshore Energy Project Specification XB MOO Y 15 0001, types 1 and

2.26

With Respect to Subject Merchandise from Taiwan:

The scope with respect to subject merchandise from Taiwan includes all hot-rolled carbon steel

plate, 0.1875 inch or more in thickness, over eight inches in width, not in coils, not pickled, not coated, or

plated with metal, not clad, other than black plate, and not pressed or stamped to non-rectangular shape.

Tariff Treatment

The subject merchandise is imported under the following HTS statistical reporting numbers: 

7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000,

7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000,

7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000. General U.S. tariffs on CTL plate, applicable to U.S.

imports that are products of the subject countries other than Canada and classified under these headings,

ranged from 2.4 to 6.5 percent ad valorem at the time of the original investigations. These duties were

subject to phased elimination beginning in 1995 and were eliminated as of January 1, 2004. Duties on

eligible goods of Canada under the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement ranged from 1.2 to 3.2 percent ad

valorem at the time of the original investigations, were subject to phased elimination, and were eliminated

as of January 1, 1998. Further details regarding the relevant HTS statistical reporting numbers are
 27 Wide flat bar, a subset of universal mill plate, is produced in a bar mill. In this type of mill, blooms and billets

(rather than slabs) are rolled on all faces at the same time into a long bar shape. The production process is otherwise

similar to the process described in this section.

 28 U.S. Steel, The Making, Shaping, and Treating of Steel (William T. Lankford, Jr. et al., eds., 1985), p. 24, and

International Iron and Steel Institute, “About Steel,” http://www.worldsteel.org, retrieved August 30, 2005.

CTL-I-19

presented in appendix D. The column l-general, or normal trade relations, rates of duty for plate were

eliminated as of January 1, 2004 as a result of the Uruguay Round Agreements. Further details regarding

the relevant HTS statistical reporting numbers are presented in appendix D.

THE DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT

Description and Applications

Steel plate is a flat-rolled steel product that is generally 4.75 millimeters or more in thickness. It

can be produced in a variety of widths, thicknesses, and shapes in order to be incorporated into other

products or to be further processed into products. The term “cut-to-length” indicates that the product is

produced as a flat plate with a defined length.

Plate is used in welded load-bearing and structural applications, such as agricultural and

construction equipment (e.g., cranes, bulldozers, scrapers, and other tracked or self-propelled machinery);

bridges; machine parts (e.g., the body of the machine or its frame); transmission towers and light poles;

buildings; and heavy transportation equipment, such as railroad cars (especially tank cars) and ships. 

Plate also is used in the production of tanks, sills, floors, offshore drilling rigs, pipes, petrochemical plant

and machinery, and various other fabricated pieces. Plate can also be used in utility applications, such as

wind towers and pressure vessels. 

Manufacturing Processes27

In general, there are three processing distinct stages for hot-rolled nonalloy steel products,

including: (1) melting or refining steel, (2) casting steel into semi-finished forms, and (3) hot rolling

semi-finished forms into flat-rolled hot-rolled steel mill products. These processing stages are

summarized below.

Melt Stage

Steel is produced by either the integrated or the nonintegrated process.28 In the nonintegrated

process, molten steel is produced by melting scrap and primary iron products (such as pig iron or

direct-reduced iron) in an electric arc furnace. In the integrated process, iron ore is smelted in a blast

furnace with coke to produce molten iron, which is subsequently poured into a steelmaking furnace,

generally a basic oxygen furnace, together with a small amount of scrap metal. The molten metal is

processed into steel by blowing oxygen into the furnace.

Whether produced by the integrated or nonintegrated process, molten steel is poured or “tapped”

from the furnace into a ladle to be transported to casting. It is common for steelmakers to utilize a

secondary steelmaking stage (the ladle metallurgy station) to refine the product further into extra-clean or

low-carbon steels satisfying stringent surface or internal requirements or microcleanliness quality and

mechanical properties before casting. Steelmakers may adjust the chemical content by adding alloying

elements, lowering the carbon content (decarburization), or adjusting the temperature of the molten steel

for optimum casting. The essential physical properties of the steel are established in the melt stage.
CTL-I-20

Casting Stage

Following the melt stage, the molten steel is cast into a form suitable for the rolling process. Two

principal methods of casting are used, ingot teeming and continuous casting. Continuous slab casting is

the preferred, lower-cost method and is normally used to produce plates up to approximately 4 inches in

thickness. Ingots are used to produce thicker plates, since continuous cast slabs of sufficient thickness are

not available.

Rolling Stage

Most CTL plate is hot-rolled on a reversing plate mill (also called a sheared plate mill) consisting

of one or two reversing hot-rolling mill stands and associated equipment. If there are two stands, the first

is called the roughing mill and the second is called the finishing mill. The roughing mill is equipped with

special tables in front of and behind the mill to rotate the plate one-quarter turn between rolling passes in

order to allow cross-rolling, increasing the width rather than the length of the plate as the thickness is

reduced. After the desired finished width is reached, the plate is again rotated one-quarter turn and rolled

straightaway to finished thickness. Reversing mills produce plate ranging from 0.187 to 20 inches (4.75

to 508 mm) in thickness and from 48 to 154 inches (1,219 to 3,912 mm) in width.

Some reversing plate mills (known as “Steckel mills”) are equipped with coilers on each side of

the finishing mill that operate inside small heating furnaces, keeping the steel hot and allowing the

production of much longer or thinner plates. Plate also can be rolled on a Steckel mill without using the

heated coilers, in which case the mill operates like a conventional reversing plate mill. Steckel mills are

equipped with coilers to produce coiled plate as well as in-line shearing facilities to produce discrete

plate. Plate cut from hot-rolled coils is processed on a separate line where it is uncoiled, flattened, and cut

to length. Plate produced in a Steckel mill typically ranges from 0.187 to 0.750 inches (4.75 to 19.1 mm)

in thickness and 48 to 96 inches (1,219 to 2,438 mm) in width, although installed equipment can produce

wider plate.

In addition to reversing plate mills, plate may also be rolled on a continuous hot-strip mill. Such

a mill has either a reversing rougher or a number (usually 4 or 5) of nonreversing roughing mills followed

by a finishing section comprised of a series of mill stands, usually six, spaced close together so that a

plate is rolled continuously in a single pass in one direction. The finished plate is coiled, discharged from

the mill, allowed to cool, then uncoiled, flattened, and cut to length on a separate processing line. 

Although continuous hot-strip mills primarily produce hot-rolled sheet, they also may be used to produce

plate up to 72 inches wide and between three-sixteenths and one-half inch in thickness.

Because of its capability to cross roll, a reversing mill is somewhat flexible with regard to the slab

width used to produce a given plate width. Steckel mills and continuous hot-strip mills can only use slabs

slightly wider than the width of the plate to be produced, but have the advantage of being able to roll

longer, heavier slabs than could be used on a reversing plate mill. Because of its generally thicker

dimensions, plate from a reversing mill is preferred for welded load-bearing and structural applications,

such as bridgework; machine parts (e.g., the body of the machine or its frame); transmission towers and

light poles; buildings; mobile equipment (e.g., cranes, bulldozers, scrapers, and other tracked or

self-propelled machinery); and heavy transportation equipment, such as railroad cars (especially tanker

cars) and oceangoing ships. End users concerned about “coil set memory” (such as those that burn out

parts from plate) may prefer plate from a reversing mill because the edges of plate cut from coils may curl

on heating. 
 29 A universal mill is a mill capable of simultaneously rolling between both horizontal and vertical rolls. 

Universal mill plate is defined in HTSUS Chapter 72 Additional U.S. Note 1(b) as follows: Flat-rolled products

rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm but not exceeding 1,250 mm and of

thickness of not less than 4 mm, not in coils without patterns in relief.

 30 As a result of a decision by the Court of International Trade, cut-to-length floor plate from Belgium imported

by Duferco Steel, Inc. is excluded from the scope of these reviews. United States Court of International Trade,

Judgement Order in Duferco Steel, Inc. v. United States, et al., No. 01-1443, October 12, 2002,

http://www.cit.uscourts.gov/slip_op/Slip_op02/SlipOp02-125.pdf#search=%22court%20of%20international%20trad

e%2001-1443%22, retrieved September 12, 2006.

CTL-I-21

Most CTL plate is smooth on both sides, since by definition the product excludes plate with

patterns in relief if produced on a universal mill.29 “Patterns in relief” are used primarily in floor plate,

which has a non-skid pattern of raised figures at regular intervals on one surface of the plate. Floor plate,

however, can be produced on other mills, with patterns in relief derived directly from rolling. Such plate

is produced primarily by continuous hot-strip mills by placing an embossed roll in the final stand of the

continuous mill. It can also be produced on a Steckel mill by holding the hot plate on one of the Steckel

furnaces at the mill after completing all but the final rolling pass. One roll is then changed, and the final

rolling pass completed. Using this method, the roll would be changed again to roll the next plate.30

Marketing

Steel service centers traditionally have served as distributors of plate, but typically do not have

plate mills. In addition to marketing, some service centers also perform a wide range of value-added

processing of steel products, such as uncoiling, flattening, and cutting plate products to length or

flame/plasma cutting plate into nonrectangular shapes. Service centers that process coiled plate into cut

lengths or nonrectangular shapes may purchase the coiled plate from U.S. or foreign mills. The process

of producing CTL plate from coiled plate is the same whether performed at a steel mill or by a service

center. CTL plate can also be sold directly to end users. Table CTL-I-18 presents data on U.S.

producers’ and importers’ shipments of CTL plate by channel of distribution.

Table CTL-I-18

CTL plate: U.S. producers’ and U.S. importers’ channels of distribution, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and

January-June 2006

Item

Calendar year January-June

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006

Share (percent)

Share of U.S. shipments--

 To distributors 55.2 51.2 54.1 54.0 57.2 54.4 56.3 54.9

 To end users 44.8 48.8 45.9 46.0 42.8 45.6 43.7 45.1

Share of U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments--

 To distributors 67.0 61.8 54.6 66.1 74.4 73.7 78.0 76.3

 To end users 33.0 38.2 45.4 33.9 25.6 26.3 22.0 23.7

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 31 In the preliminary phase of the 1992-93 original investigations, the Commission considered whether universal

mill (“UM”) plate and certain flat bars (carbon steel bars between 150 mm (5.9 inches) and 250 mm (approximately

10 inches) wide and 38.1 mm (1.5 inches) thick) constituted separate domestic like products. On the basis of similar

applications for UM plate and sheared plate, and sufficient overlap of competition between certain flat bars and

sheared plate, the Commission declined to find either certain flat bars or UM plate to be separate domestic like

products. USITC Publication 2549, August 1992, pp. 26-27. In the final phase of the original investigations, the

Commission considered whether UM plate was a separate domestic like product from the bulk of CTL plate but did

not revisit the issue of certain flat bars. On the basis of the similar physical characteristics, distribution, and end uses

of sheared plate and UM plate, and notwithstanding differences in manufacturing facilities and price, the

Commission again concluded that UM plate was not a separate domestic like product. USITC Publication 2664,

August 1993, p. 214. The Commission did not revisit either issue in the first reviews. 

In these second reviews, UK respondent interested parties Spartan, Celsa Steel, and Niagara have argued

that the Commission should consider separately wide flat bars and other forms of plate covered under the broader

product category of CTL plate. Spartan and Celsa Steel's prehearing brief, p. 4, and Niagara's prehearing brief, p.

13. Corus stated that it does not argue that wide flat bar should be a separate like product but does observe that there

is only highly attenuated competition between wide flat bar products and CTL plate. Corus' posthearing brief,

answers to Commissioners’ questions, pp. 3-4. On the like product question, Brazilian producers deferred to the

arguments of other respondents with an interest in bar. Brazilian respondent interested parties’ posthearing brief,

p.1. Duferco Clabecq and the German producers both took no position on the issue in their posthearing briefs. 

Duferco’s posthearing brief, responses to the questions of the Commission, p. 8, and German respondent interested

parties’ posthearing brief, app. 1, p. 5. IPSCO, Oregon Steel, and Mittal supported the definition of domestic like

product applied in the original investigations, which includes flat bar. IPSCO and Oregon Steel’s posthearing brief,

p. A-20, and Mittal’s posthearing brief, Commissioner Hillman’s questions, p. 18. Nucor took no position but noted

that CTL plate and wide flat bar cannot be produced using the same facilities. They also noted that wide flat bar

may be used for some of the same purposes as CTL plate and has similar physical characteristics but that it is

normally sold as bar rather than plate. Nucor’s posthearing brief, exh. 9, p. 1.

Data permitting evaluation of the resulting industries based on a distinction between wide flat bar and other

forms of CTL plate appear in appendix C of this report. 

 32 *** importer questionnaire response, section II-8-a.

 33 *** producer questionnaire response, section V-2-a.

 34 *** purchaser and foreign producer questionnaire responses, sections V-1-a and IV-2-a. 

 35 *** producer questionnaire response, section V-2-a.

CTL-I-22

DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT ISSUES CONCERNING WIDE FLAT BAR31

Physical Characteristics and Uses

Wide flat bar is a hot-rolled carbon steel product made in various lengths and widths, usually

starting at 1/8 inch in thickness. It is often used in structural applications, such as bridges, and trailers.

According to questionnaire respondents, wide flat bar and CTL plate have similar characteristics

and uses. However, flat bar is much narrower than CTL plate, enabling it to be used more easily in

applications where narrow widths are needed,32 such as machine parts.33 Wide flat bar has a superior

surface finish, dimensional precision, and precise edges, as it is rolled on a bar mill rather than being cutto-length.34 Wide flat bar is rolled along both the width and thickness dimensions, while CTL plate is

only rolled along the width.35 The cutting operation used for CTL plate makes the edges unsuitable for
 36 Alternative processes, such as machining, milling, and grinding on all sides can be used. *** foreign producer

questionnaire response, section IV-2-a. 

 37 *** producer questionnaire response, section V-2-a.

 38 *** foreign producer questionnaire response, section IV-2-a. 

 39 *** producer questionnaire response, section V-2-b; and *** foreign producer questionnaire response, section

IV-2-b.

 40 *** producer questionnaire response, section V-2-b.

 41 *** producer questionnaire response, section V-2-c.

 42 *** producer questionnaire response, section V-2-c.

CTL-I-23

cold-drawing.36 Flat bar can be cold-drawn,37 and also can be produced with rounded or beveled edges

for specific applications such as off-highway wheels and earthmover wearparts.38

Interchangeability

Interchangeability between flat bar and CTL plate depends on the specific customer end use. For

example, if the edge quality is critical, customers may prefer flat bar.39 The size and thickness of the

material needed for the final application is also an important consideration.40

Channels of Distribution

Wide flat bar and other forms of CTL plate are sold either to service centers or directly to end

users. Wide flat bar, however, is sold in greater proportion to end users, while the opposite is true for

CTL plate generally. Table CTL-I-19 presents data on U.S. producers’ shipments of wide flat bar by

channel of distribution.

Table CTL-I-19

Wide flat bar: U.S. producers’ channels of distribution, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

Item

Calendar year January-June

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006

Share (percent)

Shipments to

distributors 32.9 36.5 37.1 37.2 40.7 41.3 44.6 40.7

Shipments to end

users 67.1 63.5 62.9 62.8 59.3 58.7 55.4 59.3

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Common Manufacturing Facilities, Employees, and Processes

Of the six mills that produce wide flat bar, Nucor and Mittal produce other forms of CTL plate. 

Although the melting processes are the same and both products are hot-rolled, flat bar is produced either

with vertical and horizontal rolls to produce the desired width and thickness dimensions or in a closed box

pass. CTL plate is rolled with horizontal rolls only.41 Neither the employees nor the equipment are

generally interchangeable.42
 43 See generally U.S. producers’ questionnaire responses, section V-2-e, and U.S. purchasers’ questionnaire

responses, section V-1-d, summarized in appendix F.

 44 *** producer questionnaire response, section V-2-f.

 45 The wide variety of responses by market participants may reflect differences in the type of wide flat bar under

consideration, consistent with the distinctions drawn by Niagara LaSalle between its special bar quality (“SBQ”)

wide flat bar and lower value “merchant” wide flat bar. Niagara LaSalle’s prehearing brief, p. 9 nn. 8-9.

 46 Compare tables C-1 and C-5.

CTL-I-24

Producer and Consumer Perceptions

As noted above, responding U.S. producers generally perceived wide flat bar to be

interchangeable with CTL plate produced on plate mills or cut from coil. Similarly, responding producers

generally reported that their customers perceived little or no substantial difference between wide flat bar

and CTL plate produced on plate mills or cut from coil, despite the superior edge quality, cold drawing

capability, and tighter tolerances characteristic of wide flat bar. Customers’ responses were more varied. 

While several U.S. purchasers reported general interchangeability or only limited differences, several

other responding purchasers view plate and wide flat bar as “not interchangeable” or “not compatible,”

citing dimensional differences and the ability to cold draw wide flat bar.43

Price

Although it has been noted that prices of both CTL plate produced on plate mills or cut from coil

and wide flat bar follow similar trends,44 it is unclear from questionnaire responses which product is

priced higher. Both U.S. producer and U.S. purchaser responses were divided between reporting no price

(or price trend) differential (two producers and two purchasers); lower prices for wide flat bar (one

producer and four purchasers); and higher prices for wide flat bar (one producer and one purchaser).45

The average unit value of shipments of wide flat bar was $398.89 in 2000; it increased to $567.11 in

2004, and has remained above that unit value through 2005-June 2006. In general, the average unit

values of wide flat bar were lower than the average unit values of CTL plate.46
 47 In the original investigations, the Commission did not consider the issue of whether to expand the domestic like

product beyond carbon (non-alloy) steel. Although such an expansion was advocated belatedly by domestic

producers in the first reviews, the Commission concluded that there was insufficient record evidence to support

modification of the domestic like product. USITC Publication 3364, November 2000, pp. 6-7. 

No party initially advocated expansion of the domestic like product to include micro-alloy steel in these

second reviews. Nonetheless, the Commission has considered micro-alloy steel to be part of the domestic like

product (consistent with Commerce’s scope) in original investigations on plate, hot-rolled steel, and cold-rolled

steel, and expanded the domestic like product to include micro-alloy steel in the 2003 five-year review Certain

Carbon Steel Plate from China, Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-753-756 (Review). 

Accordingly, the Commission opted to collect data on micro-alloy steel. Data permitting evaluation of the resulting

broader industries based on the inclusion of micro-alloy steel appear in appendix C of this report.

In their posthearing briefs, Nucor, Mittal, IPSCO, and Oregon Steel all support the Commission’s original

definition of the domestic like product, which excludes micro-alloy plate. However, while Mittal, IPSCO, and

Oregon Steel state that they do not believe the inclusion of micro-alloy plate would affect the Commission’s

analysis, Nucor expressly states its opposition to any such inclusion. Nucor’s posthearing brief, exh. 9, p. 2; Mittal’s

posthearing brief, Commissioner Lane’s questions, p. 8; IPSCO and Oregon Steel’s posthearing brief, p. A-20. 

Further, in their posthearing brief, the Brazilian producers take no position on the definition of the domestic like

product, but do note their belief that inclusion of micro-alloy steel would not affect the outcome of the case. 

Brazilian respondent interested parties’ posthearing brief, p. 2.

 48 The HTSUS does not mention “carbon steel”; rather, it provides a definition of “other alloy steel” as steel,

other than stainless steel, containing more than a specified amount of at least one of several elements. Steel that is

not stainless steel or other alloy steel is referred to as “non-alloy steel.” HTSUS, Chapter 72 Note 1(f).

 49 Lankford, William T., Jr., Ed., The Making, Shaping and Treating of Steel, Tenth Edition, p. 1313.

 50 Cut-To-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, and Korea, Invs. Nos.

701-TA-388-391 and 731-TA-816-821 (Review), USITC Publication 3816, November 2005.

CTL-I-25

DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT ISSUES CONCERNING MICRO-ALLOY CTL PLATE47

Physical Characteristics and Uses

The HTSUS differentiates between three categories of steel: stainless steel, “other alloy steel,”

and “non-alloy steel.” Steel that is not stainless steel but that contains one or more alloying elements in

an amount that exceeds a specified limit is defined as “other alloy steel.” Steel that is not stainless steel

or other alloy steel is referred to as “non-alloy steel.”48 The scope of these reviews includes only steel

that is classified as “non-alloy” under the HTSUS, whereas a commonly used industry term “carbon steel”

arguably includes some steel that must be classified under the HTSUS as alloy steel. In particular, the use

of small amounts of such alloying elements as columbium, vanadium, and titanium to produce a class of

steels known as high-strength, low-alloy (HSLA) steels is common, and these steel compositions are often

considered within the industry to be carbon steel, regardless of whether the amounts of the alloying

elements are sufficient to require that the steel be classified as alloy steel under the HTSUS definitions.49

For purposes of these reviews, this report uses the term “micro-alloy” in a narrow sense to refer to steel

that contains one or more alloying elements in an amount that falls within the range specified in the

tabulation below, and none of the elements in a quantity greater than that indicated. The definition for

micro-alloy used in these reviews was based on the requirements specified in the most recent five-year

reviews covering CTL plate.50
 51 *** producer questionnaire responses, section VI-2-a.

 52 *** producer questionnaire response, section VI-2-a.

 53 In contrast, certain alloy grades of steel are used when high hardenability is needed, such as in the tool and die

industry. *** producer questionnaire response, section VI-2-a.

 54 *** producer questionnaire response, section VI-2-b.

 55 *** producer questionnaire response, section VI-2-b.

 56 *** producer questionnaire response, section VI-2-b.

 57 *** producer questionnaire response, section VI-2-b.

 58 *** producer questionnaire response, section VI-2-b.

CTL-I-26

Element

Percent by weight

Non-alloy steel Micro-alloy steel

less than not less than not more than

Aluminum 0.3 0.3 0.50

Boron 0.0008 — —

Chromium 0.3 0.3 1.25

Cobalt 0.3 — —

Copper 0.4 0.4 1.00

Lead 0.4 — —

Manganese 1.65 1.65 1.80

Molybdenum 0.08 0.08 0.10

Nickel 0.3 0.3 1.25

Niobium 0.06 0.06 0.10

Silicon 0.6 0.6 1.50

Titanium 0.05 0.05 0.41

Tungsten 0.3 — —

Vanadium 0.1 0.1 0.15

Zirconium 0.05 0.05 0.15

Other elements, except sulfur, phosphorus, carbon, and

nitrogen 0.1 — —

Most questionnaire respondents agree that there are only moderate differences in physical

characteristics and uses among carbon and micro-alloy CTL plate. When compared to carbon grade CTL

plate, micro-alloy steel plates generally have higher strength and toughness characteristics.51 Because of

these characteristics, micro-alloy CTL plate typically is used for applications such as construction and

earth-moving/mining equipment, rail cars, line pipe, poles and towers, armored vehicles, and machine

parts and bridges.52 53

Interchangeability

Carbon and micro-alloy plate are sometimes interchangeable, depending on end use. Micro-alloy

steels are good substitutes where increased strength is required along with less weight.54 The increased

strength levels achieved by the alloy additions enable the thickness of the plate to be reduced, creating a

lighter product.55 However, the higher strength of micro-alloy plate may exceed design criteria56 and

certain alloys may be restricted by customers.57 Also, the higher cost of micro-alloy plate may exceed the

budgets of some customers.58
 59 *** importer questionnaire response, section II-10-b. 

 60 *** producer questionnaire response, section VI-2-c.

 61 *** producer questionnaire response, section VI-2-c.

 62 *** producer questionnaire response, section VI-2-c.

 63 *** producer questionnaire response, section VI-2-e.

 64 *** importer questionnaire response, section II-10-d.

 65 *** purchaser and importer questionnaire responses, sections VI1-d and II-10-d; *** importer questionnaire

response, section II-10-d; and *** producer questionnaire response, section VI-2-e.

CTL-I-27

Channels of Distribution

Both carbon and micro-alloy plate are sold through service centers and directly to end users,

primarily original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). However, carbon plate typically is purchased in

standard grades for inventory, while micro-alloy plate tends to be purchased for specific jobs or by

OEMs,59 a tendency that is reflected in the greater share of sales to end users. Table CTL-I-20 presents

data on U.S. shipments of micro-alloy steel CTL plate by channel of distribution.

Table CTL-I-20

Micro-alloy steel plate: U.S. producers’ channels of distribution, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and JanuaryJune 2006

Item

Calendar year January-June

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006

Share (percent)

Shipments to

distributors 30.1 26.2 25.7 23.7 17.9 16.9 14.5 20.2

Shipments to

end users 69.9 73.8 74.3 76.3 82.1 83.1 85.5 79.8

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Common Manufacturing Facilities, Employees, and Processes

Of the 14 mills and the 9 processors producing CTL plate, 6 and 1, respectively, also produce

micro-alloy steel plate. The manufacturing process for micro-alloy plate resembles the process for carbon

plate, but larger amounts of alloying elements are used for micro-alloy steel.60 Control-temperature

rolling and heat-treating is often used for micro-alloy plate, which may not be used for carbon plate.61

The same equipment and employees are used to produce both carbon and micro-alloy plate.62

Producer and Consumer Perceptions

Some questionnaire respondents note that micro-alloy steel plate is perceived to be a higherquality product than carbon steel plate63 due to its greater longevity, wear resistance, and strength.64

However, many producers and customers reportedly perceive little or no difference in comparable grades

of carbon and micro-alloy steel.65
 66 *** producer questionnaire response, section VI-2-f.

 67 The Commission received one “no” response from ***, and *** did not provide a response. *** provided the

Commission with anecdotal data on its limited production of CTL plate.

 68 Total U.S. production coverage is based on a comparison of reported U.S. mill production and AISI shipment

data.

 69 E-mail from ***, October 18, 2006.

CTL-I-28

Price

Micro-alloy steel plate usually is priced higher than carbon plate due to the costs for the

additional alloying elements.66 Questionnaire respondents do not agree as to the exact amount of the

premium. The tabulation below presents the average unit value of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of

carbon steel CTL plate and micro-alloy steel CTL plate, based on questionnaire data.

Item

Calendar year January-June

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006

Unit value (per short ton)

Carbon steel CTL plate $367 $341 $342 $358 $628 $708 $742 $710

Micro-alloy steel CTL plate $466 $466 $424 $428 $671 $884 $880 $875

U.S. MARKET PARTICIPANTS

U.S. Producers

In the current second reviews, the Commission mailed questionnaires to 16 integrated and nonintegrated mills and 42 service centers believed to have cut-to-length processing lines. The Commission

received questionnaire responses from 14 active mills67 and historical data from one closed mill,

representing substantially all U.S. mill shipments68 of CTL plate in the United States. In addition, 10

service centers provided the Commission with data on their CTL plate operations. Five firms,

representing *** percent of reported 2005 production, have filed notices of appearances in these reviews. 

Eleven firms, representing *** percent of reported 2005 production, support the continuation of the

orders; nine firms, representing *** percent of production, *** on the orders; and one firm, representing

*** percent of production, opposes all the orders.

Mittal is the one U.S. mill (and importer) related to producers from subject countries. Since the

inception of these reviews, the Arcelor-Mittal merger has further expanded Mittal’s relationship to subject

producers. Mittal is related to Mittal Steel (“MS”) Galati from Romania. ***. Mittal has a *** percent

share in non-responding Polish producer Huta Batory.69 The Arcelor-Mittal merger has linked Mittal to

producers in Belgium, Germany, and Spain. Industeel, a Belgian CTL plate producer, and Arceralia, a

Spanish CTL plate producer, are both subsidiaries of Arcelor. Neither firm provided the Commission

with a completed questionnaire in the current reviews. The merger has also linked Mittal to German CTL

plate producer Dillinger, a member of the Arcelor group.

Three firms are owned by plate producers located in nonsubject countries. IPSCO is owned by

IPSCO Canada which produces CTL plate and exports it to the United States. Jindal United Steel Corp.

is owned by Jindal Group of India. Finally, CSI is *** percent owned by JFE, a Japanese plate producer.

U.S. production of CTL plate occurs throughout the country. The West had experienced a

decline in its share of production with the closure of producer Geneva in Vineyard, UT, followed by the

exit of CSI’s Fontana, CA, mill from the plate market. Details regarding each firm’s production location,

share of production, parent company, and position on the orders are presented in table CTL-I-21.
CTL-I-29

Table CTL-I-21

CTL plate: U.S. mills and service centers, locations, share of 2005 production, parent company, and position

on the orders

Firm

Production

locations

Share of

production

(percent) Parent company Position on the orders

U.S. mills

Arkansas Steel Newport, AR *** (2) (2)

Claymont Claymont, DE *** ***% HIG Capital ***

CSI Fontana, CA ***

***% JFE

***% Rio Doce LTD ***

CMC Steel Alabama Birmingham, AL ***

Commercial Metals Co. 

(100%) ***

Gerdau Ameristeel

Cartersville, GA

Jackson, TN

Wilton, IA

Calvert City, KY *** ***% Gerdau, S.A. ***

Geneva Vineyard, UT *** (3

) (3)

IPSCO Enterprises,

Inc.

Montpelier, IA

Axis, AL

St. Paul, MN

Houston, TX *** ***% IPSCO, Inc. ***

Jindal United Steel

Corp. Baytown, TX *** ***% Jindal Group ***

Kentucky Electric Ashland, KY *** None ***

LeTourneau Longview, TX ***

***% Rowan Companies,

Inc. ***

Mittal Steel USA ISG

Inc.

Burns Harbor, IN

Coatesville, PA

Conshohocken, PA ***

A division of Mittal Steel

Company, NV ***

Nucor Steel

Cofield, NC

Tuscaloosa, AL ***

***%, a division of Nucor

Corporation

***

Oregon Steel Mills Portland, OR *** None ***

U.S. Steel Gary, IN *** None ***

WCI Steel, Inc. Warren, OH ***

***% Renco Steel Holdings,

Inc. ***

Table continued on next page.
CTL-I-30

Table CTL-I-21–Continued

CTL plate: U.S. mills and service centers, locations, share of 2005 production, parent company, and

position on the orders

Firm

Production

locations

Share of

production

(percent) Parent company Position on the orders

U.S. service centers

American Steel Portland, OR *** ***% Reliance Steel ***

Cargill Steel Service

Centers

Houston, TX

Memphis, TN

Catoosa, OK

Panama City, FL

East Chicago, IN

Nashville, TN *** A division of Cargill Inc. ***

Feralloy

Chicago, Il

Portage, IN *** ***% TUI-AG ***

Friedman

Lone Star, TX

AR Morel, AR *** None ***

IPSCO Enterprises,

Inc.

St. Paul, MN

Houston, TX *** (4

) (4)

Olympic Cleveland, OH *** None ***

PDM Fresno, CA ***

***% Reliance Steel &

Aluminum (2

)

Primary Steel

Chicago, IL

Middletown, CT *** (2

) ***

Robinson Steel

East Chicago, IN

Granite City, IL *** None ***

Steel Warehouse

South Bend, IN

Oak Creek, WI

Rock Island, IL

Memphis, TN

Chattanooga, TN ***

Lerman Holding Co., Inc. 

(***%) and Lerman

Enterprise LLC. (***%) ***

Total: 100.0%

 1

 Less than 0.05 percent.

 2

 Information not supplied.

 3

 Geneva closed in December 2001.

 4

 ***.

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to total shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. Importers

For these reviews, the Commission sent importers’ questionnaires to all U.S. mills; all U.S.

service centers believed to have cut-to-length processing lines; all U.S. firms believed to have imported

CTL plate during previous investigations; and firms identified by *** as importers of record for CTL

plate between January 2000 and March 2005. In response to the Commission’s importers’ questionnaires,

16 firms supplied usable data and 25 firms indicated that they had not imported the product since 2000. 

Several firms reported small amounts of imports of the subject product but did not complete the
 70 Imports of non-excluded CTL plate from Belgium amounted to *** short tons in 2005.

CTL-I-31

questionnaires. The imports for these firms typically occurred in one year and were not substantial. 

Table CTL-I-21 presents a summary of information regarding U.S. importers of CTL plate.

Arcelor, a subsidiary of Arcelor France, is related to Dillinger in Germany, Industeel in Belgium,

and Aceralia (Arcelor’s Spanish operations). Arcelor is also related to GTS (France) and Industeel

(which has French operations and a U.S. office for importation). Likewise, Industeel, an importer of CTL

plate from Belgium, is part of Arcelor, and shares the same relationships.

Duferco is related to its Belgian parent company by the same name, and imports CTL plate from

***.70 Duferco is also related to CTL plate producers Makstil in Macedonia and trading company

Duferco SA (incorporated in Switzerland). Mitsui is related to Japanese CTL plate producer Mitsui. 

IPSCO is related to IPSCO Canada which produces CTL plate and exports it to the United States.

Table CTL-I-22

CTL plate: U.S. importers, source of imports, U.S. headquarters, and parent company

Firm Source of imports Headquarters Parent company

Alro *** Jackson, MI None

Arcelor *** New York, New York Arcelor, France

Cargill *** Minnetonka, MN None

Duferco *** Matawan, NJ

Nina Finance

(Luxembourg) 100%

IPSCO *** Lisle, IL IPSCO, Inc. (Canada)

Industeel *** Wayne, PA Arcelor S.A., Belgium

KS Bearings *** Fountain Inn, SC

KS International Investing

(U.S.A.)

Macsteel *** White Plains, NY ***

Man Ferrostal *** Houston, TX Man Capitol Corp. 100%

Marubeni Itochu *** New York, NY MISI (Japan)

Mitsui Steel *** New York, NY Mitsui & Co., Ltd. (Japan)

Mittal *** Chicago, IL Mittal, Netherlands

Metal One *** Rosemont, IL Metal One Holdings (U.S.)

Vestas American Wind

Tech. *** Portland, OR

Vestas Wind Systems

(Denmark) 100%

Ryerson Tull *** Chicago, IL None

Schaeffler Group USA

Corp. *** Fort Mill, SC

Schaeffler Group

(Germany) 100%

Stemcor *** New York, New York Stemcor Holdings, UK

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 71 Purchaser questionnaires also were sent with importer questionnaires.

CTL-I-32

U.S. Purchasers

In response to purchaser questionnaires issued by the Commission to 68 firms, 39 purchasers

supplied usable data and 20 reported that they had not purchased the subject product during the period for

which data were collected. U.S. purchasers, their sources, U.S. locations, and type of firm, are shown in

table CTL-I-23.71

Table CTL-I-23

CTL plate: U.S. purchasers, their sources of purchases, U.S. locations, and types of firms

Firm Source of purchases U.S. office location Type of firm

A.M. Castle *** Franklin Park, IL ***

Berg Steel Pipe Corp.1 *** Panama City, FL ***

BWX Technologies, Inc.2 *** Lynchburg, VA ***

Carolina Steel Group

LLC3 *** Greensboro, NC ***

Caterpillar, Inc. *** Peoria, IL ***

Central Steel & Wire

Company *** Chicago, IL ***

Chatham Steel4 *** Savannah, GA ***

Commercial Metals

Company5 *** Irving, TX ***

Corus International

America Houston6 *** Sugar Land, TX ***

DuBose Steel Inc. of NC *** Roseboro, NC ***

EMJ7 *** Schaumburg, IL ***

Jeffboat LLC8 *** Jeffersonville, IN ***

John Deere *** Moline, IL ***

Kenilworth Steel Co.9 *** Warren, OH ***

Kiewit Offshore Services,

Inc.10 *** Ingleside, TX ***

KS Bearings *** Fountain Inn, SC ***

Macsteel Service

Centers USA *** Newport Beach, CA ***

Metals USA, Inc. *** Houston, TX ***

Metso Minerals

Industries, Inc. *** Waukesha, WI ***

Mitsui Steel, Inc.11 *** New York, NY ***

Morse Steel Service *** Bellingham, WA ***

Nance Steel Sales, Inc. *** Southfield, MI ***

Table continued on next page.
CTL-I-33

Table CTL-I-23–Continued

CTL plate: U.S. purchasers, their sources of purchases, U.S. locations, and types of firms

Firm Source of purchases U.S. office location Type of firm

National Steel and

Shipbuilding Co.12 *** San Diego, CA ***

Niagara LaSalle Corp.13 *** Hammond, IN ***

Olympic Steel, Inc. *** Cleveland, OH ***

O’Neal Steel *** Birmingham, AL ***

Pacific Steel & Recycling *** Great Falls, MT ***

Panama Machinery &

Equipment, Inc. *** Everett, WA ***

Pioneer Steel Corp. *** Detroit, MI ***

Primary Steel LLC *** Middletown, CT ***

Reliance Steel Company *** Los Angeles, CA ***

Russel Metals Williams

Bahcall14 *** Appleton, WI ***

Ryerson, Inc. *** Chicago, IL ***

Samuel, Son, & Co. Inc. *** Lancaster, NY ***

Schaeffler Group USA

Corp.15 *** Fort Mill, SC ***

Synergy Steel Inc. *** Troy, MI ***

Thomas & Betts Corp. *** Memphis, TN ***

Union Tank Car

Company16 *** Chicago, IL ***

Vestas American Wind

Technology, Inc.17 *** Portland, OR ***

 1 Owned by Europipe GmbH.

 2

 Owned by McDermott.

 3

 Owned by Hirschfeld Holdings LP.

 4

 Owned by Reliance Steel & Aluminum.

 5

 Owned by Commercial Metals Corp.

 6

 Owned by Reliance Steel.

 7

 Owned by Corus Group PLC.

 8

 Owned by American Commercial Lines, Inc.

 9

 Owned by Stemcor, Inc.

 10 Owned by Kiewit Corp.

 11 Owned by Mitsui & Co.

 12 Owned by NASSCO Holdings, Inc.

 13 Owned by Niagara Corp.

 14 Owned by Russel Metals Inc.

 15 Owned by Schaeffler Group Kg.

 16 Owned by The Marmon Group.

 17 Owned by Vestas Wind Systems A/S.

Note.–Despite repeated contacts by Staff, *** of Houston, TX, did not provide a questionnaire response, despite committing to do

so.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
CTL-I-34

APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION AND MARKET SHARES

Table CTL-I-24 presents apparent U.S. consumption and table CTL-I-25 presents market shares.

Table CTL-I-24

CTL plate: Apparent U.S. consumption, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

Item

Calendar year January-June

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006

Quantity (short tons)

U.S. producers' U.S.

shipments 6,115,864 5,595,208 5,988,501 6,041,385 6,442,052 6,618,088 3,304,432 3,866,052

Imports from--

 Belgium 15,614 16,575 11,615 6,226 10,271 10,388 2,767 6,853

 Brazil 3,243 2,978 1,477 0 18 2,460 1,961 420

 Finland 0 19 0 0 1,290 0 0 0

 Germany 8,783 129 40,536 2,647 23,413 2,078 1,491 15,671

 Mexico 153 271 273 308 1,083 440 379 168

 Poland 3 386 0 0 45 61 61 0

 Romania 6 5,981 44,339 69,552 109,969 49,813 3,014 0

 Spain 5 0 6 0 0 0 0 0

 Sweden 354 1,312 198 0 280 182 182 50

 Taiwan 75 66 226 0 0 0 0 0

 United Kingdom 847 125 79 23 8 17 0 19

 Subtotal 29,083 27,842 98,749 78,755 146,377 65,439 9,856 23,181

 Nonsubject 669,666 611,424 452,321 234,670 390,123 598,444 331,866 545,050

 Total imports 698,749 639,266 551,069 313,425 536,500 663,883 341,722 568,231

Apparent U.S. consumption 6,814,613 6,234,474 6,539,570 6,354,810 6,978,552 7,281,971 3,646,154 4,434,283

Value (1,000 dollars)

U.S. producers' U.S.

shipments 2,242,250 1,909,806 2,050,077 2,164,450 4,047,066 4,685,560 2,452,976 2,744,626

Imports from--

 Belgium 6,458 6,511 4,951 3,086 7,023 8,923 1,976 5,904

 Brazil 1,546 1,386 288 0 7 3,138 2,714 323

 Finland 0 10 0 0 1,112 0 0 0

 Germany 4,030 92 17,028 1,688 10,641 1,440 980 15,574

 Mexico 65 141 81 123 570 271 244 79

 Poland 4 95 0 0 23 36 36 0

 Romania 6 1,433 12,627 20,706 58,584 31,292 2,084 0

 Spain 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0

 Sweden 198 1,095 192 0 131 108 108 33

 Taiwan 26 20 270 0 0 0 0 0

 United Kingdom 246 88 4973606

 Subtotal 12,581 10,873 35,489 25,610 78,094 45,214 8,143 21,920

 Nonsubject 199,956 180,362 143,493 78,892 221,897 400,852 227,169 325,305

 Total imports 212,537 191,235 178,982 104,501 299,990 446,065 235,312 347,225

Apparent U.S. consumption 2,454,787 2,101,040 2,229,060 2,268,951 4,347,057 5,131,625 2,688,288 3,091,851

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission’s questionnaires, and official import statistics.
CTL-I-35

Table CTL-I-25

CTL plate: U.S. market shares, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

Item

Calendar year January-June

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006

Quantity (short tons)

Apparent U.S. consumption 6,814,613 6,234,474 6,539,570 6,354,810 6,978,552 7,281,971 3,646,154 4,434,283

Value (1,000 dollars)

Apparent U.S. consumption 2,454,787 2,101,040 2,229,060 2,268,951 4,347,057 5,131,625 2,688,288 3,091,851

Share of quantity (percent)

U.S. producers' U.S.

shipments 89.7 89.7 91.6 95.1 92.3 90.9 90.6 87.2

Imports from--

 Belgium 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2

 Brazil (1

) (1) (1) 0.0 (1) (1) 0.1 (1)

 Finland 0.0 (1

) 0.0 0.0 (1) 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Germany 0.1 (1

) 0.6 (1) 0.3 (1) (1) 0.4

 Mexico (1

) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)

 Poland (1

) (1) 0.0 0.0 (1) (1) (1) 0.0

 Romania (1

) 0.1 0.7 1.1 1.6 0.7 0.1 0.0

 Spain (1

) 0.0 (1) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Sweden (1

) (1) (1) 0.0 (1) (1) (1) (1)

 Taiwan (1

) (1) (1) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 United Kingdom (1

) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) 0.0 0.0

 Subtotal 0.4 0.4 1.5 1.2 2.1 0.9 0.3 0.5

 Nonsubject 9.8 9.8 6.9 3.7 5.6 8.2 9.1 12.3

 Total imports 10.3 10.3 8.4 4.9 7.7 9.1 9.4 12.8

Share of value (percent)

U.S. producers' U.S.

shipments 91.3 90.9 92.0 95.4 93.1 91.3 91.2 88.8

Imports from--

 Belgium 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2

 Brazil 0.1 0.1 (1

) 0.0 (1) 0.1 0.1 (1)

 Finland 0.0 (1

) 0.0 0.0 (1) 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Germany 0.2 (1

) 0.8 0.1 0.2 (1) (1) 0.5

 Mexico (1

) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)

 Poland (1

) (1) 0.0 0.0 (1) (1) (1) 0.0

 Romania (1) 0.1 0.6 0.9 1.3 0.6 0.1 0.0

 Spain (1

) 0.0 (1) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Sweden (1

) 0.1 (1) 0.0 (1) (1) (1) (1)

 Taiwan (1

) (1) (1) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 United Kingdom (1

) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) 0.0 (1)

 Subtotal 0.5 0.5 1.6 1.1 1.8 0.9 0.3 0.7

 Nonsubject 8.1 8.6 6.4 3.5 5.1 7.8 8.5 10.5

 Total imports 8.7 9.1 8.0 4.6 6.9 8.7 8.8 11.2

 1

 Less than 0.05 percent.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission’s questionnaires, and official Commerce import statistics. 

 1

 Coiled plate also is used as the feedstock for the manufacture of welded pipe.

 2

 Service centers generally purchase coiled plate from U.S. or foreign mills to produce CTL plate.

CTL-II-1

PART CTL-II: CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION IN THE U.S. MARKET

U.S. MARKET CHARACTERISTICS

CTL plate is produced from carbon steel slabs. As discussed in Part CTL-I, slabs are formed

from molten steel, then typically passed through either a traditional reversing plate mill or a steckel mill,

which increases the width and reduces the thickness. Alternatively, the slab may be processed into coiled

plate1

 on a hot strip mill (or a combination mill) and processed through a separate shear line. The plate is

finished to the customer’s specified thickness, width, and length.2

Commodity-grade CTL plate is used in a variety of applications, such as the manufacture of

storage tanks, heavy machinery and machinery parts, ships and barges, agriculture and construction

equipment, and general load-bearing structures. Non-commodity grades of CTL plate have superior

strength and performance characteristics as compared with commodity grades of CTL plate and typically

are made to order for customers seeking specific properties, such as improved malleability, hardness or

abrasion resistance, impact resistance or toughness, higher strength, and ease in machining and welding. 

These particular properties are achieved by chemically refining the steel by increasing or decreasing

specific elements, and by accurate temperature control while hot rolling or heat treating the plate. Noncommodity grades of CTL plate are used to manufacture railroad cars, line pipes, mobile equipment,

highway and railway bridges, pressure vessels, military armor, and machinery components.

U.S. CHANNELS OF DISTRIBUTION

U.S. producers and importers ship CTL plate to end users, as well as to distributors and service

centers (see table CTL-II-1). U.S. producers shipped slightly more than half of their CTL plate to

distributors and slightly less than half to end users during the review period. There was too little data

reported to comment on imports from subject countries, but importers from nonsubject countries shipped

more than one-half of their CTL plate to distributors in every year except 2002.

U.S. producers and importers, as a whole, reported nationwide sales, although most individual

firms reported that their sales were concentrated in particular regions. Generally, producers reported

serving primarily the Midwest, Central Southwest, and Southeast, as well as the national market, and

importers reported primarily serving the Midwest and Central Southwest, as well as the national market

(see table CTL-II-2). Three of the seven importers that reported nationwide sales import from subject

countries, and three importers from subject countries did not respond to the question.

*** reported modest sales of CTL plate using the internet, generally *** percent of sales or less. 

None of the 39 purchasers reported buying CTL plate over the internet.
CTL-II-2

Table CTL-II-1

CTL plate: Channels of distribution for domestic product and imports1

 sold in the U.S. market (as

a percent of total) by year and by source, 2000-052

Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Share of quantity (percent)

Domestic industry:

 Shipments to distributors/service centers 55.2 51.2 54.1 54.0 57.2 54.4

 Shipments to end users 44.8 48.8 45.9 46.0 42.8 45.6

Imports from Belgium:

 Shipments to distributors/service centers *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Shipments to end users *** *** *** *** *** ***

Imports from Finland:

 Shipments to distributors/service centers *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Shipments to end users *** *** *** *** *** ***

Imports from Germany:

 Shipments to distributors/service centers *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Shipments to end users *** *** *** *** *** ***

Imports from Romania:

 Shipments to distributors/service centers *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Shipments to end users *** *** *** *** *** ***

Nonsubject imports:

 Shipments to distributors/service centers *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Shipments to end users *** *** *** *** *** ***

 1 No data were reported for imports from Brazil, Mexico, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, or the United Kingdom. ***.

 2

 In the original investigations, U.S. mills shipped 53.7 percent of their CTL plate to end users and 46.3 percent to distributors,

service centers, and processors. U.S. importers shipped 17.8 percent of their CTL plate to end users and 82.2 percent to

distributors, service centers, and processors. In the first reviews, U.S. producers shipped 59.5 percent of their CTL plate to

distributors and 40.5 percent to end users. For information on imports of CTL plate from the first reviews, see supplemental

memorandum INV-X-229, October 30, 2000.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires; Certain Carbon Steel Products from

Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain,

Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom, Inv. Nos. AA1921-197, 701-TA-231, 319-320, 322, 325-328, 340, 342, 348-350, and

731-TA-573-576, 578, 582-587, 604, 607-608, 612, 614-618 (Review), USITC Publication 3364 (November 2000); and Certain

Flat-Rolled Carbon Steel Products from Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Italy,

Japan, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, Inv. Nos.

701-TA-319-332, 334, 336-342, 344, 347-353, and 731-TA-573-579, 581-592, 594-597, 599-609, 612-619 (Final), USITC

Publication 2664 (August 1993).
CTL-II-3

Table CTL-II-2

CTL plate: Geographic market areas in the United States served by domestic producers and importers of

subject product1

Region Producers Importers

Contiguous United States 7 7

Northeast 2 1

Midwest 10 7

Central Southwest 8 5

Southeast 9 2

Mountains 2 1

Pacific Coast 5 2

 1 In the first reviews, U.S. producers and importers, as a whole, reported nationwide sales, though most individual firms

reported that their sales were concentrated in particular regions. In the original investigations, the staff report did not discuss

geographic market area data reported by U.S. producers and importers but official statistics showed that imports from the subject

countries entered all four major regions of the United States.

Note.–Nineteen producers and 15 importers responded to this question. Firms were not limited to the number of market areas

that they could report.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires; Certain Carbon Steel Products from

Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain,

Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom, Inv. Nos. AA1921-197, 701-TA-231, 319-320, 322, 325-328, 340, 342, 348-350, and

731-TA-573-576, 578, 582-587, 604, 607-608, 612, 614-618 (Review), USITC Publication 3364 (November 2000); and Certain

Flat-Rolled Carbon Steel Products from Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Italy,

Japan, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, Inv. Nos.

701-TA-319-332, 334, 336-342, 344, 347-353, and 731-TA-573-579, 581-592, 594-597, 599-609, 612-619 (Final), USITC

Publication 2664 (August 1993).

SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS

U.S. Supply

Domestic Production

Four producers and three importers reported that consolidation in the U.S. CTL plate industry has

affected the availability of CTL plate since 2000. One producer reported that the U.S. safeguard

measures on steel, which included increased duties on CTL plate from March 2002 until December 2003,

affected the availability of CTL plate. Other producers and importers reported that increased capacity in

the U.S. industry, shutdowns at some U.S. facilities, increased energy and transportation costs, increased

imports from nonsubject countries, and increased CTL plate production and demand in China and India

have affected supply since 2000. Eighteen of the 19 responding producers and 13 of the 15 responding

importers reported they do not anticipate any change in the availability of U.S.-produced CTL plate in the

U.S. market in the future. *** reported that it expects a decrease in the availability of U.S.-produced CTL

plate due to mill outages, consolidation, and increases in line pipe production.

Purchasers were asked if there have been changes in any factors that affected the availability of

CTL plate in the U.S. market since 2000. Thirty of the 36 responding purchasers reported that there had

been changes, such as shortages and price increases of raw materials, mill consolidations, bankruptcies,

increases in capacity, increased energy and transportation costs, and increased demand for CTL plate and
 3

 A motor outage in mid-June 2006 caused Mittal Steel’s Conshohocken, PA plant, which produces carbon and

stainless steel plate, to run at reduced capacity. “Plate market feeling strain after Mittal mill loses motor.” American

Metal Market, June 28, 2006, found at http://amm.com/2006-06-27__15-23-39.html, retrieved September 1, 2006. 

The mill’s repaired motor was installed August 29, 2006 and carbon steel production has resumed. “Mittal Steel

ramping up plate mill hit by motor breakdown in June.” American Metal Market, September 1, 2006, found at

http://amm.com/2006-09-01__15-59-01.html, retrieved September 1, 2006. In addition, Mittal also experienced a

blast furnace outage at its Sparrows Point mill in June 2006 but both Conshohocken and Sparrows Point are back to

normal operations. Hearing transcript, p. 61 (Fabina). More recently, Mittal experienced two different blast furnace

outages, one in late October 2006 and one in mid-November 2006, but both were repaired and are now back in

service. “Mittal’s ‘C’ furnace at Burns Harbor briefly idled after breakout at tuyere.” American Metal Market,

November 13, 2006, found at http://amm.com/2006-11-13__15-12-41.html, retrieved November 20, 2006.

 4

 Caterpillar reported that it was on allocation in 2004 but that it is not currently on allocation. However, it

reported that ***. Caterpillar’s posthearing brief, pp. 1-2.

 5

 IPSCO, Nucor, and Oregon reported that they do not have any customers on allocation in 2006. Hearing

transcript, pp. 91-92 (Tulloch, McFadden, and Montross). However, *** reported that it has had trouble with supply

from Mittal, Nucor, and IPSCO from “January 2004 to the present.” *** reported that from the second quarter of

2006 until “further notice,” Mittal, Nucor, IPSCO, and Citisteel had customers on allocation. *** reported that

domestic mills had a controlled order entry system in 2006. *** reported that it has been on allocation for the

second and third quarters of 2006 from most U.S. producers. *** reported that Mittal, IPSCO, and Nucor are on

allocation in 2006.

 6

 Heavy-carbon products, including plate, have reportedly experienced strong demand conditions and a possible

structural shortfall in domestic capacity. “Two steel markets veering off in opposite directions.” American Metal

Market, August 11, 2006, found at http://amm.com/2006-08-11__21-20-35.html, retrieved September 1, 2006.

 7

 Six purchasers reported being placed on allocation or having problems obtaining CTL plate from ***, but ***

reported that it did not refuse, decline, or was unable to supply CTL plate since 2000.

CTL-II-4

raw materials in China, which limited the availability of foreign products. Most purchasers reported that

raw material, energy, and transportation cost increases began in late 2003 or early 2004. *** reported

that the U.S. safeguard action and the U.S. military’s involvement in Iraq have affected the availability of

CTL plate in the U.S. market. *** reported that Mittal’s rougher mill outage in June 2006 has affected

the availability of plate more recently.3

Purchasers also were asked if any suppliers refused, declined, or were unable to supply CTL plate

since 2000. Twenty-five purchasers reported that there had been problems with supply, with most

reporting that domestic mills had placed them on allocation, or controlled order entry, from early 2004 to

early-to-mid 2005.4

 *** reported that in 2003 through 2005, there was limited heat-treatment material

available, and *** reported that Mittal had customers on allocation in 2005 for thick plate. Five

purchasers reported that domestic mills had placed them on allocation or controlled order entry in 2006,5

with another purchaser reporting that supply has been tight in 2006.6 *** reported that suppliers in

Mexico refused new customers in 2004, and *** reported that a supplier in France has not quoted prices

since 2004 and that a German company had placed the firm on controlled order entry since 2004.

Four of the 19 responding producers and 5 of the 16 responding importers reported having

refused, declined, or been unable to supply CTL plate since 2000. *** reported limiting orders from new

accounts, reserving space for regular customers, concentrating on contractual and local accounts, or

closing order books beginning in 2004.7

 *** reported that it declined to sell certain plate products during

the period covered by the U.S. safeguard action and that it has limited new customers since 2004, and ***

reported that since 2004, it has focused on its core customers and limited new customers.

Producers and importers reported that, generally, there have been no significant changes in the

product range, product mix, or marketing of CTL plate since 2000, nor do they anticipate any changes in

the future. *** reported that it began using the internet for marketing, *** reported that there has been a

general switch from blast furnaces to electric arc furnaces since 2000, and *** reported that heat
 8

 “Nucor’s carbon focus puts heat treat on hold.” American Metal Market, February 22, 2005, found at

http://amm.com/2005-02-22__15-05-41.html, retrieved September 20, 2006.

 9

 By January-June 2006, however, the U.S. mills’ capacity utilization rate was approaching 90 percent, while the

U.S. processors’ capacity utilization exceeded 50 percent. More than one-half of available mill capacity in interim

2006, moreover, was located at bar mills producing wide flat bars.

CTL-II-5

treatment, chemistry, and dimensional characteristics have become more sophisticated. *** also reported

that it expects Nucor and IPSCO to invest in value-added heat treatment capabilities.

Purchasers were asked to identify and discuss any improvements/changes in the U.S. CTL plate

industry since 2000 and any improvements/changes that they anticipate in the future, and eight purchasers

responded. *** reported that consolidation of the U.S. industry has produced three large suppliers of

CTL plate in Mittal, Nucor, and IPSCO and, they believed, reduced supply in the U.S. market. ***

reported that consolidation has lead to price stability and that the absence of unfairly traded imports has

eliminated disruptive price fluctuations. *** reported that IPSCO and Nucor have invested significant

capital in their facilities since 2001 and that they now represent a significant proportion of North

American capacity. *** reported that the U.S. mills have gone from making large losses to large profits

during the review period and that IPSCO and Nucor have abandoned plans for controlled rolling and a

new heat treatment facility because demand has outpaced supply in the U.S. market.8

 *** reported that

old participants have shed legacy costs through consolidation and new efficient producers have entered

the market. *** reported that the increased use of computers and consolidation within the U.S. industry

has affected modernization by increasing efficiency and capacities, and that it expects continued

consolidation to bring CTL plate prices down. 

 Based on available information, U.S. producers are likely to respond to changes in demand with

small to moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of U.S.-produced CTL plate. The main

contributing factors to the low to moderate degree of responsiveness of supply are the availability of

unused capacity, few export shipments, low levels of inventories, and some production alternatives.

Industry capacity

U.S. producers reported excess capacity throughout the period for which data were collected in

these reviews. U.S. producers’ capacity utilization for CTL plate increased irregularly from 62.7 percent

in 2000 to 65.7 percent in 2005 and, at 75.5 percent, was higher in January-June 2006 than it was at any

time during the review period (see table CTL-III-2). U.S. mills’ reported capacity utilization increased

from 70.5 percent in 2000 to 75.6 percent in 2005 (see table C-1a), and U.S. processors’ reported capacity

utilization increased from 46.8 percent in 2000 to 47.4 percent in 2005 (see table C-1b).9

 Processors

generally do not have the capability of producing thicker plate (including plate that is over 1 inch in

thickness), wide plate, or plate with special chemistries.

Alternative markets

U.S. producers’ export shipments, as a share of total shipments, increased from 3.7 percent in

2000 to 6.2 percent in 2005 (see table CTL-III-4), and export shipments in January-June 2006 were

higher than they were during the same period in 2005. This relatively low level of exports during the

period indicates that domestic producers may be somewhat constrained in their ability to shift shipments

between the United States and other markets in response to price changes. Indeed, 16 of the 18

responding producers reported that they are unable or limited in their ability to shift sales of CTL plate

between the U.S. market and alternative country markets. Most producers reported that freight costs,

competition from subsidized foreign producers, and the lack of established contacts in other markets limit

their ability to shift sales. Three producers reported that U.S. exports of CTL plate are subject to tariff or
 10 *** reported that, although there are no known antidumping or countervailing duty orders on U.S. exports of

CTL plate, there are a number of other barriers to U.S. exports. See *** producer questionnaire, response to

question IV-B-30.

 11 Mittal reported that service center inventories of CTL plate in September 2006 were at their highest level since

2002. Mittal’s posthearing brief, pp. 3-4 and public exhibit 2. Joint respondent interested parties reported that the

MSCI inventory data include both CTL plate and coiled plate and suggest that the majority of the data reported are

inventories of nonsubject product. Brazilian respondent interested parties’ posthearing brief, exhibit 1 (joint

respondent interested parties’ answers to Commissioners’ questions), pp. 1-3. The MSCI data appear in part CTL-III

of this report.

 12 *** reported that they have not or do not anticipate in the future producing other products on the same

machinery and equipment or using the same production and related workers in the production of CTL plate but

reported that they could switch production between CTL plate and other products in response to a relative price

change. *** reported that they have produced other products on the same machinery and equipment or using the

same production and related workers in the production of CTL plate but reported that they could not switch

production in response to a relative price change.

CTL-II-6

non-tariff barriers in other countries including currency manipulation, local content requirements, and

foreign government subsidies.10

Inventory levels

U.S. producers’ inventories, as a share of total shipments, decreased from 11.0 percent in 2000 to

7.5 percent in 2005 and were lower in January-June 2006 than they were during the same period in 2005

(see table CTL-III-5). U.S. mills’ inventories, as a share of total shipments, fell from 8.2 percent in 2000

to 5.5 percent in 2005 (see table C-1a) and were slightly lower in January-June 2006 than during the same

period in 2005. U.S. processors’ inventories, as a share of total shipments, decreased from 19.3 percent in

2000 to 13.4 percent in 2005 and similarly were slightly lower in January-June 2006 than in January-June

2005 (see table C-1b).11

Production alternatives

Ten of the 19 responding producers reported that they produce other products, such as hot-rolled

sheet in coils, hot-rolled coated steel, angles, CTL sheets, alloy plate, stainless steel plate, and clad plate,

on the same equipment and machinery used in the production of CTL plate. Eleven producers12 reported

that they are able to switch production to these other products in response to relative price changes. Six

producers (three mills and three processors) reported that the time and cost to switch production are

minimal, but other producers reported that the switch would be unlikely.

Subject Imports

The sensitivity of supply of subject imported CTL plate to changes in price depends upon such

factors as the existence of excess capacity, the levels of inventories, and the existence of export markets. 

Relevant information from questionnaire responses for Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico,

Poland, Romania, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom follows, but there was limited information from

questionnaire responses for producers from Spain or Sweden.
 13 Duferco reported ***. It also reported facing competition in its home market from ***.

 14 The two responding Brazilian producers are ***. However, Brazilian producers reported that they ***. 

Brazilian respondent interested parties’ posthearing brief, exhibit 5, pp. 10-11.

 15 Rautaruukki reported that ***. It also reported that it is ***.

 16 German producers reported that ***. They also reported that ***.

CTL-II-7

Belgium

Based on available information, the responding Belgian producer is likely to respond to changes

in demand with moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of CTL plate to the U.S. market.13 The

main contributing factors to the moderate degree of responsiveness of supply are the existence of alternate

markets, low levels of inventories, some production alternatives, and high capacity utilization. Belgian

export shipments, as a share of total shipments, decreased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in

2005, with over *** percent going to the European Union (see table CTL-IV-9). Belgian inventories, as a

share of total shipments, increased irregularly from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005. Belgian

capacity utilization for CTL plate decreased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005. Duferco

reported that ***.

Brazil

Based on available information, Brazilian producers are likely to respond to changes in demand

with moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of CTL plate to the U.S. market.14 The main

contributing factors to the moderate degree of responsiveness of supply are the existence of alternate

markets, moderate levels of inventories, and high capacity utilization. Brazilian producers’ export

shipments, as a share of total shipments, increased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005 and at

*** percent, were *** (see table CTL-IV-14). Brazilian inventories, as a share of total shipments,

increased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005, ***. Brazilian producers’ capacity utilization

for CTL plate increased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005. Reported capacity utilization

was *** percent in January-June 2006, down from *** percent during the same period in 2005. One

Brazilian producer reported that ***.

Finland

Based on available information, Finnish producer Rautaruukki is likely to respond to changes in

demand with small to moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of CTL plate to the U.S. market.15

The main contributing factors to the low to moderate degree of responsiveness of supply are the existence

of alternate markets, low levels of inventories, and high capacity utilization. Rautaruukki’s export

shipments, as a share of total shipments, increased irregularly from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in

2005 (see table CTL-IV-19). Finnish inventories, as a share of total shipments, were about the same in

2000 (*** percent) and 2005 (*** percent). Finnish capacity utilization for CTL plate increased from

*** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005. Reported capacity utilization was *** percent in JanuaryJune 2006, down from *** percent during the same period in 2005. Rautaruukki reported ***.

Germany

Based on available information, German producers are likely to respond to changes in demand

with moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of CTL plate to the U.S. market.16 The main

contributing factors to the moderate degree of responsiveness of supply are the existence of alternate

markets, moderate levels of inventories, and high capacity utilization. German producers’ export
 17 AHMSA reported that ***. It also reported that ***.

 18 HSC reported that ***.

 19 Mittal Steel Galati reported that ***. It also reported that ***.

CTL-II-8

shipments, as a share of total shipments, increased from 38.4 percent in 2000 to 43.3 percent in 2005 (see

table CTL-IV-25). German producers’ inventories, as a share of total shipments, increased irregularly

from 8.9 percent in 2000 to 10.2 percent in 2005. German producers’ capacity utilization for CTL plate

increased from 92.1 percent in 2000 to 104.4 percent in 2005. Reported capacity utilization was 104.0

percent in January-June 2006, just as during the same period in 2005. German producers reported that

they produce alloy and X-70 plate using the same equipment or production workers as CTL plate but

cannot shift production as a result of a relative price change.

Mexico

Based on available information, the Mexican producer, AHMSA, is likely to respond to changes

in demand with relatively small changes in the quantity of shipments of CTL plate to the U.S. market.17

The main contributing factors to the low degree of responsiveness of supply are few export shipments,

low levels of inventories, and high levels of capacity utilization. The Mexican producer’s export

shipments, as a share of total shipments of CTL plate, increased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent

in 2005 (see table CTL-IV-31). Mexican inventories, as a share of total shipments, decreased from ***

percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005. Capacity utilization increased from *** percent in 2000 to ***

percent in 2005, and was *** percent in January-June 2006, up from *** percent during the same period

in 2005. AHMSA reported that ***.

Poland

Based on available information, Polish producers are likely to respond to changes in demand with

small to moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of CTL plate to the U.S. market.18 The main

contributing factors to the low to moderate degree of responsiveness of supply are the existence of

alternate markets, low levels of inventories, some production alternatives, and high capacity utilization. 

Polish producers’ export shipments, as a share of total shipments, decreased from *** percent in 2000 to

*** percent in 2005 and were lower in January-June 2006 than during the same period in 2005 (see table

CTL-IV-37). Polish producers’ inventories, as a share of total shipments, increased from *** percent in

2000 to *** percent in 2005. Polish producers’ capacity utilization for CTL plate decreased from ***

percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005. Reported capacity utilization was *** percent in January-June

2006, up from *** percent during the same period in 2005. Polish producer HSC reported that ***.

Romania

Based on available information, Romanian producer Mittal Steel (MS) Galati is likely to respond

to changes in demand with moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of CTL plate to the U.S.

market.19 The main contributing factors to the moderate degree of responsiveness of supply are the

existence of alternate markets, moderate levels of inventories, and some unused capacity. The Romanian

producer’s export shipments, as a share of total shipments, increased from *** percent in 2000 to ***

percent in 2005, with the largest share going to Asia, other than China (see table CTL-IV-43). The

Romanian producer’s inventories, as a share of total shipments, decreased irregularly from *** percent in

2000 to *** percent in 2005. Romanian capacity utilization for CTL plate decreased from *** percent in

2000 to *** percent in 2005. Reported capacity utilization was *** percent in January-June 2006, up

from *** percent during the same period in 2005. Mittal Steel Galati reported that ***.
 20 China Steel reported that ***.

 21 Niagara LaSalle reported that ***. The UK producers reported that ***. Corus reported that ***.

 22 As described in the Overview to this report, increased duties on CTL plate were in effect between March 2002

and December 2003 as part of the U.S. safeguard action on certain steel products.

CTL-II-9

Taiwan

Based on available information, China Steel is likely to respond to changes in demand with small

changes in the quantity of shipments of CTL plate to the U.S. market.20 The main contributing factors to

the low degree of responsiveness of supply are low levels of exports, low levels of inventories, and high

capacity utilization. Taiwan export shipments, as a share of total shipments, decreased from *** percent

in 2000 to *** percent in 2005 (see table CTL-IV-51). Taiwan inventories, as a share of total shipments,

decreased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005. Taiwan capacity utilization for CTL plate

increased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005. Reported capacity utilization was *** percent

in January-June 2006, down from *** percent during the same period in 2005. China Steel reported that

***.

United Kingdom

Based on available information, UK producers are likely to respond to changes in demand with

moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of CTL plate to the U.S. market.21 The main contributing

factors to the moderate degree of responsiveness of supply are the existence of alternate markets, low

levels of inventories, some production alternatives, and some unused capacity. UK producers’ export

shipments, as a share of total shipments, increased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005 and

were largely destined for EU markets (see table CTL-IV-56). UK producers’ inventories, as a share of

total shipments, increased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005. UK producers’ capacity

utilization for CTL plate increased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005. Reported capacity

utilization was *** percent in January-June 2006, down from *** percent during the same period in 2005. 

One UK producer reported that ***.

Nonsubject Imports

Imports from nonsubject countries decreased from 2000 to 2003 before increasing in 2004 and

2005 (see table CTL-IV-2).22 Six of the 18 responding producers and 5 of the 14 responding importers

reported that the availability of nonsubject CTL plate has changed since 2000. Producers reported that

there were increased imports from Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, China, Australia, Korea, Canada, Italy,

and France during the period. *** reported that the U.S. safeguard action decreased the volume of

nonsubject imports but that after the safeguard was terminated, U.S. imports from some countries

increased significantly. Four importers reported that nonsubject availability has been reduced during the

period, in part due to strong demand in their home markets, as well as globally. One importer reported

that there has been an increase in nonsubject imports.

U.S. Demand

Demand Characteristics

Apparent U.S. consumption of CTL plate fluctuated in a generally downward trend from 2000

through 2003, decreasing from 6.8 million short tons in 2000 to less than 6.4 million short tons in 2003. 

Apparent U.S. consumption then increased to 7.3 million short tons in 2005 and was higher in January-
 23 *** reported that higher energy costs and higher interest rates will contribute to a slowdown in farm machinery,

factory equipment, and new building construction. It also reported expecting some growth in bridge and highway

construction and railcar manufacturing. *** producer questionnaire, response to question IV-B-27.

 24 “Berg planning to build 180,000 ton large-diameter welded pipe mill.” American Metal Market, July 26, 2006,

found at http://amm.com/wrappers/story.asp?file=/2006-07-26__19-49-23.xml, retrieved September 20, 2006. “A

big backlog and even bigger potential in large-diameter pipe.” American Metal Market, September 8, 2006, found at

http://amm.com/2006-09-08__18-47-24.html, retrieved September 20, 2006.

 25 ***. Mittal’s prehearing brief, pp. 43-45 and confidential exhibit 1. In addition, the joint respondent interested

parties submitted numerous reports and news articles on demand in various end use segments in their prehearing

brief, exhibit 5. In a September 2006 presentation for the Metals Service Center Institute Economic Summit

Forecast 2007, domestic producers reported that demand in all end-use segments is expected to remain strong and

that demand in 2007 is expected to be “a little less” than in 2006. IPSCO and Oregon’s posthearing brief, exhibit 5. 

IPSCO reported that demand growth is at a high level now and will continue at that level or perhaps a slightly lower

level, particularly for energy, transportation, and construction equipment. Hearing transcript, pp. 111-113 (Tulloch). 

Nucor reported that it expects lower volume and prices in 2007, particularly due to slower demand growth in heavy

equipment, capital goods, and machinery. Hearing transcript, p. 114 (McFadden). Oregon reported that it expects

the large diameter pipe market to be strong over the next year and a half and that overall demand from service

centers will be down in 2007. Hearing transcript, pp. 114-115 (Montross). Mittal reported that it expects 2007 to be

about the same as 2006 for CTL plate. Hearing transcript, p. 116 (Insetta).

 26 Reports from earlier in 2006 suggested that the U.S. market for CTL plate has reportedly been buoyed by

bridge and highway construction, heavy equipment, barge building, shipbuilding, and the continued strength of the

energy market. Indications at the time were that the CTL plate market would remain strong throughout 2006 and

potentially beyond. “Carbon plate prices firm as demand holds steady.” American Metal Market, June 14, 2006,

found at http://amm.com/2006-06-13__13-48-34.html, retrieved September 1, 2006. More recently, IPSCO reported

that strong demand conditions are expected to extend into 2007, not only from the energy sector, but also from the

production of barges, ships, and railcars. “Strong North American Plate Demand Expected to Continue.” Steel

Business Briefing, October 11, 2006, in Brazilian respondent interested parties’ posthearing brief, exhibit 2.

 27 Purchasers who distribute or resell CTL plate listed oil and gas fabricators, shipbuilders, storage tank and

structural fabricators, heavy machinery and equipment manufacturers, machine shops, processing service centers,

(continued...)

CTL-II-10

June 2006 than in January-June 2005. Twelve producers, 10 importers, and 24 purchasers reported that

demand has increased since 2000, while five producers, two importers, and four purchasers reported that

demand has not changed. Of those reporting that demand increased, factors cited included the improved

economy, increased investment, lower interest rates, increased global consumption, increased

shipbuilding and oil and gas exploration, increased use for military applications, rebuilding activities after

the hurricanes of 2005, and increased construction and manufacturing activity.

Two producers, one importer, and one purchaser reported that demand has fluctuated, with both

increases and decreases during the period. Two purchasers reported that demand decreased, citing the

departure of manufacturing from the United States as the reason. When asked if they anticipate future

changes in CTL plate demand in the United States and the rest of the world, 9 producers,23 2 importers,

and 13 purchasers responded in the affirmative, and many explained that China, India, and developing

countries will continue to be a factor in demand growth as well as growth in oil and gas pipelines24 and

infrastructure improvements.25 Some reported that there is increased demand for alternative energy

sources, such as wind towers.26 Three producers and one purchaser reported that demand will ease, and

another purchaser reported that the continued loss of manufacturing activity will further affect demand.

The overall demand for CTL plate primarily depends upon the demand for a variety of end-use

applications (see table CTL-II-3). Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked to list the end uses of

CTL plate. The most commonly reported uses were the construction of bridges, oil and gas pipelines,

offshore platforms, ships, barges, storage vessels, utility poles, and agricultural, construction, mining, and

forestry equipment.27
 27 (...continued)

and railcar and other transportation-related manufacturers as consumers of their CTL plate.

CTL-II-11

Table CTL-II-3

CTL plate: Shipments by market, 20051

Market Share of quantity (percent)

Construction 54.1

Steel service centers and distributors2 25.0

Rail transportation 8.7

Machinery, industrial equipment, and tools 6.1

Oil and gas 2.8

Shipbuilding and marine equipment 2.7

Electrical and agricultural equipment 0.5

Other 0.1

 1 Data are for calendar year 2005 and include only classified shipments as reported by AISI reporting companies.

 2

 Data are not available from AISI on the end-use markets of shipments from service centers and distributors.

Source: American Iron & Steel Institute, 16C Report, Shipments of Steel Products by Market Classification, Carbon Steel,

Report AIS 16C, 2005.

When asked if there had been any changes in the end uses of CTL plate since 2000, one producer

reported that there have been increased shipments to pole and tower markets; one importer reported that

there are more uses for thick CTL plates; one importer reported that there has been increased use of CTL

plate for armor in the Iraq war; one purchaser reported that there was a new ship design introduced in

2001 to use millimetric plate; one purchaser reported that a cone crusher plant closed in 2004; and one

producer and one purchaser reported that, beginning in 2003-04, CTL plate is being used to manufacture

wind towers.

Thirteen of the 16 responding purchasers who are end users reported that the demand for their

firms’ final products that use CTL plate changed since 2000, with most citing increases in demand for

these final products. In identifying the major factors that contributed to the demand changes, purchasers

reported that such things as a growing U.S. economy, increased pipeline construction, new ship designs,

and expanded product lines were factors.

Twenty-two of 36 responding purchasers reported that the specifications of CTL plate vary

depending on the end-use application. Eight purchasers described the different standards set by such

organizations as ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials), ASME (American Society of

Mechanical Engineers), AAR (Association of American Railroads), FRA (Federal Railroad

Administration), API (American Petroleum Institute), and ABS (American Bureau of Shipping). ***

reported that OEMs have specific grades relative to their needs; *** reported that bridges use grades that

vary with state requirements; *** reported that there are differences in the steel intended for laser

applications; *** reported that mining and heavy construction equipment manufacturers have their own

specifications; and *** reported that there are differences between high-strength and commercial grades

and that there are certain applications that require abrasion resistance.

Thirteen of the 19 responding producers and 10 of the 14 responding importers reported that the

CTL plate market is not subject to business cycles or conditions of competition distinctive to CTL plate,
 28 IPSCO reported that the industry is three years into a capital-spending cycle that others expect to last five to

seven years in total; however, due to global changes in the steel industry, it is difficult to look at historical analysis

in terms of the business cycle. Hearing transcript, p. 217 (Tulloch). Mexican respondent interested parties reported

that the current cycle is unusual in that all of the end use segments have grown at the same time. Hearing transcript,

pp. 323-324 (Maleshevich).

CTL-II-12

and only one producer and two importers reported that the emergence of new markets has affected the

business cycle or conditions of competition distinctive to CTL plate.28

Twenty-one purchasers reported that the CTL plate market is not subject to business cycles or

conditions of competition distinctive to CTL plate. Among the 14 purchasers reporting that the market is

subject to distinct business cycles or conditions of competition, six reported that some specific end-use

markets influence the overall business cycle of the CTL plate market. Others reported that raw material

costs, import/export dynamics, or the limited number of suppliers in the world are factors that affect the

overall business cycle for the CTL plate market. Only six responding purchasers reported that the

emergence of new markets for CTL plate since 2000 has affected the business cycle or conditions of

competition distinctive to CTL plate, with two citing increased consumption in industrializing nations,

one citing increased demand for military applications, one citing the rebuilding activities after the 2005

hurricanes, and one citing the push for new oil and gas pipelines.

Purchasers were asked whether their purchasing patterns for CTL plate from domestic, subject, 

and nonsubject sources had changed since 2000. Five purchasers reported that their U.S. purchases have

increased since 2000, citing such factors as competitive pricing, a weak U.S. dollar, and growth in the

CTL business or specific product lines. Two purchasers reported increased German purchases due to

increased German production and the lack of available U.S. CTL plate. Other purchasers reported

decreased purchases from Finland, Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom, due to such factors as the

antidumping duties, the lack of availability, or uncompetitive pricing. Twelve purchasers reported that

their purchasing patterns are largely unchanged.

Thirteen purchasers reported purchasing from subject sources before the years that the

countervailing/antidumping duties under review became effective. Six purchasers reported that their

purchasing pattern from subject countries is essentially unchanged; five reported that they reduced or

discontinued their purchases from subject countries because of the orders; and two reported that they

changed the pattern of purchases from subject countries for other reasons, specifically because the firm

was doing less business or that the product was no longer offered and was not competitively priced.

Fourteen purchasers reported that they did not purchase from nonsubject sources before or after

the orders; 13 reported that their purchasing pattern from nonsubject sources was essentially unchanged; 6

changed their purchasing pattern for reasons other than the orders; and 2 increased their purchases from

nonsubject countries because of the orders.

Substitute Products

While there are reported substitutes for CTL plate, the potential for substitution is often limited

by the end use, as well as such factors as width, thickness, strength, and price. Concrete, alloy plate,

aluminum, ceramic, fiberglass, plastics, castings, and wood were listed as substitutes for CTL plate in

certain applications. Five producers, 3 importers, and 19 purchasers reported that there are no substitutes

for CTL plate. When asked if there have been any changes in the number or type of products that can be

substituted for CTL plate, *** reported that the product in coils has been getting more sophisticated at the

expense of CTL plate and that they expect the trend to continue. One purchaser reported that substitutes

have been gaining market share due to increased steel costs and also reported that because of the high

price of CTL plate, it expects the substitute products to continue gaining market share. Another purchaser

also expects substitute products to gain market share if the price of steel increases in the future. The other
 29 Demand for CTL plate is expected to grow steadily through 2010 in China, the Pacific Basin, and excommunist countries, as defined by ***. IPSCO and Oregon’s posthearing brief, exhibit 10. ***. Mittal’s

prehearing brief, confidential exhibit 1. ***. Nucor’s prehearing brief, exhibit 4.

 30 Corus reported that demand will remain strong in the oil and gas sector, as well as for infrastructure, especially

in Asia, India, and the Middle East. Corus’ response to the notice of institution, p. 8. In addition, demand for oil and

gas transmission lines and platforms, as well as naval construction, is expected to remain strong in Brazil. Brazilian

respondent interested parties’ prehearing brief, exhibit 1 and response to the notice of institution, pp. 18-19.

CTL-II-13

importers and purchasers, as well as all of the producers, reported that there have been no changes in the

number or type of substitutes, nor do they expect any changes in the future.

Cost Share

CTL plate often accounts for a relatively large percentage of the total cost of end-use products, 

although the cost share does vary widely, depending on the end use. Purchasers reported that CTL plate

accounts for between 5 and 100 percent of the total cost of the end products in which CTL plate is used. 

In wind turbine towers and bridge girders, CTL plate reportedly represents 100 percent of the total cost of

the end product, whereas in barges, offshore platforms, and other bridge components, CTL plate

represents 50 percent. According to purchasers, CTL plate represents 5 percent of the total cost of trucks

and tractors, 5 to 10 percent of the cost of construction and forestry equipment, 5 to 20 percent of the total

cost of bearings, 40 percent of the total cost of railroad tank cars, 42 percent of the total cost of steel plate

burnouts, and 45-65 percent of the total cost of tubular transmission poles. Producers reported that CTL

plate represents less than 15 percent of the total cost of pressure vessels, 12 to 18 percent of the total cost

of ships, 18 to 75 percent of the total cost of railcars, and 70 percent of the total cost of utility poles and

storage tanks.

Demand Outside the United States

Producers, importers, and purchasers also were asked how demand for CTL plate outside the

United States has changed since 2000. Ten producers, 7 importers, and 21 purchasers reported that

demand outside the United States increased, citing factors such as rapidly increasing demand in China and

other industrializing countries in Asia and Latin America; the economic recovery in Japan; increased

shipbuilding, mining, and oil and gas exploration; increased investment; improvements to infrastructure;

the relocation of manufacturing activities outside of the United States; and global economic growth.29

One producer and two purchasers reported that demand outside the United States was unchanged. 

Two producers, one importer, and one purchaser reported that demand outside the United States has

varied, with both increases and decreases during the period.30

SUBSTITUTABILITY ISSUES

The degree of substitution between domestic and imported products depends upon such factors as

relative prices, quality, and conditions of sale (e.g., price discounts/rebates, lead times between order and

delivery dates, payment terms, product services, etc.). Based on available data, staff believes that there

may be some differences between domestic and imported CTL plate, but overall, there is a moderate to

high degree of substitution between CTL plate produced in the United States and the subject countries

and other import sources.

This section is based primarily on the responses of 39 purchasers that accounted for

approximately 25.3 percent of total consumption in 2005. Twenty-three purchasers described themselves
 31 Purchasers who described themselves as distributors reported selling CTL plate to OEMs and to various

construction and manufacturing end users.

 32 Purchasers who described themselves as end users reported that they use CTL plate to manufacture such items

as railroad tank cars, offshore platforms, ships, bridge components, barges, bearings, steel transmission poles, and

agricultural, construction, mining, and forestry equipment.

CTL-II-14

as distributors,31 14 as end users,32 and 2 as processors. When asked to indicate the nature of the firm’s

business or the market in which they sell CTL plate (allowing for multiple selections), 21 purchasers

indicated construction, 15 indicated heavy machinery and equipment, 10 indicated shipbuilding, and 6

indicated oil and gas. Purchasers reported being involved in other markets, including automotive,

transportation, agriculture, and power transmission. Purchasers tended to purchase primarily from U.S.,

German, and nonsubject sources, with none reporting purchases from Spain (see table CTL-II-4).

Table CTL-II-4

CTL plate: Purchased quantities in short tons, by country and by year, 2000-05 and January-June 20061

Country 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Jan.-June

2006

United States 1,491,854 1,458,979 1,533,678 1,552,520 1,736,605 1,654,782 948,026

Belgium *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Brazil *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Finland *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Germany *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Mexico *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Poland *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Romania *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Sweden *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Taiwan *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

United Kingdom *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Nonsubject2 160,985 108,202 113,070 77,432 101,993 109,686 91,525

Note.--Not all purchasers reported data for each year.

 1

 *** did not provide data, *** purchases are estimates based on its knowledge of country of origin, and *** reported that it

buys small amounts from nonsubject countries but could not report the data.

 2

 Nonsubject countries include Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, China, the Czech Republic, Egypt, France, Hungary, Indonesia,

Italy, Korea, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Norway, Russia, South Africa, Thailand, and Ukraine.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

When asked if imported and domestically produced CTL plate are used in the same applications,

20 purchasers reported that they are generally used in the same applications, as long as the CTL plate

conforms to standards or the purchaser’s specifications. Some purchasers reported that customers require

U.S.-produced CTL plate, and others reported that interchangeability is limited by chemical composition

and intended end use.
 33 For example, Gulf States Steel halted plate production in late 2000; Nucor began production at a new plate mill

in North Carolina in late 2000; IPSCO began production at a new plate mill in Alabama in early 2001; and Geneva

Steel halted plate production in 2001.

CTL-II-15

Purchasers of CTL plate tend to buy frequently, and many have changed suppliers since 2000. 

Twenty-three of the 39 responding purchasers reported that they purchase daily or weekly, with seven

purchasing monthly and four on an as-needed basis. Four purchasers reported that they purchase

quarterly and one reported purchasing annually. Four purchasers reported that they expect this

purchasing pattern to change in the next two years, with two reporting that they will buy more frequently

and one reporting that it will no longer buy CTL plate. Twenty-four purchasers reported that the quantity

purchased is generally consistent throughout the year. Nine purchasers reported that their purchases are

somewhat seasonal, with one reporting that purchases are dependent on the construction industry, one

reporting that purchases are concentrated at the beginning of the federal government’s fiscal year, and

two reporting that July and December are slower months. Twenty of the 38 responding purchasers

reported changing suppliers since 2000; nine of the changes resulted from mergers, consolidations,

bankruptcies, and new mills starting within the industry.33

Factors Affecting Purchasing Decisions

Purchasers were asked to identify the three major factors considered by their firm in deciding

from whom to purchase CTL plate (table CTL-II-5). Price and quality were the most commonly cited

factors overall. Twelve of the 38 responding purchasers reported that quality was the most important

factor, and 11 reported that price was the most important factor. The next most commonly cited factors

were availability, delivery and service, product meets industry standards, product range, and reliability. 

Table CTL-II-5

CTL plate: Most important factors in selecting a supplier, as reported by purchasers

Factor First Second Third

Quality 12 9 7

Price 11 13 12

Availability 8 6 6

Product meets industry standards or specifications 3 0 0

Reliability 1 1 0

Delivery/service 0 9 3

Product range 0 1 2

Other 4 0 9

Note.--Other category includes qualification of supplier, domestic supplier, traditional supplier, material properties, extension of

credit, supplier performance/track record, supplier capabilities, size of material, contracts, consistency, transportation costs, and

research and development.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Purchasers were asked what factors determined the quality of CTL plate. Factors cited included

surface quality, flatness, dimensional tolerance, strength, durability, consistency, gauge control,

weldability, chemical and physical properties, and edge quality. Eighteen purchasers cited the necessity

of meeting the firm’s specifications or meeting ASTM, API, or another of the various industry standards. 
 34 *** reported that only 1 percent of its total purchases of CTL plate in 2005 required some form of certification

or prequalification.

 35 *** reported that in order for it to buy from foreign sources, the price must be significantly less than the price

of the U.S. product in order to overcome problems with logistics and lead times, and *** reported that the

antidumping duties are a factor.

 36 See appendix K of this report for additional country comparisons.

CTL-II-16

Twenty-nine of the 39 responding purchasers reported that they require suppliers to become certified or

prequalified and that these requirements applied to all, or nearly all, of their 2005 purchases.34 Most of 

the requirements consist of standards set by independent organizations, such as the ASTM, ISO, and

ASME. Other purchasers perform audits and mill inspections or require product samples for testing or

trial runs.

Purchasers were asked if they always, usually, sometimes, or never purchased the lowest-priced

CTL plate. Nineteen of the 37 responding purchasers reported always or usually purchasing the lowestpriced product and 13 sometimes purchased the lowest-priced CTL plate. Of those who reported

sometimes or never purchasing the lowest-priced product, availability, quality, lead times, reliability, and

logistics were factors cited as to why price is not a controlling factor.35 Some purchasers reported that the

importance of buying from a domestic supplier was a factor in buying a higher priced product. 

Purchasers also were asked if they purchased CTL plate from one country in particular. Eighteen

purchasers responded, reporting reasons why they purchased from one country in particular. Reasons

provided included “Buy American” requirements or preferences, government work that requires a

domestic supplier, logistics, quality, and customers who specify a specific supplier. *** reported that it

orders CTL plate from Norway for the universal plates that are rolled to metric dimensions; *** reported

that Germany has a patented material with a unique composition; and *** reported that abrasion-resistant

material is only available from Canada, Germany, and Sweden. Twelve purchasers reported that certain

grades, types, or sizes of CTL plate are available only from a single source; with nine reporting that

certain widths or types are available from only one domestic mill and one reporting that larger and

heavier plate is only available from a French supplier.

In rating the importance of 20 factors in their purchasing decisions (table CTL-II-6), all 39

responding purchasers rated availability as very important; 37 reported that reliability of supply was very

important; 35 reported that delivery time and price were very important; 34 reported that quality meets

industry standards was very important; and 31 reported that product consistency was very important.

Purchasers were asked for a country-by-country comparison of the same 20 factors. Five

purchasers completed this comparison for the United States and Germany, one for the United States and

Mexico, one for the United States and Poland, one for the United States and Sweden, and seven for the

United States and nonsubject countries (table CTL-II-7).36 The majority of purchasers stated that the

domestic and German products were generally comparable; however, the U.S. product was reported to be

superior for delivery time and proximity of supplier, and the German product was reported to be superior

for quality exceeds industry standards. The one responding purchaser reported that the U.S. product was

generally comparable or superior to the product from Mexico. The one responding purchaser reported

that the U.S. product was generally comparable or superior to the Polish product, with the exception of a

lower price, where the purchaser found the Polish product to be superior. The one responding purchaser

reported that the U.S. product was generally comparable or superior to the Swedish product, with the

exception of finish/appearance and product consistency, where the purchaser found the Swedish product

to be superior. Purchasers generally found the U.S. product to be comparable or superior to the product

from nonsubject countries.

Thirty-two purchasers reported factors they considered in qualifying a new supplier. Factors

considered included quality, price, availability, reliability, service, delivery, surface finish, dimensional
CTL-II-17

control, location, supplier reputation, and meeting ASTM or ISO standards. The time required to qualify

a new supplier was reported by 14 purchasers and ranged from a few minutes or hours to two years.

Purchasers were asked if any suppliers had failed to qualify their product or lost their approved

status. *** reported that *** had failed to qualify; *** reported that *** had problems with ***; ***

reported that *** and several suppliers in China had failed to qualify due to quality reasons; *** reported

that a producer in Thailand failed to ***; *** reported that *** and a supplier in Ukraine failed to qualify

due to quality issues; *** reported that *** had failed due to ***; and *** reported that *** had failed to

qualify.

Table CTL-II-6

CTL plate: Importance of purchase factors, as reported by purchasers

Factor

Very important Somewhat important Not important

Number of firms responding

Availability 39 0 0

Contract with supplier 14 15 10

Delivery terms 23 15 0

Delivery time 35 4 0

Discounts offered 12 21 6

Extension of credit 14 11 14

Finish/appearance 23 14 1

Minimum quantity requirements 9 17 13

Packaging 5 18 16

Price 35 4 0

Product consistency 31 7 0

Product range 16 18 5

Proximity of supplier 7 19 13

Qualification for certain

applications 19 17 3

Quality meets industry standards 34 3 1

Quality exceeds industry

standards 17 14 8

Reliability of supply 37 1 0

Technical support/service 18 19 2

Traditional supplier 12 19 8

U.S. transportation costs 15 23 1

Note.--Not all purchasers responded for each factor.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
CTL-II-18

Table CTL-II-7

CTL plate: Comparisons of product by source country, as reported by purchasers1

Factor

U.S. vs Germany U.S. vs Mexico U.S. vs Poland

SC I SC I SC I

Number of firms responding

Availability 22110 0100

Contract with supplier 1 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0

Delivery terms 1 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 0

Delivery time 3 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0

Discounts offered 040010100

Extension of credit 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Finish/appearance 041100010

Minimum quantity

requirements 140010100

Packaging 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Price2

041010001

Product consistency 041100010

Product range 032100100

Proximity of supplier 5 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0

Qualification for certain

applications 0 3 2 1 0 0 0 1 0

Quality meets industry

standards 050010010

Quality exceeds industry

standards 023100010

Reliability of supply 032100100

Technical support/service 212100100

Traditional supplier 121100010

U.S. transportation costs2

05001 0100

Table continued on next page.
CTL-II-19

Table CTL-II-7--Continued

CTL plate: Comparisons of product by source country, as reported by purchasers1

Factor

U.S. vs Sweden U.S. vs nonsubject 3

SC I SC I

Number of firms responding

Availability 100 4 3 0

Contract with supplier 1 0 0 1 6 0

Delivery terms 010 3 4 0

Delivery time 100 5 2 0

Discounts offered 010 1 5 1

Extension of credit 010 0 7 0

Finish/appearance 001061

Minimum quantity requirements 010 1 6 0

Packaging 010 0 6 1

Price2

100 1 3 1

Product consistency 001 0 6 1

Product range 100 3 3 0

Proximity of supplier 1 0 0 5 2 0

Qualification for certain applications 0 1 0 0 7 0

Quality meets industry standards 010 0 7 0

Quality exceeds industry standards 010 0 6 1

Reliability of supply 010 4 3 0

Technical support/service 010331

Traditional supplier 010340

U.S. transportation costs2 010340

 1 No purchaser completed the comparison for the United States and Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Mexico, Romania, Spain,

Sweden, Taiwan, or the United Kingdom. Five purchasers completed the comparison for the United States and “all foreign

countries” (see appendix K). 2 A rating of “S” on price and U.S. transportation costs indicates that this country has lower prices/costs than the other country.

 3 Nonsubject countries include Italy, Korea, Norway, Russia, Thailand, and Ukraine.

Note.--S=first-listed country’s product is superior; C=both countries’ products are comparable; I=first-listed country’s product is

inferior.

Note.--Not all purchasers responded for every factor.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Purchasers were asked how often they and their customers make purchasing decisions involving

CTL plate based on the producer of the product they purchase and based on the country of origin of the

CTL plate they purchase. Their responses are summarized in the following tabulation:
 37 AHMSA reported that its capacity expansion will not be operational before 2009, if at all. AHMSA’s

posthearing brief, pp. 1 and 3-4.

CTL-II-20

Factor Always Usually Sometimes Rarely/never

Firm purchases based on producer? 10 13 6 10

Customers purchase based on producer? 2 9 14 13

Firm purchases based on country of origin? 7 4 7 21

Customers purchase based on country of origin? 1 5 11 20

When asked how the firm or its customers determine the source, some purchasers reported that

they require the name of the mill prior to the purchase, monitor the track record of the mill, require

documentation for traceability, require test results, and require domestic product by law or by preference. 

When asked why the information is important, purchasers reported that such things as quality,

availability, delivery, logistics, reliability, and price may vary by supplier. *** reported that some

producers create a laser-friendly product, *** reported that only three U.S. mills produce wide plate and

that only one mill produces it in sufficient quantities, and *** reported that many oil companies have

origin restrictions for the CTL plate they buy.

Purchasers were asked if buying a product that is produced in the United States is an important

factor in their purchases of CTL plate. Twenty-three of the 38 responding purchasers reported that it was,

with most saying that purchases of the domestic product are either required by law or regulation or

required by customers. Thirteen purchasers reported that this generally involved a range from less than 1

percent to 30 percent of their purchases of CTL plate, and five purchasers reported that this involved 70

percent or more of their purchases.

Purchasers also were asked how often domestically produced, subject imports, and nonsubject

imports of CTL plate meet minimum quality specifications. Their responses are summarized in the

following tabulation:

Source Always Usually Sometimes Never

Domestically produced 21 15 0 0

Subject imports 5 13 2 0

Nonsubject imports - Russia 3 2 0 0

Nonsubject imports - Thailand 2 2 0 0

Nonsubject imports - Ukraine 2 2 0 0

Nonsubject imports - Canada 0400

Of the 12 purchasers who reported being aware of new suppliers in the market since 2000, eight

cited domestic mills having entered the market and three cited entries from Malaysia and Thailand. Ten

of the 12 reported having purchased from one of the new suppliers cited. Only six responding purchasers

expect new CTL plate suppliers to enter the market in the future, with one reporting that AHMSA of

Mexico is expected to add a new mill and capacity in 2007.37
 38 *** reported a lead time of three to five days for goods produced to order.

 39 Caterpillar reported that in 2006, it has faced lead times from *** for standard CTL plate and *** for heavy

(thick) plate. Caterpillar’s posthearing brief, p. 2.

 40 Large numbers of producers, importers, and purchasers reported that they had no familiarity with imports from

all or most of the subject countries.

CTL-II-21

Lead Times

Nine of the 17 responding producers38 reported selling at least 90 percent of their CTL plate

produced to order, with lead times ranging from 3 to 15 weeks.39 Five producers reported selling at least

70 percent of their CTL plate from inventory, with lead times from two days to one week. The other

three producers reported a relatively even split between selling from inventory and producing to order. 

All seven responding importers reported selling at least 95 percent of their CTL plate produced to

order, with lead times ranging from three to six months.

Ten producers reported offering just-in-time or similar inventory services for CTL plate

customers in the United States. *** reported having a standard plate program of popular sizes and grades,

and *** reported providing a 48-hour order-to-ship service. Three of the 14 responding importers

reported offering these types of services.

Comparisons of Domestic Products, Subject Imports, and Nonsubject Imports

Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked to assess how interchangeable CTL plate from

the United States is with CTL plate from both subject and nonsubject countries. Their answers are

summarized in table CTL-II-8. Generally, producers, importers, and purchasers reported that CTL plate

from the United States and from other countries are always or frequently interchangeable.40 For those

firms that reported that CTL plate is sometimes or never used interchangeably, they were asked to explain

the factors that preclude interchangeable use. *** reported that German producers focus on quality and

niches and that long-term relationships are key. *** reported that differences arise with Mexican, Polish,

Romanian, and Taiwan CTL plate due to size, surface finish, and quality issues. Reported factors cited by

purchasers included different levels of quality and country of origin requirements. *** reported that

certain mills are limited in production capabilities, such as size, thickness, and grade; *** reported that

meeting quality requirements is mill-specific, not country-specific; *** reported that Mexico and

Romania cannot produce the full range of products required in the U.S. market; and *** reported that

Germany produces a patented material that has a unique composition.

Producers and importers were asked to assess how often differences other than price were

significant in sales of CTL plate from the United States, subject countries, and nonsubject countries (table

CTL-II-9). Generally, producers said differences other than price were never significant, while importers

said differences other than price were sometimes or never significant. For those firms that reported that

factors other than price are always or frequently a significant factor in their sales of CTL plate, they were

asked to explain the advantages or disadvantages imparted by such factors. *** reported that lead times

are a factor, and *** reported that CTL plate from the Ukraine has problems with quality and gauge

control, as well as transportation issues. Importers cited factors such as size and product ranges, quality,

shipment, and technical support. *** reported that non-price factors depended on the grade of CTL plate

and that with more sophisticated grades, the interchangeability factor drops.
CTL-II-22

Table CTL-II-8

CTL plate: U.S. producers’, importers’, and purchasers’ perceived degree of interchangeability of products

produced in the United States and in other countries1

Country comparison

U.S. producers U.S. importers U.S. purchasers2

AFSN0AFSN0AFSN0

U.S. vs. Belgium 8 2 0 0 4 5 0 1 0 6 6 3 2 0 15

U.S. vs. Brazil 8 2 0 0 4 5 1 0 0 6 3 5 4 0 14

U.S. vs. Finland 8 2 0 0 4 5 1 0 0 6 5 2 1 0 18

U.S. vs. Germany 8 2 0 0 4 5 1 0 0 7 5 5 3 1 13

U.S. vs. Mexico 8 3 0 0 3 3 4 0 0 5 3 2 5 0 16

U.S. vs. Poland 8 2 0 0 4 3 1 1 0 7 3 2 4 0 17

U.S. vs. Romania 8 2 0 0 4 3 1 2 0 6 3 4 4 0 15

U.S. vs. Spain 8 2 0 0 4 3 1 0 0 8 4 2 2 0 18

U.S. vs. Sweden 8 2 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 7 5 4 2 0 15

U.S. vs. Taiwan 8 2 0 0 4 4 0 1 0 7 3 2 4 0 17

U.S. vs. United Kingdom 8 2 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 8 5 2 3 0 16

U.S. vs. other countries 7 3 0 0 3 3 6 1 0 2 4 7 4 1 11

Belgium vs. Brazil 8 1 0 0 5 4 1 0 0 6 3 2 1 0 17

Belgium vs. Finland 8 1 0 0 5 4 1 0 0 6 4 2 0 0 17

Belgium vs. Germany 8 1 0 0 5 4 0 0 0 7 4 2 0 1 16

Belgium vs. Mexico 8 1 0 0 5 3 2 0 0 6 3 2 1 0 17

Belgium vs. Poland 8 1 0 0 5 3 1 0 0 7 3 2 1 0 17

Belgium vs. Romania 8 1 0 0 5 3 1 1 0 6 3 2 1 0 17

Belgium vs. Spain 8 1 0 0 5 3 1 0 0 7 4 2 0 0 17

Belgium vs. Sweden 8 1 0 0 5 4 0 0 0 7 4 2 0 0 17

Belgium vs. Taiwan 8 1 0 0 5 4 0 0 0 7 3 2 1 0 17

Belgium vs. United Kingdom 8 1 0 0 5 4 0 0 0 7 4 2 0 0 17

Belgium vs. other countries 7 1 0 0 5 3 2 1 0 5 3 1 1 0 17

Brazil vs. Finland 8 1 0 0 5 4 1 0 0 6 4 2 0 0 17

Brazil vs. Germany 8 1 0 0 5 4 0 0 0 7 4 2 0 1 16

Brazil vs. Mexico 8 1 0 0 5 4 1 0 0 6 3 2 1 0 17

Brazil vs. Poland 8 1 0 0 5 3 1 0 0 7 3 2 1 0 17

Brazil vs. Romania 8 1 0 0 5 3 1 0 0 7 3 2 1 0 17

Brazil vs. Spain 8 1 0 0 5 3 1 0 0 7 4 2 0 0 17

Brazil vs. Sweden 8 1 0 0 5 4 0 0 0 7 4 2 0 0 17

Table continued on next page.
CTL-II-23

Table CTL-II-8--Continued

CTL plate: U.S. producers’, importers’, and purchasers’ perceived degree of interchangeability of products

produced in the United States and in other countries1

Country comparison

U.S. producers U.S. importers U.S. purchasers2

AFSN0AFSN0AFSN0

Brazil vs. Taiwan 8 1 0 0 5 4 0 0 0 7 3 2 1 0 17

Brazil vs. United Kingdom 8 1 0 0 5 4 0 0 0 7 4 2 0 0 17

Brazil vs. other countries 7 1 0 0 5 3 2 0 0 6 3 1 1 0 17

Finland vs. Germany 8 1 0 0 5 4 0 0 0 7 4 2 0 1 16

Finland vs. Mexico 8 1 0 0 5 3 2 0 0 6 3 2 1 0 17

Finland vs. Poland 8 1 0 0 5 3 1 0 0 7 3 2 1 0 17

Finland vs. Romania 8 1 0 0 5 3 1 0 0 7 3 2 1 0 17

Finland vs. Spain 8 1 0 0 5 3 1 0 0 7 4 2 0 0 17

Finland vs. Sweden 8 1 0 0 5 4 0 0 0 7 4 2 0 0 17

Finland vs. Taiwan 8 1 0 0 5 4 0 0 0 7 3 2 1 0 17

Finland vs. United Kingdom 8 1 0 0 5 4 0 0 0 7 4 2 0 0 17

Finland vs. other countries 7 1 0 0 5 3 2 0 0 6 3 1 1 0 17

Germany vs. Mexico 8 1 0 0 5 4 1 0 0 6 3 2 1 1 16

Germany vs. Poland 8 1 0 0 5 4 1 0 0 6 3 2 1 1 16

Germany vs. Romania 8 1 0 0 5 4 1 0 0 6 3 2 1 1 16

Germany vs. Spain 8 1 0 0 4 4 1 0 0 6 4 2 0 1 16

Germany vs. Sweden 8 1 0 0 4 4 1 0 0 6 4 2 0 1 16

Germany vs. Taiwan 8 1 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 7 3 2 1 1 16

Germany vs. United Kingdom 8 1 0 0 4 4 1 0 0 6 3 2 1 1 16

Germany vs. other countries 7 1 0 0 4 3 3 0 0 5 3 1 2 1 16

Mexico vs. Poland 8 1 0 0 4 3 0 1 0 7 4 2 0 0 17

Mexico vs. Romania 8 1 0 0 4 3 0 1 0 7 4 2 0 0 17

Mexico vs. Spain 8 1 0 0 4 3 0 1 0 7 4 2 0 0 17

Mexico vs. Sweden 8 1 0 0 4 3 1 0 0 7 4 2 0 0 17

Mexico vs. Taiwan 8 1 0 0 4 3 1 0 0 7 4 2 0 0 17

Mexico vs. United Kingdom 8 1 0 0 4 3 1 0 0 7 4 2 0 0 17

Mexico vs. other countries 7 1 0 0 4 3 2 0 0 6 3 1 1 0 17

Poland vs. Romania 8 1 0 0 4 3 0 1 0 7 4 2 0 0 17

Poland vs. Spain 8 1 0 0 4 3 0 1 0 7 4 2 0 0 17

Poland vs. Sweden 8 1 0 0 4 3 1 0 0 7 4 2 0 0 17

Table continued on next page.
CTL-II-24

Table CTL-II-8--Continued

CTL plate: U.S. producers’, importers’, and purchasers’ perceived degree of interchangeability of products

produced in the United States and in other countries1

Country comparison

U.S. producers U.S. importers U.S. purchasers2

AFSN0AFSN0AFSN0

Poland vs. Taiwan 8 1 0 0 4 3 1 0 0 7 4 2 0 0 17

Poland vs. United Kingdom 8 1 0 0 4 3 1 0 0 7 4 2 0 0 17

Poland vs. other countries 7 1 0 0 4 3 2 0 0 6 4 1 0 0 17

Romania vs. Spain 8 1 0 0 4 3 0 1 0 7 4 2 0 0 17

Romania vs. Sweden 8 1 0 0 4 3 1 0 0 7 4 2 0 0 17

Romania vs. Taiwan 8 1 0 0 4 3 1 0 0 7 4 2 0 0 17

Romania vs. United Kingdom 8 1 0 0 4 3 1 0 0 7 4 2 0 0 17

Romania vs. other countries 7 1 0 0 4 3 2 1 0 5 4 1 0 0 17

Spain vs. Sweden 8 1 0 0 4 3 1 0 0 7 4 2 0 0 17

Spain vs. Taiwan 8 1 0 0 4 3 1 0 0 7 3 2 1 0 17

Spain vs. United Kingdom 8 1 0 0 4 3 1 0 0 7 4 2 0 0 17

Spain vs. other countries 7 1 0 0 4 3 2 0 0 6 3 1 1 0 17

Sweden vs. Taiwan 8 1 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 7 3 2 1 0 17

Sweden vs. United Kingdom 8 1 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 7 4 2 0 0 17

Sweden vs. other countries 7 1 0 0 4 3 2 0 0 6 3 1 1 0 17

Taiwan vs. United Kingdom 8 1 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 7 4 1 0 0 17

Taiwan vs. other countries 7 1 0 0 4 3 2 0 0 6 3 1 1 0 17

United Kingdom vs. other

countries

7 1 0 0 4 3 2 0 0 6 3 1 1 0 17

 1

 Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked if CTL plate produced in the United States and in other countries is used

interchangeably.

 2

 Three purchasers did not fill out the data grid but reported the following: *** reported it had no reason to believe CTL plate

between countries was not fungible; *** reported that the CTL plate it buys is interchangeable; and *** reported that if the CTL

plate is produced to the same specifications, all domestic and imported CTL plate is interchangeable.

Note.--“A” = Always, “F” = Frequently, “S” = Sometimes, “N” = Never, and “0” = No familiarity.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
CTL-II-25

Table CTL-II-9

CTL plate: U.S. producers’ and importers’ perceived importance of factors other than price in sales of

product produced in the United States and in other countries1

Country comparison

U.S. producers U.S. importers

AFSN0AFSN0

U.S. vs. Belgium 0 2 0 8 4 1 2 1 1 3

U.S. vs. Brazil 0 2 0 8 4 1 0 2 1 4

U.S. vs. Finland 0 2 0 8 4 1 2 1 1 3

U.S. vs. Germany 0 2 0 8 4 1 1 1 1 4

U.S. vs. Mexico 0 3 0 8 3 1 1 2 1 3

U.S. vs. Poland 0 2 0 8 4 1 0 2 1 4

U.S. vs. Romania 0 2 0 8 4 1 1 2 1 3

U.S. vs. Spain 0 2 0 8 4 1 0 2 1 4

U.S. vs. Sweden 0208411114

U.S. vs. Taiwan 0 2 0 8 4 1 0 1 1 5

U.S. vs. United Kingdom 0208411114

U.S. vs. other countries 0307313310

Belgium vs. Brazil 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 2 1 5

Belgium vs. Finland 0 1 0 8 5 1 2 1 1 4

Belgium vs. Germany 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 2 1 5

Belgium vs. Mexico 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 2 1 5

Belgium vs. Poland 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 2 1 5

Belgium vs. Romania 0 1 0 8 5 1 1 2 1 4

Belgium vs. Spain 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 2 1 5

Belgium vs. Sweden 0108511115

Belgium vs. Taiwan 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 1 1 6

Belgium vs. United Kingdom 0108511115

Belgium vs. other countries 0107512213

Brazil vs. Finland 0 1 0 8 5 1 1 2 1 4

Brazil vs. Germany 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 2 1 5

Brazil vs. Mexico 0 1 0 8 5 1 1 1 1 5

Brazil vs. Poland 0 1 0 8 5 1 1 1 1 5

Brazil vs. Romania 0 1 0 8 5 1 1 1 1 5

Brazil vs. Spain 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 2 1 5

Brazil vs. Sweden 0108510215

Table continued on next page.
CTL-II-26

Table CTL-II-9--Continued

CTL plate: U.S. producers’ and importers’ perceived importance of factors other than price in sales of

product produced in the United States and in other countries1

Country comparison

U.S. producers U.S. importers

AFSN0AFSN0

Brazil vs. Taiwan 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 1 1 6

Brazil vs. United Kingdom 0108510215

Brazil vs. other countries 0107511214

Finland vs. Germany 0108510215

Finland vs. Mexico 0108510215

Finland vs. Poland 0108510215

Finland vs. Romania 0108510215

Finland vs. Spain 0108510215

Finland vs. Sweden 0108510215

Finland vs. Taiwan 0108510116

Finland vs. United Kingdom 0108510215

Finland vs. other countries 0107511214

Germany vs. Mexico 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 2 1 5

Germany vs. Poland 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 2 1 5

Germany vs. Romania 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 2 1 5

Germany vs. Spain 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 2 1 5

Germany vs. Sweden 0108511115

Germany vs. Taiwan 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 1 1 6

Germany vs. United Kingdom 0108511115

Germany vs. other countries 0107511214

Mexico vs. Poland 0 1 0 8 5 1 1 1 1 5

Mexico vs. Romania 0 1 0 8 5 1 1 1 1 5

Mexico vs. Spain 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 2 1 5

Mexico vs. Sweden 0108510215

Mexico vs. Taiwan 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 1 1 6

Mexico vs. United Kingdom 0108510215

Mexico vs. other countries 0107511214

Poland vs. Romania 0108511115

Poland vs. Spain 0108510215

Poland vs. Sweden 0108510215

Table continued on next page.
CTL-II-27

Table CTL-II-9--Continued

CTL plate: U.S. producers’ and importers’ perceived importance of factors other than price in

sales of product produced in the United States and in other countries1

Country comparison

U.S. producers U.S. importers

AFSN0AFSN0

Poland vs. Taiwan 0108510116

Poland vs. United Kingdom 0108510215

Poland vs. other countries 0107511214

Romania vs. Spain 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 2 1 5

Romania vs. Sweden 0108510215

Romania vs. Taiwan 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 1 1 6

Romania vs. United Kingdom 0108510215

Romania vs. other countries 0107512213

Spain vs. Sweden 0108510215

Spain vs. Taiwan 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 1 1 6

Spain vs. United Kingdom 0108510215

Spain vs. other countries 0107511214

Sweden vs. Taiwan 0108510115

Sweden vs. United Kingdom 0108510214

Sweden vs. other countries 0107511213

Taiwan vs. United Kingdom 0108510115

Taiwan vs. other countries 0107511114

United Kingdom vs. other countries 0107511213

 1 Producers and importers were asked if differences other than price between CTL plate produced in the United States and in

other countries are a significant factor in their sales of the products.

Note.--“A” = Always, “F” = Frequently, “S” = Sometimes, “N” = Never, and “0” = No familiarity.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 41 Within the range, there may be differences in terms of the domestic industry’s ability to increase or decrease

shipments of the many different types of CTL plate, from commodity grades up through specialty products. 

 42 Joint respondent interested parties reported that they question the “highly implausible capacity utilization

figures” reported by the domestic industry, and that the domestic supply elasticity more likely approaches 0. Joint

respondent interested parties’ prehearing brief, p. 23.

 43 The substitution elasticity measures the responsiveness of the relative U.S. consumption levels of the subject

imports and the domestic like products to changes in their relative prices. This reflects how easily purchasers switch

from the U.S. product to the subject products (or vice versa) when prices change.

 44 Joint respondent interested parties reported that U.S. producers are unable or unwilling to produce specialty

plate in quantities sufficient to satisfy domestic demand and that an elasticity of substitution of 0.5 to 2.5 is more

appropriate for countries like Germany and the United Kingdom, whereas the range of 3 to 5 might be accurate for

countries like Romania. Joint respondent interested parties’ prehearing brief, p. 33.

CTL-II-28

ELASTICITY ESTIMATES

U.S. Supply Elasticity

The domestic supply elasticity for CTL plate measures the sensitivity of the quantity supplied by

U.S. producers to changes in the U.S. market price of CTL plate. The elasticity of domestic supply

depends on several factors including the level of excess capacity, the ease with which producers can alter

capacity, producers’ ability to shift to and from production of other products, the existence of inventories,

and the availability of alternate markets for U.S.-produced CTL plate. Earlier analysis of these factors

indicates that the U.S. industry has a small to moderate ability to increase or decrease shipments to the

U.S. market; an estimate in the range of 1 to 341 is suggested.42

U.S. Demand Elasticity

The U.S. demand elasticity for CTL plate measures the sensitivity of the overall quantity

demanded to a change in the U.S. market price of CTL plate. This estimate depends on factors discussed

earlier such as the existence, availability, and commercial viability of substitute products, as well as the

component share of CTL plate in the production of any downstream products. Based on the available

information, the aggregate demand elasticity for CTL plate is likely to be in a range of -0.3 to -0.7.

Substitution Elasticity

The elasticity of substitution depends upon the extent of product differentiation between the

domestic and imported products.43 Product differentiation, in turn, depends upon such factors as quality

and conditions of sale. Based on available information concerning product range, quality, availability,

and degree of substitution, the elasticity of substitution between domestic and subject CTL plate is likely

to be in the range of 3 to 5 for all 11 subject countries.44
 1

 In the first reviews, the Commission included processors within the definition of the domestic industry,

consistent with the views expressed in its January 2000 investigations on CTL plate ( “We include all producers of

CTL plate in the domestic industry, whether toll producers, integrated producers, or processors.” Certain Cut-toLength Steel Plate From France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, and Korea, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-387-391 (Final) and

731-TA-816-821 (Final), USITC Publication 3273, January 2000, p. 10.) The Commission had reached a similar

conclusion in the previous investigations involving CTL plate as well. See Certain Carbon Steel Plate from China,

Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-753-756, USITC Publication 3076, December 1997, p. 12.

As discussed in those investigations, processors invest a substantial amount of capital in relatively

sophisticated processing operations, and account for a sizeable share of overall employment of the U.S. industry. In

2005, U.S. processors reported 874 production and related workers and capital expenditures of $6.8 million. As in

2000, the manufacturing equipment and processes used by service centers to decoil and cut to length coiled plate is

the same as that used by the domestic mills to produce CTL plate from coiled plate. While the Commission noted in

2000 that the overall value added by processors is small, the processing performed by the service centers converts

coiled plate - a commodity that is not part of the domestic like product - into CTL plate. 

 2

 Three U.S. producers provided business plans and three provided internal documents that describe, discuss, or

analyze future market conditions or market conditions if the orders were revoked.

CTL-III-1

PART CTL-III: CONDITION OF THE U.S. INDUSTRY

The information in this section of the report was compiled from responses to the Commission’s

questionnaires. Fourteen mills and 10 processors,1

 which together accounted for the vast majority of U.S.

production of CTL plate during the period for which data were collected, supplied information on their

operations.2

 Staff also included previously-reported data from Geneva Steel, which filed for bankruptcy

in February 1999, emerged from bankruptcy as Geneva Steel Holdings in January 2001, shut down its

operations in December 2001, and filed for bankruptcy again in January 2002.

Table CTL-III-1 summarizes important industry events that have taken place since January 2000.

Table CTL-III-1

CTL plate: Important industry events, January 2000-November 2006

Year Company 

Description of event 

(merger, shutdown, bankruptcy, change in capacity) 

2000 

Gulf States Steel 

Closure: While in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings, mill closes

and company is liquidated. The new owner subsequently announces

plans to develop the property into an industrial park and sell the

equipment to companies in China. 

LTV1 Bankruptcy: Files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. 

Nucor New Mill: Opens new plate mill in North Carolina. 

2001 

Geneva Closure: Production of CTL plate halted. 

IPSCO New Mill: Opens new plate mill in Alabama. 

Newport1

Closure: Ceases producing its own hot-rolled steel for pipe

production. 

Table continued on next page.
CTL-III-2

Table CTL-III-1--Continued

CTL plate: Important industry events, January 2000-November 2006

Year Company 

Description of event 

(merger, shutdown, bankruptcy, change in capacity) 

2002 

Acme Steel1

Bought Out: In Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, Acme is liquidated.

International Steel Group (ISG) purchases and operates Acme’s major

assets.

Gallatin Steel Co. 

Acquisition: Purchases assets of Huntco Steel (a service center) in

Ghent, KY, in order to process its own steel products. 

Geneva Bankruptcy: Enters Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings. 

International Steel Group Acquisition: Created by the acquisition of LTV and Acme Steel. 

Kentucky Electric Steel Closure: Plant closes. 

LTV1

Bought Out: ISG purchases many of the assets of LTV (including the

plate mill). LTV is liquidated. 

National Steel1 Bankruptcy: Files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

2003

Bethlehem 

Bought Out: ISG purchases most of Bethlehem’s assets, including

the plate mills. Bethlehem Steel is liquidated. 

International Steel Group 

Acquisition, Capacity Expansion, Manufacturing Change:

Acquires Bethlehem Steel. Exchanges its pickle line at Indiana Harbor

Works for U.S. Steel’s Gary Works’ plate mill but elects not to roll plate

at Gary, instead directing raw steel to other facilities. 

Kentucky Electric Steel

Bankruptcy: Files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. A newly

formed entity, KES Acquisition Co. LLC, purchases the assets of

Kentucky Electric Steel and restarts production in early 2004. 

National1

Bought Out: U.S. Steel purchases and operates substantially all of

the assets. National is liquidated. 

Oregon Steel 

Manufacturing Change: Idles melt shop in Portland, OR, and relies

solely on purchased slabs for feedstock at that facility. 

U.S. Steel 

Acquisition, Capacity Reduction, Manufacturing Change: Acquires

the integrated steelmaking assets of National Steel and exchanges the

assets of its CTL plate business, including the plate mill at Gary

Works, for the assets of ISG's No. 2 pickle line at Indiana Harbor

Works. U.S. Steel continues to produce plate in coils. 

WCI1 Bankruptcy: Enters Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. 

2004

Corus Tuscaloosa 

Bought Out: Nucor purchases substantially all of Tuscaloosa’s

steelmaking assets. 

Kentucky Electric Steel Reopening: Plant reopens.

North Star 

Bought Out: Cargill, Inc. (parent company of North Star) sells fixed

assets and working capital of North Star to Gerdau Ameristeel. 

Nucor 

Acquisition: Purchases substantially all of the steelmaking assets of

Corus Tuscaloosa. 

Oregon Steel 

Manufacturing Change: Idles pipe mill at Napa facility to focus on

plate production. 

Table continued on next page.
 3

 Staff notes that data for 2000 and 2001 are slightly understated, as they do not include limited production by

Gulf States Steel prior to its closure; the operations of Kentucky Electric Steel prior to its closure and subsequent

acquisition; and the bar mills acquired by Gerdau Ameristeel. Kentucky Electric began production on January 26,

2004. There are no historical records detailing Kentucky Electric’s CTL plate production prior to this date available

to the Commission. Estimating production based on public records (e.g., 10-K statements) prior to the facility

reopening is not possible due to the lack of detail of the product mix available in public reports. Staff telephone

interview ***, August 24, 2006.

 4

 Additionally, ***.

 5

 Frank Haflich, Geneva’s assets slow sail to China; furnace sold back, American Metal Markets, March 8, 2005,

found at http://www.amm.com/news-2005-03-08__14-15-22.html, retrieved August 15, 2005.

 6

 This mill has been idle since it was acquired by Mittal. CTL plate hearing transcript, p. 132 (Fabina).

CTL-III-3

Table CTL-III-1--Continued

CTL plate: Important industry events, January 2000-November 2006

Year Company 

Description of event 

(merger, shutdown, bankruptcy, change in capacity) 

2005

Citisteel / Claymont

Bought Out: H.I.G. Capital, a U.S.-based private equity and venture

capital investment firm, acquires mill in June 2005. Citisteel now

operates under the name Claymont Steel.

ISG 

Bought Out, Capacity Expansion: In April, shareholders of ISG

approve the $4.5-billion acquisition by Mittal Steel, a company based

in the Netherlands. Also, Mittal Steel re-starts the 110-inch plate mill at

Burns Harbor, IN (formerly ISG’s mill) which had been idle since 2000. 

Kentucky Electric Steel

Bought Out: YouthStream Media Networks, Inc. acquired KES

Acquisition Co., LLC, the owner and operator of Kentucky Electric

Steel.

2006

Mittal

Temporary Capacity Reduction: Sparrows Point and

Conshohocken mills both temporarily idled in June because of furnace

issues. Both mills are fully operational, but in late October one of the

Burns Harbor blast furnaces was idled due to a mishap. It is expected

to be fully operational by mid-November.

Oregon

Purchase Offer: Russian steel manufacturer Evraz to pay $2.3 billion

for Oregon, and will supply the U.S. operations with Russian slabs to

be rolled into steel plate.

 1 While capable of producing strip mill plate, actual production of CTL plate is believed to be minimal.

Source: AMM, Steel News, company websites and annual reports, and other press articles.

U.S. PRODUCERS’ CAPACITY, PRODUCTION, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION

As shown in table CTL-III-2, overall U.S. producers’ capacity in 2005 was higher than in 2000.3

Capacity fluctuated noticeably during the intervening years, however, reflecting mill openings, mill

closures, and asset swaps among mills.4

 In 2000, Geneva Steel had the capacity to produce *** short tons

of CTL plate. The closure of Geneva Steel in December 2001 removed this capacity from the U.S. plate

market. Ultimately, Geneva’s production assets were sold to a Chinese firm, Qindao Iron & Steel

Company.5

 The effect on domestic capacity from this closure, however, was mitigated by the ramping up

of production at Nucor’s and IPSCO’s facilities (discussed below). The decline in capacity from 2003 to

2004 can be attributed primarily to the idling of U.S. Steel’s Gary Works plate mill, now owned by

Mittal.6

 Production decreased between 2000 and 2001, recovered in 2002, then increased markedly in

2004. The trend was sustained in 2005, and production in January-June 2006 was higher than in January

to June 2005, reflecting greater output by ten reporting mills and by eight reporting processors.
 7

 As shown in table CTL-III-3, however, reported production and capacity for all CTL plate products reflects an

even higher level of capacity utilization.

 8

 Mill capacity includes wide flat bar capacity. Although bar mills account for only a fraction of overall plate

capacity, they account for a disproportionate share of available capacity. In 2005, available wide flat bar capacity

was 495,003 short tons whereas available CTL plate mill capacity was 1,211,476 short tons. In January-June 2006,

available wide flat bar capacity was 232,798 short tons whereas available CTL plate mill capacity was 217,332 short

tons (appendix tables C-1, C-1a, and C-5).

CTL-III-4

Table CTL-III-2

CTL plate: U.S. capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January -

June 2006

Item

Calendar year January-June

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006

Capacity 10,086,195 10,382,440 10,600,470 11,138,353 10,629,073 10,793,425 5,370,412 5,524,993

Production 6,322,806 5,676,017 6,089,710 6,286,468 6,883,546 7,119,199 3,453,719 4,184,481

Capacity

utilization

(percent) 62.7 54.7 57.4 56.4 64.7 65.7 64.1 75.5

Note.–Capacity allocation for *** was based on a method devised by staff and approved by ***. *** supplied the Commission with

overall CTL plate capacity and production of specified plate products. The ratios of the individual shares of overall production of

the specified products were applied to overall capacity to estimate the shares of specified products’ allocated capacity.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

After a steep decline between 2000 and 2001, capacity utilization generally increased over the

period for which data were collected, and reached its highest level in January-June 2006 at 75.5 percent.7

Mills’ share of the domestic industry’s CTL plate total capacity in 2005 was 64.9 percent, and accounted

for 74.5 percent of CTL plate production. Mills, however, accounted for about 1.7 million short tons of

available capacity in 2005,8

 while service centers accounted for about 2 million short tons of available

capacity. Throughout the period for which data were collected, processors operated at capacity utilization

rates between 43 percent and 53 percent (appendix table CTL-C-1b). During the same period, mills

operated at higher capacity utilization rates than processors, from 60 to 88 percent. Both U.S. processors

and U.S. mills recorded their highest levels of capacity utilization in January-June 2006.

Most responding firms experienced changes to their operations relating to the production of CTL

plate since 2000. In addition to Geneva’s closing, other firms experienced closures in their operations.

CSI shut down its CTL plate operations in October 2004, removing *** short tons of capacity. In May

2003, Oregon closed its Portland melt shop, opting to ***. In addition, Jindal reported that it was shut

down for *** months in late 2003. Its operations, however, were restarted, in contrast to the

aforementioned permanent closures, and subsequently ***.

Gerdau Ameristeel acquired its Cartersville, GA, mill in 2002, then expanded further in 2004

with its Calvert City and Wilton, IA, mills. Gerdau primarily produces long products, however, it

produces wide flat bar on bar mills at these facilities. Kentucky Electric Steel, LLC, another producer of

wide flat bar, bought the assets of the predecessor company (Kentucky Electric) in 2002. The mill

remained idle through 2003 and restarted in 2004. In 2003, Robinson acquired full ownership of a CTL

plate line in Granite City, IL, which was until then a joint venture with National Steel. Steel Warehouse

opened facilities in Memphis, TN, and Chattanooga, TN.

More substantial expansions are Nucor’s and IPSCO’s plant openings that added a total of ***

short tons of new capacity to the domestic industry. Nucor added capacity with a greenfield expansion

when it completed construction of its Hertford County, NC, facility, beginning production in October
 9

 Corus is a respondent interested party with CTL plate operations in the United Kingdom.

 10 Nucor’s producer questionnaire, section II-5.

 11 Mishap idles BF at Mittal Steel USA’s Burns Harbor works, Steel Business Briefing, October 26, 2006, found

in Brazilian’s respondent interested parties’ posthearing brief, exhibit 2, article 1.

 12 E-mail, ***, November 21, 2006.

 13 *** producer questionnaires, section II-2, II-3, and II-5.

CTL-III-5

2000 and commencing commercial operations in 2001. Capacity at the Hertford mill *** during the

period. On July 17, 2004, Nucor acquired Corus’ Tuscaloosa, AL, plate mill.9

 

Nucor reported that it *** capacity at these two facilities with changes in operating practices and

learning curve efficiencies. It also reported that ***.10

IPSCO reported that it began production of CTL plate at its minimill in Mobile County, AL, in

the first quarter of 2001. This new capability complemented the company’s previous additions to its coil

processing capability. In the second quarter of 2000, IPSCO Texas began producing CTL plate at its

temper level coil processing plant in Houston. In the fourth quarter of 2000, a temper mill was added to

IPSCO Minnesota Inc.’s coil processing facility in St. Paul, MN.

 On October 31, 2003, United States Steel Corporation (“U.S. Steel”) and International Steel

Group (“ISG,” now Mittal) completed an exchange of most of the assets of U.S. Steel’s plate business,

which included the 160" plate mill at Gary Works, for the assets of ISG’s No. 2 pickle line at Indiana

Harbor Works. U.S. Steel has continued to produce strip mill plate in limited quantities. U.S. Steel

rebuilt its No. 13 blast furnace at Gary Works, which has improved its hot-rolled operations, which

produce CTL plate in coils for processing by ***.

The extensive changes experienced by Bethlehem/ISG/Mittal are noted in table CTL-III-1. On

April 15, 2005, ISG was merged with Mittal Steel Company, NV. Subsequently, Mittal reactivated the

Burns Harbor 110" mill plate mill, which had been idled since 2000, in May 2005. This mill has the

capacity to produce *** short tons per year, although it is currently staffed to operate at only *** short

tons per year. This production schedule is expected to ***. Mittal’s Sparrow Point blast furnace was

temporarily idled in June 2006 due to an electrical storm, but is now repaired and fully operational. Also

in June 2006, Mittal’s Conshohocken plate mill was temporarily idled as a result of a motor failure, and

became operational ***. On October 24, 2006, one of Mittal’s Burns Harbor blast furnaces was idled due

to a mishap.11 The blast furnace returned to planned levels of operation on November 8, 2006.12

Mittal’s labor agreements have undergone extensive changes. Mittal’s predecessor, ISG, enacted

revised labor agreements with its purchase of Bethlehem Steel. In addition to a reduction in salaries,

healthcare benefits, Bethlehem’s unfunded $3.7 billion pension plan was transferred to the Pension

Benefit Guarantee Corporation. ISG’s labor agreement with the United Steelworkers of America, created

in 2004 and in effect until 2008, established a trust to fund retiree, health, and welfare benefits. 

Contributions to the trust are based on quarterly profits and overtime hours worked. 

Several firms reported no changes or changes that have had neither a significant impact on

individual firms or the industry as a whole.13

Anticipated Changes in Existing Operations

The Commission asked domestic producers to report anticipated changes in their operations. ***

will not affect plate operations or capacity. If domestic plate demand declines, *** contends that it will

have to reconsider the operations of ***. Any expected changes would be in response to domestic

demand.

IPSCO is in the process of ***. IPSCO is also ***. This will not affect overall CTL plate

production capacity, but ***. IPSCO reported that ***. Success of these operations is considered to be
 14 CTL plate hearing transcript, p. 87 (Tulloch).

 15 CTL plate hearing transcript, p. 137 (Insetta).

 16 Mittal's posthearing, brief, response to Staff question.

 17 Nucor’s posthearing brief, exhibit 11, p. 8.

 18 IPSCO’s and Oregon's posthearing brief, answers to Commissioners' questions, 14.

 19 According to a presentation at a breakout session on carbon and alloy plate at the MSCI Economic Summit

(Forecast 2007), both Nucor and IPSCO reported strong demand through the first three quarters of 2006, and as late

as September forecast strong end use demand through 2007, while noting existing import levels and service center

inventory levels. IPSCO indicated that routine maintenance outages starting in the first quarter of 2007 would be

more significant than in 2006, but would remain within historical ranges. IPSCO’s and Oregon's posthearing brief,

answers to Commissioners' questions, exhibit 5.

 20 Producers’ questionnaire, section II-6.

 21 Oregon’s producer questionnaire, II-10a, however, does not show reduction in plate capacity.

 22 Producers’ questionnaire, section II-9.

CTL-III-6

contingent upon the maintenance and findings against unfair trade. Likewise, Nucor reported, assuming

there are no import surges, ***.

In addition to the outages Mittal has experienced recently, Nucor reported that it will be idling

facilities14 and Mittal reported that it will reduce hours of operations due to slackening demand.15 Planned

idling for 2006 for Mittal includes melt shop outages for the Coatsville and Conshohocken plants from

October 22 through October 26. Mittal’s 160 inch plate mill will be down for repairs from November 18

through November 26.16 Nucor reported having scheduled planned outages at its Hertford mill in April

2007 and at its Tuscaloosa mill in June 2007, each lasting nine to ten days, and does not anticipate

additional outages.17 IPSCO reported that it takes down its rolling mill for routine maintenance for 48

hours once a month without fail, and IPSCO has an annual seven day maintenance outage planned for

January 2007, which it is subject to rescheduling, depending on order book levels.18 Oregon reported that

it is shifting a seven day maintenance outage from the first quarter of 2007 to the fourth quarter of 2006

due to a lack of orders. IPSCO will additionally take ten days out of the schedule for both the Mobile and

Montpellier mills if there is no improvement in orders.19

Alternative Products

IPSCO reported that it can produce hot-rolled coil, slabs, CTL sheet, and alloy plate on the same

equipment and machinery used to produce CTL plate.20 Nucor’s Hertford facility is dedicated to

producing plate, while its Tuscaloosa mill produces coiled plate. Oregon commissioned a new Steckel

mill in 1997 which has the flexibility to produce both CTL plate and coiled plate. Since 2000, coiled

plate *** and is expected to ***.21 Olympic also produces hot-rolled and stainless sheet. Wide flat bar

producers CMC and Kentucky Electric primarily produce long products.

Shifting from producing CTL plate to other products, while possible, is not always desirable.

IPSCO can produce slab for resale and hot-rolled coil products. However, to produce these other

products, ***.22 *** noted that price is but one factor among many (e.g., forward production planning,

customer needs, pre-existing commitments to customers, and operating flexibility) when considering

switching product mix. Any change to operations would have to be justified for a long-term sustainable

shift. 

As shown in table CTL-III-3, the Commission collected data on nonsubject CTL production. 

Data including production of micro-alloy CTL plate are presented in appendix C.
 23 According to Canadian import statistics, during the period 2000-05, the quantity of CTL plate imports from all

sources increased by 96 percent. The quantity of imports from the United States rose by 84 percent during this

period. In 2005, imports from the United States represented 63 percent of all imports. German CTL plate

respondent interested parties’ posthearing brief, appendix 6. The magnitude of overall Canadian CTL plate imports

and the United States share is similarly reflected in Canadian import statistics provided by IPSCO’s and Oregon’s

posthearing brief, exhibit 7. During this period, Stelco, a producer in Canada, ceased CTL plate production. CTL

plate hearing transcript, p. 31 (Ortiz). In addition, Canada has rescinded orders on CTL plate from Mexico in 2003

(AHMSA’s CTL plate prehearing brief, exhibit 15). Canada has also rescinded orders on CTL plate from Spain in

2004, and Brazil and Finland in 2005 (Joint respondents’ prehearing brief, exhibit 15).

 24 *** reported that free trade agreements create additional availability of product that results in lower costs.

CTL-III-7

Table CTL-III-3

CTL plate: U.S. capacity, production, and capacity utilization for subject and nonsubject CTL plate, 2005,

January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

Item

Calendar year January-June

2005 2005 2006

Quantity (short tons)

Capacity (short tons) 13,468,127 6,721,846 6,988,369

Production (short tons)

Subject CTL plate 7,004,588 3,442,204 4,069,157

Specifically excluded (e.g., X-70) CTL plate *** *** ***

Micro-alloy CTL plate 1,592,810 812,471 953,006

Other nonsubject (e.g., alloy) steel plate *** *** ***

Total production of CTL plate 9,700,738 4,811,612 5,718,289

Capacity utilization (percent) 72.0 71.6 81.8

Note.– Subject CTL plate data presented in the above table differ from data presented in table CTL-III-2 because several

producers relied on separate sources of data to generate the requisite information.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. PRODUCERS’ DOMESTIC SHIPMENTS, COMPANY TRANSFERS,

AND EXPORT SHIPMENTS

Data on domestic producers’ shipments of CTL plate are presented in table CTL-III-4. From

2000 to 2005, the quantity of the domestic industry’s U.S. shipments increased by more than 500,000

short tons. Likewise, the quantity of U.S. shipments in January-June 2006 was 561,620 short tons greater

than the quantity in January-June 2005. The average unit values of U.S. shipments ranged between $341

and $358 per short ton between 2000 and 2003, increased to $628 per short ton in 2004, and have been

above $700 since 2005. As a result, the value of U.S. shipments by the domestic industry increased by

more than $2.4 billion between 2000 and 2005, and was nearly $292 million higher in January-June 2006

than in January-June 2005.

Export shipments by the U.S. industry also rose, increasing by 86.6 percent from 2000 to 2005

and registering continued gains in January-June 2006 relative to January-June 2005. The primary export

markets for U.S. producers are Mexico and Canada.23 Most U.S. producers (including ***, which

reportedly does a limited amount of business in these countries) reported that free trade agreements such

as NAFTA do not affect the character of their operations,24 although ***, which has ***, reported that

NAFTA facilitates the flow of goods across borders and enables the company to take advantage of market

opportunities and optimize the use of its facilities.
CTL-III-8

Table CTL-III-4

CTL plate: U.S. producers’ shipments, by type, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

Calendar year January-June

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006

Quantity (short tons)

Commercial shipments 6,019,012 5,470,738 5,814,176 5,901,038 6,305,145 6,514,075 3,258,209 3,744,474

Internal consumption *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 U.S. shipments 6,115,864 5,595,208 5,988,501 6,041,385 6,442,052 6,618,088 3,304,432 3,866,052

Export shipments 233,283 146,677 197,405 306,342 425,436 435,382 154,323 298,047

 Total 6,349,147 5,741,885 6,185,906 6,347,727 6,867,488 7,053,470 3,458,755 4,164,099

Value (1,000 dollars)

Commercial shipments 2,204,991 1,869,937 1,989,459 2,111,915 3,956,100 4,613,788 2,422,204 2,659,805

Internal consumption *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 U.S. shipments 2,242,250 1,909,806 2,050,077 2,164,450 4,047,066 4,685,560 2,452,976 2,744,626

Export shipments 86,689 49,835 65,408 107,006 279,701 314,340 115,086 210,273

 Total 2,328,939 1,959,641 2,115,485 2,271,456 4,326,768 4,999,900 2,568,062 2,954,899

Unit value (per short ton)

Commercial shipments $366 $342 $342 $358 $627 $708 $743 $710

Internal consumption *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 U.S. shipments 367 341 342 358 628 708 742 710

Export shipments 372 340 331 349 657 722 746 706

 Average 367 341 342 358 630 709 742 710

Share of quantity (percent)

Commercial shipments 94.8 95.3 94.0 93.0 91.8 92.4 94.2 89.9

Internal consumption *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 U.S. shipments 96.3 97.4 96.8 95.2 93.8 93.8 95.5 92.8

Export shipments 3.7 2.6 3.2 4.8 6.2 6.2 4.5 7.2

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of value (percent)

Commercial shipments 94.7 95.4 94.0 93.0 91.4 92.3 94.3 90.0

Internal consumption *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 U.S. shipments 96.3 97.5 96.9 95.3 93.5 93.7 95.5 92.9

Export shipments 3.7 2.5 3.1 4.7 6.5 6.3 4.5 7.1

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 25 To provide public data, this tabulation is based on official export statistics of Commerce for the following HTS

statistical reporting numbers: 7208.40.0000, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0050, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000,

7208.90.0000, 7210.70.0000, 7210.90.5000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0000, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.0000, and

7212.50.0000. These data are not an exact match with domestic producers’ reported exports. Staff believes that,

while markedly higher, the export statistics accurately reflect the trend in exports to primary markets.

 26 The Brazilian producers' posthearing brief (exhibit 1, p. 2) characterized service center inventory data as

reflecting mostly nonsubject merchandise. Commission staff believes that the service center data presented above is

a reliable depiction of the trend in plate inventories. Although these data do include some nonsubject plate (i.e.,

plate in coils), they include only carbon plate. E-mail, ***, November 2, 2006. Additionally, plate in coils held by

service centers, unlike plate in coils held by fabricators or pipe mills, frequently is converted into CTL plate.

CTL-III-9

As the following tabulation demonstrates, exports to Canada and Mexico ranged between 85 and

97 percent of U.S. exports of CTL plate.25

Source

Calendar year January-June

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006

Quantity (short tons)

Canada 396,241 353,911 471,113 492,414 629,115 686,258 336,868 431,851

Mexico 171,174 164,200 132,814 177,776 206,366 201,425 90,438 130,926

All others 32,390 29,106 17,995 22,622 42,680 158,036 35,749 42,953

 Total 599,805 547,217 621,922 692,812 878,161 1,045,719 463,055 605,730

U.S. PRODUCERS’ INVENTORIES

Data collected in these reviews on U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories of CTL plate are

presented in table CTL-III-5. The domestic industry’s inventories of CTL plate experienced a decline

from its peak year in 2000 to 2001 and then fluctuated in a generally downward trend. Domestic industry

inventories relative to U.S. and total shipments also were highest in 2000, decreased through 2005, and

were lower in January-June 2006 than in January-June 2005.

Table CTL-III-5

CTL plate: U.S. producers’ inventories, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

Calendar year January-June

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006

Quantity (short tons)

Inventories 698,145 609,687 564,800 573,515 546,697 526,917 481,010 521,320

Ratios (percent)

Ratio to production 11.0 10.7 9.3 9.1 7.9 7.4 7.0 6.2

Ratio to U.S. shipments 11.4 10.9 9.4 9.5 8.5 8.0 7.3 6.7

Ratio to total shipments 11.0 10.6 9.1 9.0 8.0 7.5 7.0 6.3

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Figure CTL-III-1 illustrates inventories of plate held by U.S. service centers and the number of

months of shipments on hand.26
 27 *** is a service center, and did not provide the Commission with a response for why it imported subject CTL

plate. *** importer questionnaire response, section II-6.

 28 This response was included in *** importer questionnaire response, section II-6. *** acts as an importer

whereas *** is a CTL plate producer in the United States.

 29 ***, domestic producer questionnaire supplement.

CTL-III-10

Figure CTL-III-1

Plate: Inventories held by U.S. service centers, by months, January 2000-October 20061

 1 SSCI data include both CTL and coiled plate. Also, these inventories include plate from both domestic and foreign sources.

Source: Business Conditions, Steel Service Center Institute (Cleveland, OH), October 2006.

U.S. PRODUCERS’ IMPORTS AND PURCHASES

Data concerning U.S. producers’ direct imports of CTL plate are shown in table III-6. Two U.S.

producers reported importing CTL plate from a subject country. ***.27 ***. Although the importing

entity *** reported that it does not produce subject goods within the United States,28 the CTL plate

producing division ***. ***.29

Table CTL-III-6

CTL plate: U.S. producers’ direct imports, by sources, 2000-05, January-June 2005 and January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

In addition, table III-7 presents U.S. producers’ reported purchases of CTL plate.

Table CTL-III-7

CTL plate: U.S. producers’ purchases, by sources, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

01-Jan-00

01-Apr-00

01-Jul-00

01-Oct-0001-Jan-01

01-Apr-01

01-Jul-01

01-Oct-0101-Jan-02

01-Apr-02

01-Jul-02

01-Oct-0201-Jan-03

01-Apr-03

01-Jul-03

01-Oct-0301-Jan-04

01-Apr-04

01-Jul-04

01-Oct-0401-Jan-05

01-Apr-05

01-Jul-05

01-Oct-0501-Jan-06

01-Apr-06

01-Jul-06

1-Oct-06

Month/Year

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

Inventories (thousand tons) Shipments on Hand (number of months)
 30 Comparisons of company-specific productivity data are complicated by the variety of production methods used

to manufacture CTL plate, including traditional integrated production; minimill plate and bar-mill production via

electric arc furnaces; production by mills that purchase and roll slab, but do not themselves produce the input; and of

course processors that acquire hot-rolled coils in plate thicknesses and then level and shear the product to form CTL

plate.

 31 Historical data for Geneva only included data for 2000. The closure of the mill, then, is reflected in the yearon-year change for 2000-01 instead of 2001-02.

CTL-III-11

U.S. PRODUCERS’ EMPLOYMENT, WAGES, AND PRODUCTIVITY

Table CTL-III-8 provides data on U.S. CTL plate producers’ production and related workers. 

Between 2000 and 2005 production and related workers, hours worked, and wages paid (despite rising

hourly wages) all trended downward, offset by substantially higher productivity, leading to an overall

reduction in labor costs.30

Table CTL-III-8

CTL plate: U.S. producers’ employment-related indicators, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June

2006

Item

Calendar year January-June

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006

Production and

related workers

(PRWs) 5,547 4,869 4,477 4,317 3,973 3,928 3,802 4,212

Hours worked by

PRWs (1,000

hours) 12,607 10,929 10,224 9,578 8,994 9,078 4,630 5,307

Wages paid to

PRWs (1,000

dollars) 268,471 233,945 218,022 213,011 201,105 208,286 103,535 124,368

Hourly wages $21.30 $21.41 $21.32 $22.24 $22.36 $22.95 $22.36 $23.43

Productivity (short

tons produced per

1,000 hours) 453.3 469.7 537.4 592.9 688.4 709.6 668.9 720.7

Unit labor costs

(per short ton) $46.98 $45.57 $39.68 $37.51 $32.48 $32.34 $33.43 $32.52

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Over the period for which data were collected, employment measured by production and related

workers (“PRWs”) decreased by nearly one-quarter. From 2000 to 2002, employment declined by 1,070

workers. The initial employment decrease from 2000 to 2001 was primarily due to the closure of Geneva

Steel.31 The decline from 2001 to 2002 was shared across the industry as a whole, with larger producers

such as *** experiencing more substantial employment losses than smaller ones. During the same period,

*** were adding employees. The increase in the number of PRWs from 2005 to January-June 2006 is

primarily attributed to an increase in employees by mills such as ***. Hourly wages fluctuated slightly

upward throughout the period, and as production increased, so did productivity, most notably reflected in

the year-on-year changes from 2003 to 2004.
 32 The firms (and their fiscal year ends if other than December 31) are: Cargill (May 31), Claymont, CMC

(August 31), CSI, Friedman (March 31), Geneva (September 30), Gerdau, IPSCO, Kentucky Electric (September

30), LeTourneau, Mittal, Nucor, Oregon, PDM, Robinson, Steel Warehouse (September 30), and U.S. Steel.

 33 Geneva Steel exited the industry in 2001. Data on Geneva Steel’s 2000 operations were based on historical

data previously reported for Inv. Nos. 701-TA-388-391 and 731-TA-816-821 (Review). CSI shut down its CTL

plate production line in October 2004, and Kentucky Electric resumed production in 2004 following its bankruptcy

and closure. 

 34 *** did not provide financial data. ***. ***. ***. 

 35 ***.

CTL-III-12

FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE OF THE U.S. PRODUCERS

Background

Twelve U.S. mills and five processors provided usable financial data on their operations on CTL

plate. 32 33 34 These data are believed to account for the large majority of U.S. production of CTL plate in

2005. While several firms reported internal consumption and/or transfers, the quantity and value of these

affiliated party transactions were small, accounting for less than *** percent of total sales (quantity and

value) in 2005. Accordingly, these data are not presented separately in this section of the report.

Operations on CTL Plate

Income-and-loss data for U.S. mills and processors on their operations on CTL plate are

presented in table CTL-III-9. Selected financial data, by firm, are presented in table CTL-III-10.35 The

domestic industry experienced operating losses from 2000 to 2003, then rebounded sharply in 2004,

continued to improve in 2005, and generated higher levels of operating income in January-June 2006 than

in January-June 2005. Net sales quantities increased from 2000 to 2003 by 9.7 percent, from 2003 to

2005 by 7.1 percent, and were 20.6 percent higher in January-June 2006 than in January-June 2005. Net

sales values increased from 2000 to 2003 by 8.9 percent, from 2003 to 2005 by 112.5 percent, and were

15.0 percent higher in January-June 2006 than in January-June 2005. The declines in operating income

from 2000 to 2003 cut across the majority of the industry, as 9 of 13 mills and processors operating

continuously from 2000 to 2003 reported a decrease in operating profits or deepening losses.
CTL-III-13

Table CTL-III-9

CTL plate: Results of operations of U.S. mills and processors, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and JanuaryJune 2006

Item

Fiscal year January-June

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006

Quantity (short tons)

Total net sales 4,830,187 4,367,368 4,745,921 5,297,394 5,638,486 5,672,541 2,802,305 3,379,555

Value ($1,000)

Total net sales 1,758,271 1,477,637 1,609,886 1,915,063 3,530,933 4,070,019 2,119,953 2,437,411

COGS 1,800,011 1,572,475 1,628,547 1,908,344 2,692,538 2,967,611 1,517,442 1,769,847

Gross profit (loss) (41,740) (94,838) (18,661) 6,719 838,395 1,102,408 602,511 667,564

SG&A expenses 111,600 105,252 96,529 137,155 104,222 120,100 56,963 69,429

Operating income (loss) (153,340) (200,090) (115,190) (130,436) 734,173 982,308 545,548 598,136

Interest expense 39,646 48,008 39,975 41,381 39,517 41,998 16,224 14,228

CDSOA income 0 827 146 1,508 2,677 413 0 0

Other income/(expense) 5,072 (3,382) 18,761 17,787 16,978 21,598 (88) 9,601

Net income (loss) (187,914) (250,653) (136,258) (152,522) 714,312 962,321 529,236 593,508

Depreciation 109,461 114,677 127,946 121,969 116,779 116,072 58,565 60,141

Cash flow (78,453) (135,976) (8,312) (30,553) 831,091 1,078,393 587,801 653,650

Ratio to net sales (percent)

 COGS:

 Raw materials 44.9 45.0 45.2 49.7 47.9 47.3 46.2 44.8

 Direct labor 14.4 14.2 12.1 11.6 5.6 5.1 4.4 5.2

 Other factory costs 43.1 47.3 43.9 38.3 22.8 20.5 20.9 22.6

 Total COGS 102.4 106.4 101.2 99.6 76.3 72.9 71.6 72.6

Gross profit (loss) (2.4) (6.4) (1.2) 0.4 23.7 27.1 28.4 27.4

SG&A expenses 6.3 7.1 6.0 7.2 3.0 3.0 2.7 2.8

Operating income (loss)1 (8.7) (13.5) (7.2) (6.8) 20.8 24.1 25.7 24.5

Net income (loss) (10.7) (17.0) (8.5) (8.0) 20.2 23.6 25.0 24.4

Unit value (per short ton)

Total net sales $364 $338 $339 $362 $626 $717 $757 $721

 COGS:

 Raw materials 163 152 153 180 300 340 350 323

 Direct labor 52 48 41 42 35 37 34 38

 Other factory costs 157 160 149 139 143 147 158 163

 Total COGS 373 360 343 360 478 523 541 524

Gross profit (loss) (9) (22) (4) 1 149 194 215 198

SG&A expenses 23 24 20 26 18 21 20 21

Operating income (loss) (32) (46) (24) (25) 130 173 195 177

Net income (loss) (39) (57) (29) (29) 127 170 189 176

Number of firms reporting

Operating losses 8 8 9 10 1 0 1 0

Data 14 13 14 15 16 15 15 15

 1

 ***.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
CTL-III-14

The industry-wide financial decline reversed from 2003 to 2005. Per-unit operating income

substantially improved as the increase in per-unit net sales values ($356 per short ton) was much greater

than the combined effects of an increase in unit cost of goods sold (“COGS”) ($163 per short ton) and a

decline in selling, general, and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses ($5 per short ton). While *** enjoyed

some of the largest increases in operating profitability from 2003 to 2005, the 2003 to 2005 increase cut

across the industry, as all mills (individually) and processors (collectively) operating continuously during

this time frame reported increased operating profits or smaller losses.

The domestic industry’s operating income was also higher in January-June 2006 than in JanuaryJune 2005 due to the increase in net sales quantity; however, on a per-unit basis, lower net sales values

($35 per short ton) were greater in magnitude than the net reduction in COGS (lower by $18 per short

ton) and SG&A expenses (higher by $0.22 per short ton). The higher operating income level in JanuaryJune 2006 was generally reflected across the industry, as a majority (11 of 15) of firms reported greater

operating income than in January-June 2005.

Table CTL-III-10

CTL plate: Results of operations of U.S. mills (by firm) and processors, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and

January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

From 2003 to 2005, the increase in COGS is due primarily to the increase in raw material costs. 

During this time, per-unit raw material costs increased by 89 percent, while per-unit direct labor and other

factory costs combined increased by 2 percent.

Table CTL-III-10 highlights the differences between the mills and the processors. From 2000 to

2003, the mills posted aggregate operating losses while the processors reported aggregate operating

profits due primarily to the processors’ lower fixed costs and ability to purchase steel at lower prices. In

2004 and 2005, as well as from January-June 2005 to January-June 2006, the price of steel increased and

the mills reported large increases in operating profits, while the aggregate operating profits for processors

were more stable during this timeframe. 

A variance analysis for CTL plate is presented in table CTL-III-11. The information for this

variance analysis is derived from table CTL-III-9. The variance analysis provides an assessment of

changes in profitability as it relates to changes in pricing, cost, and volume. The analysis shows that the

improvement in operating income from 2000 to 2005 is primarily attributable to the higher favorable

price variance despite an increased unfavorable net cost/expense variance (that is, prices rose higher than

costs/expenses). Lower costs/expenses and greater volume outweighed a decline in prices from JanuaryJune 2005 to January-June 2006.
CTL-III-15

Table CTL-III-11

CTL plate: Variance analysis on operations of U.S. mills and processors, 2000-05, and January-June 2005-06

Item

Between fiscal years JanuaryJune

2000-05 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

Value ($1,000)

 Total net sales:

 Price variance 2,005,117 (112,160) 4,171 118,109 1,492,562 517,760 (119,234)

 Volume variance 306,631 (168,474) 128,078 187,068 123,308 21,326 436,692

 Total net sales

 variance 2,311,748 (280,634) 132,249 305,177 1,615,870 539,086 317,458

Cost of sales:

 Cost variance (853,690) 55,062 80,226 (90,561) (661,318) (258,811) 60,175

 Volume variance (313,911) 172,474 (136,298) (189,236) (122,876) (16,262) (312,580)

 Total cost variance (1,167,600) 227,536 (56,072) (279,797) (784,194) (275,074) (252,405)

Gross profit variance 1,144,148 (53,098) 76,177 25,380 831,676 264,012 65,053

SG&A expenses:

 Expense variance 10,963 (4,345) 17,846 (29,409) 41,764 (15,248) (732)

 Volume variance (19,462) 10,693 (9,123) (11,217) (8,831) (629) (11,734)

 Total SG&A variance (8,500) 6,348 8,723 (40,626) 32,933 (15,877) (12,466)

Operating income 

 variance 1,135,648 (46,750) 84,900 (15,246) 864,609 248,135 52,588

Summarized as:

 Price variance 2,005,117 (112,160) 4,171 118,109 1,492,562 517,760 (119,234)

 Net cost/expense 

 variance (842,727) 50,717 98,072 (119,970) (619,554) (274,059) 59,443

 Net volume variance (26,742) 14,693 (17,343) (13,385) (8,399) 4,434 112,378

Note.-- Unfavorable variances are shown in parentheses; all others are favorable.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Capital Expenditures and Research and Development Expenses

The responding firms’ aggregate data on capital expenditures and research and development

(“R&D”) expenses are shown in table CTL-III-12. Aggregate capital expenditures irregularly declined

from 2000 to 2005, and were higher in January-June 2006 than in January-June 2005. Aggregate R&D

expenses irregularly increased from 2000 to 2005 and were also higher in January-June 2006 than in

January-June 2005. *** accounted for the majority of reported capital expenditures during most of the

review period, while *** accounted for the majority of reported R&D expenses during the entire review

period. In total, 15 firms reported capital expenditure data and four firms reported R&D data. 

Table CTL-III-12

CTL plate: Capital expenditures and research and development expenses of U.S. mills and

processors, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

Item

Fiscal year January-June

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006

Value ($1,000)

Capital expenditures ***1 ***1 38,505 20,630 23,063 86,056 20,612 43,030

R&D expenses *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 1 ***. ***. ***. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
CTL-III-16

Assets and Return on Investment

The Commission’s questionnaire requested data on assets used in the production, warehousing,

and sale of CTL plate to compute return on investment (“ROI”). Although ROI can be computed in many

different ways, a commonly used method is income divided by total assets. Therefore, ROI is calculated

as operating income divided by total assets used in the production, warehousing, and sale of CTL plate.

Data on the U.S. CTL plate mills’ and processors’ total assets and their ROI are presented in table

CTL-III-13. The total assets utilized in the production, warehousing, and sale of CTL plate irregularly

increased from $*** in 2000 to $2.7 billion in 2005, with the large increase in current assets from 2003 to

2004 due mostly to the increases in the prices and costs for CTL plate. The ROI was negative from 2000

to 2003, then improved to 24.8 percent in 2004 and 36.0 percent in 2005.

Table CTL-III-13

CTL plate: Value of assets and return on investment of U.S. mills and processors, 2000-05

Item

Fiscal year

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Value of assets: Value ($1,000)

Current assets:

 Cash and equivalents 20,205 14,585 22,477 26,506 277,899 99,314

 Accounts receivable, net 222,524 235,994 206,687 295,467 562,132 524,832

 Inventories 318,856 310,888 320,858 312,923 576,808 595,428

 Other 65,527 46,756 41,097 17,867 11,749 11,710

 Total current assets 627,112 608,223 591,119 652,763 1,428,588 1,231,284

Property, plant and equipment:

Original cost 2,538,747 2,856,655 2,672,482 2,403,851 2,218,573 2,257,426

Less: accumulated depreciation 992,337 905,082 849,786 759,618 703,466 791,007

Equals: book value 1,546,410 1,951,573 1,822,696 1,644,233 1,515,107 1,466,419

Other non-current assets1 *** *** *** *** 11,384 23,475

 Total assets *** *** *** *** 2,955,079 2,721,178

Operating income or (loss) 2 (131,213) (199,370) (114,700) (129,500) 733,366 980,463

Share (percent)

Return on investment 2 *** *** *** *** 24.8 36.0

 1 ***.

 2

 ***. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 1

 The official import statistics that form the core of the data are limited to non-alloy steel plate. While most of

this volume is believed to be CTL plate consistent with the scope of these reviews, some of the HTS subheadings

included in the scope provide for plate in both coiled and non-coiled form. This has resulted in an overstatement in

the volume of subject imports of CTL plate. While Staff believes that this overstatement is minor in aggregate, it

can have a noticeable impact on data for certain suppliers in periods where their overall volume is relatively small.

 2

 No importers reported entering or withdrawing CTL plate from bonded warehouses in the United States, nor did

any importer report importing CTL plate through a foreign trade zone (“FTZ”).

 3

 Consistent with data presented in the first reviews, data for CTL plate are compiled from HTS statistical

reporting numbers 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000,

7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, and 7211.14.0045.

CTL-IV-1

PART CTL-IV: U.S. IMPORTS AND THE FOREIGN INDUSTRIES

U.S. IMPORTS

Import data in this report are derived from official Commerce statistics for CTL plate.1

The Commission sent importers’ questionnaires to all U.S. plate mills, all U.S. service centers believed to

have cut-to-length processing lines, all U.S. firms believed to have imported CTL plate during previous

investigations, and firms identified by *** as importers of record for CTL plate between January 2000

and April 2006. Sixteen firms supplied usable data,2

 while 25 reported that they had not imported CTL

plate since 2000. The Commission received responses from firms accounting for a substantial share of

CTL plate imports from Romania, and limited responses from smaller-volume subject countries. 

Imports of CTL plate from each of the subject countries and from all nonsubject countries appear

in table CTL-IV-1.3

 The combined imports from the subject countries varied over the period for which

data were collected, fluctuating primarily due to the level of imports from Romania. Besides imports

from Romania, the only two subject countries consistently reporting U.S. imports of over 1,000 short tons

were Germany and Belgium. However, U.S. imports from both of these countries may include products

excluded from these orders. In the case of Belgium these products may include floor plate; in the case of

Germany these products may include X-70 plate. Therefore, a tabulation is presented for Belgium and

Germany detailing the quantity of imports from these countries for which duties were collected. As

shown, there was a marked decrease in the amount of imports from these two countries.
CTL-IV-2

Table CTL-IV-1

CTL plate: U.S. imports, by sources, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

Source

Calendar year January-June

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006

Quantity (short tons)

Belgium 15,614 16,575 11,615 6,226 10,271 10,388 2,767 6,853

Brazil 3,243 2,978 1,477 0 18 2,460 1,961 420

Finland 0 19 0 0 1,290 0 0 0

Germany 8,783 129 40,536 2,647 23,413 2,078 1,491 15,671

Mexico 153 271 273 308 1,083 440 379 168

Poland 3 386 0 0 45 61 61 0

Romania 6 5,981 44,339 69,552 109,969 49,813 3,014 0

Spain 5 0 6 0 0 0 0 0

Sweden 354 1,312 198 0 280 182 182 50

Taiwan 75 66 226 0 0 0 0 0

United Kingdom 847 125 79 23 8 17 0 19

 Subtotal 29,083 27,842 98,749 78,755 146,377 65,439 9,856 23,181

All other sources 669,666 611,424 452,321 234,670 390,123 598,444 331,866 545,050

 Total 698,749 639,266 551,069 313,425 536,500 663,883 341,722 568,231

Value (1,000 dollars)

1

Belgium 6,458 6,511 4,951 3,086 7,023 8,923 1,976 5,904

Brazil 1,546 1,386 288 0 7 3,138 2,714 323

Finland 0 10 0 0 1,112 0 0 0

Germany 4,030 92 17,028 1,688 10,641 1,440 980 15,574

Mexico 65 141 81 123 570 271 244 79

Poland 4 95 0 0 23 36 36 0

Romania 6 1,433 12,627 20,706 58,584 31,292 2,084 0

Spain 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0

Sweden 198 1,095 192 0 131 108 108 33

Taiwan 26 20 270 0 0 0 0 0

United Kingdom 246 88 4973606

 Subtotal 12,581 10,873 35,489 25,610 78,094 45,214 8,143 21,920

All other sources 199,956 180,362 143,493 78,892 221,897 400,852 227,169 325,305

 Total 212,537 191,235 178,982 104,501 299,990 446,065 235,312 347,225

Table continued on next page.
CTL-IV-3

Table CTL-IV-1--Continued

CTL plate: U.S. imports, by sources, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

Source

Calendar year January-June

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006

Unit value (per short ton)

Belgium $414 $393 $426 $496 $684 $859 $714 $862

Brazil 477 465 195 (2

) 366 1,276 1,384 769

Finland (2

) 537 (2) (2) 862 (2) (2) (2)

Germany 459 710 420 638 454 693 657 994

Mexico 428 521 298 400 526 615 645 472

Poland 1,270 247 (2

) (2) 505 595 595 (2)

Romania 890 240 285 298 533 628 691 (2

)

Spain 444 (2

) 358 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

Sweden 559 835 970 (2

) 470 595 595 663

Taiwan 353 309 1,194 (2

) (2) (2) (2) (2)

United Kingdom 291 708 624 305 374 342 (2

) 338

 Subtotal 433 391 359 325 534 691 826 946

All other sources 299 295 317 336 569 670 685 597

 Total 304 299 325 333 559 672 689 611

Share of quantity (percent)

Belgium 2.2 2.6 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.6 0.8 1.2

Brazil 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.0 (3

) 0.4 0.6 0.1

Finland 0.0 (3

) 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

Germany 1.3 (3

) 7.4 0.8 4.4 0.3 0.4 2.8

Mexico (3

) (3) (3) 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 (3)

Poland (3

) 0.1 0.0 0.0 (3) (3) (3) 0.0

Romania (3

) 0.9 8.0 22.2 20.5 7.5 0.9 0.0

Spain (3

) 0.0 (3) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Sweden 0.1 0.2 (3

) 0.0 0.1 (3) 0.1 (3)

Taiwan (3

) (3) (3) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

United Kingdom 0.1 (3

) (3) (3) (3) (3) 0(3)

 Subtotal 4.2 4.4 17.9 25.1 27.3 9.9 2.9 4.1

All other sources 95.8 95.6 82.1 74.9 72.7 90.1 97.1 95.9

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table continued on next page.
CTL-IV-4

Table CTL-IV-1--Continued

CTL plate: U.S. imports, by sources, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

Source

Calendar year January-June

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006

Share of value (percent)

Belgium 3.0 3.4 2.8 3.0 2.3 2.0 0.8 1.7

Brazil 0.7 0.7 0.2 0.0 (3

) 0.7 1.2 0.1

Finland 0.0 (3

) 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

Germany 1.9 (3

) 9.5 1.6 3.5 0.3 0.4 4.5

Mexico (3

) 0.1 (3) 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 (3)

Poland (3

) (3) 0.0 0.0 (3) (3) (3) 0.0

Romania (3

) 0.7 7.1 19.8 19.5 7.0 0.9 0.0

Spain (3

) 0.0 (3) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Sweden 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.0 (3

) (3) (3) (3)

Taiwan (3

) (3) 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

United Kingdom 0.1 (3

) (3) (3) (3) (3) 0.0 (3)

 Subtotal 5.9 5.7 19.8 24.5 26.0 10.1 3.5 6.3

All other sources 94.1 94.3 80.2 75.5 74.0 89.9 96.5 93.7

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Ratio of import quantity to U.S. production (percent)

Belgium 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2

Brazil 0.1 0.1 (3

) 0.0 (3) (3) 0.1 (3)

Finland 0.0 (3

) 0.0 0.0 (3) 0.0 0.0 0.0

Germany 0.1 (3

) 0.7 (3) 0.3 (3) (3) 0.4

Mexico (3

) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3)

Poland (3

) (3) 0.0 0.0 (3) (3) (3) 0.0

Romania (3

) 0.1 0.7 1.1 1.6 0.7 0.1 0.0

Spain (3

) 0.0 (3) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Sweden (3

) (3) (3) 0.0 (3) (3) (3) (3)

Taiwan (3

) (3) (3) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

United Kingdom (3

) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) 0.0 (3)

 Subtotal 0.5 0.5 1.6 1.3 2.1 0.9 0.3 0.6

All other sources 10.6 10.8 7.4 3.7 5.7 8.4 9.6 13.0

 Total 11.1 11.3 9.0 5.0 7.8 9.3 9.9 13.6

 1

 Landed, duty paid.

 2

 Not applicable.

 3

 Less than 0.05 percent.

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics.
 4

 Duferco Steel, Inc. v. United States, 296 F.3d 1087, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

 5

 Floor plate imports from Belgium accounted for *** short tons in 2000, *** short tons in 2001, and *** short

tons in 2002. E-mail from ***, November 15, 2006.

 6

 The data in this table are based on official import statistics of Commerce for non-alloy steel plate.

CTL-IV-5

The following tabulation presents *** data on imports from Belgium and Germany for which

countervailing and antidumping duties were collected between January 2000 and June 2006. In addition,

in July 2002, the Federal Circuit ruled that floor plate was not within the scope of the original orders on

Belgium.4

 Consequently, Commerce instructed Customs to liquidate all unliquidated floor plate without

regard to countervailing and antidumping duties effective February 12, 2000. Therefore, the following

tabulation further deducts reported floor plate imports from Belgium during 2000-02.5

* * * * * * *

Imports of CTL plate also entered the United States from 32 nonsubject countries during the

period for which data were collected (table CTL-IV-2).6

 The total quantity of CTL plate imports from all

sources decreased from 2000 to 2005 by 5.0 percent. Canada and Korea were the largest sources for U.S.

imports from countries not subject to these reviews. Since 2001, the United States has consistently

imported more than 100,000 short tons of CTL plate from Canada annually. From January 2000 through

June 2006, the United States imported 566,142 short tons from Korea.

Table CTL-IV-2

CTL plate: U.S. imports by source (nonsubject countries only), 2000-05, January-June 2005, and JanuaryJune 2006

Source

Calendar year January-June

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006

Quantity (short tons)

Covered by order or suspension agreement since 1997

China 148,181 90,775 31,098 6,036 1,176 2,084 1,866 1,326

Russia 87,148 79,070 34,453 3,742 685 2,789 90 38,417

Ukraine 25,408 31,316 5,650 4,712 129,159 87,732 64,179 28,445

Covered by order since 2000

India1 1,485 1,200 0 0 6 0 0 3,836

Indonesia1 0 123 0 0 622 2,682 2,498 19

Italy 1,715 0 0 0 28,227 5,574 5,540 702

Japan 2,309 3,101 36,165 0 2,928 5,504 4,282 2,982

Korea 155,375 145,037 71,390 11,789 26,737 72,292 44,586 83,522

Table continued on next page.
CTL-IV-6

Table CTL-IV-2--Continued

CTL plate: U.S. imports by source (nonsubject countries only), 2000-05, January-June 2005, and JanuaryJune 2006

Source

Calendar year January-June

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006

Not covered by order

Australia 34,911 40,986 14,344 7,807 3,514 9,091 0 44,089

Austria 1,928 6,176 1,679 55 3,457 10,799 635 9,823

Bulgaria1 15,502 24,766 36,927 1,096 0 1,118 1,118 4,767

Canada2 80,318 121,283 124,393 134,184 106,756 158,413 64,944 95,370

Cyprus 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0

Czech Republic1 50,837 17,965 53,868 40,866 36,166 11,055 2,678 11,266

Denmark 441 0 5 0 0 0 0 0

Dominican Rep1 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0

Egypt1 0 0 0 112 2,386 8 4 0

Estonia1 0 0 0 0 146 0 0 0

France 2,329 736 455 129 717 4,626 4,119 921

Hungary1 4,089 3,004 6,308 3,137 2,184 1,617 1,213 529

Kazakhstan 271 168 0 0 0 0 0 0

Macedonia1 6,276 8,917 0 0 0 0 0 14,778

Malaysia 0 0 0 0 7,647 70,005 42,929 70,515

Malta 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

New Zealand 0 23 0 0 0 349 255 0

Norway 350 490 1,020 1,209 681 917 561 349

Slovak Republic1 1,669 1,179 1,385 849 604 2,713 1,708 1,197

South Africa1 3,992 7,520 11,889 16,086 17,643 27,552 13,309 26,982

Switzerland 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Thailand1 44,717 25,207 17,397 2,646 16,666 120,084 74,315 99,383

Turkey1 0 2,384 3,880 203 2,013 1,423 1,029 5,831

Venezuela1 358 0 0 0 0 17 8 0

Total 669,666 611,424 452,321 234,670 390,123 598,444 331,866 545,050

 1

 Country not subject to safeguard measures.

 2

 Member of free trade agreement; safeguard measures not applied.

Note-- Highlighted years indicate the period of time during which increased tariffs were in effect pursuant to the U.S. safeguard

measure on steel.

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics.
CTL-IV-7

CUMULATION CONSIDERATIONS

In assessing whether subject imports are likely to compete with each other and with the domestic

like product with respect to cumulation, the Commission generally has considered the following four

factors: (1) fungibility, (2) presence of sales or offers to sell in the same geographic markets, (3) common

or similar channels of distribution, and (4) simultaneous presence in the market. Fungibility

considerations and channels of distribution are discussed in Part II of this report; additional information

regarding fungibility, geographic markets, and presence in the market are discussed below.

Fungibility

Tables CTL-IV-3 and IV-4 present U.S. commercial shipments of CTL plate reported by U.S.

producers and U.S. importers by the types of plate and the thickness of plate, respectively.

Table CTL-IV-3

CTL plate: U.S. producers’ and importers’ U.S. shipments, by source and type of plate, 20051

Item

Floor

plate

Carbon

structural

steel plate

Pressure

vessel

plate

Platform

plate

Shipbuilding

plate

Plate

 for 

line pipe

Wide

flat

bar

All 

other

 CTL plate

Total

CTL plate

Quantity (short tons)

United States 25,517 4,201,221 336,999 73,050 284,993 47,567 607,892 845,009 6,422,248

Belgium *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Brazil *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Germany *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Romania *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

All others 3,783 143,186 33,699 0 0 0 0 61,251 241,919

Share of quantity (percent)

United States 0.4 65.4 5.2 1.1 4.4 0.7 9.5 13.2 100.0

Belgium *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 100.0

Brazil *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 100.0

Germany *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 100.0

Romania *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 100.0

All others 1.6 59.2 13.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.3 100.0

 1

 No U.S. commercial shipments were reported for imports from Finland, Mexico, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the

United Kingdom.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 7

 Official Commerce statistics measure imports at the port of entry; material imported into one district, however,

may be shipped to another geographic region.

CTL-IV-8

Table CTL-IV-4

CTL plate: U.S. producers’ and importers’ U.S. shipments, by source and thickness of plate, 20051

Item < 1.00"

$ 1.00" but

< 3.00"

$ 3.00" but

< 4.00" $ 4.00" Total

Quantity (short tons)

United States 4,643,882 1,425,504 99,622 111,730 6,280,738

Belgium *** *** *** *** ***

Brazil *** *** *** *** ***

Germany *** *** *** *** ***

Romania *** *** *** *** ***

All others 167,659 38,166 6,202 2,757 214,784

Share of quantity (percent)

United States 73.9 22.7 1.6 1.8 100.0

Belgium *** *** *** *** 100.0

Brazil *** *** *** *** 100.0

Germany *** *** *** *** 100.0

Romania *** *** *** *** 100.0

All others 78.1 17.8 2.9 1.3 100.0

 1

 No U.S. commercial shipments were reported for imports from Finland, Mexico, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the

United Kingdom.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Geographic Markets

As noted previously, CTL plate production occurs throughout the United States, and CTL plate is

shipped nationwide. Information summarizing national and regional markets and the shipment of CTL

plate is presented in Part CTL-II. Of the CTL plate imported into the United States from the subject

countries from January 2000 to June 2006, the top ten Customs districts accounted for nearly all entries. 

As illustrated in table CTL-IV-5,7

 imports from Romania are concentrated in the Gulf States region. 

Accordingly, the Houston-Galveston, TX, district accounted for the largest share of subject imports

(51.6 percent).
CTL-IV-9

Table CTL-IV-5

CTL plate: U.S. imports from subject countries, by Customs district, January 2000-June 2006

Customs district Belgium Brazil Finland Germany Mexico Poland1

Houston-Galveston, TX 35,350 5,085 1,154 15,475 0 0

New Orleans, LA 2,322 3,040 0 18,194 0 0

Tampa, FL 2,485 0 0 53,087 0 0

Seattle, WA 8,428 12 0 89 0 0

Detroit, MI 6,327 0 0 954 0 40

Philadelphia, PA 2,220 420 0 1,964 0 0

Los Angeles, CA 6,80300400

Chicago, IL 5,197 196 14 11 0 9

Laredo, TX 129 1,477 0 8 2,413 0

Savannah, GA 3,458 0 0 64 0 0

All others 4,822 365 141 3,407 283 447

Total 77,542 10,596 1,309 93,256 2,696 495

Customs district Romania Spain2 Sweden3 Taiwan4 UK5 —

Houston-Galveston, TX 184,983 0 0 0 66 —

New Orleans, LA 86,672 0 0 0 71 —

Tampa, FL 2,572 0 0 0 0 —

Seattle, WA 0 0 256 20 0 —

Detroit, MI 0 0 393 0 46 —

Philadelphia, PA 2,557 0 0 0 8—

Los Angeles, CA 0 0 0 222 101 —

Chicago, IL 0 0 1,294 0 31 —

Laredo, TX 348 0 0 0 0—

Savannah, GA 0 0 0 0 28 —

All others 2,527 11 432 125 765 —

Total 279,660 11 2,376 367 1,118 —

 1 The primary “other” port of entry for CTL plate from Poland was San Juan, PR.

 2

 The primary “other” ports of entry for CTL plate from Spain were Ogdensburg, NY, and St. Albans, VT.

 3

 The primary “other” ports of entry for CTL plate from Sweden were Chicago, IL; Detroit, MI; New York, NY; and Seattle, WA.

 4

 The primary “other” ports of entry for CTL plate from Taiwan were Los Angeles, CA, and Ogdensburg, NY.

 5

 The primary “other” ports of entry for CTL plate from the United Kingdom were San Juan, PR, Los Angeles, CA, and New

Orleans, LA.

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics.
CTL-IV-10

Presence in the Market

Table CTL-IV-6 presents data on the monthly entries of U.S. imports of CTL plate, by source,

during the period for which data were collected. Plate products from Belgium and Germany (see earlier

note) were generally present throughout the period for which data were collected, while CTL plate from

Mexico and Romania was more prevalent later in the period. Monthly entries of imports from Brazil,

Sweden, and the United Kingdom all declined between January 2000 and June 2006, while monthly

entries of imports from Finland, Poland, and Spain were minimal throughout the period for which data

were collected.

Table CTL-IV-6

CTL plate: U.S. imports, monthly entries into the United States, by source, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and

January-June 2006

Source

Calendar year January-June

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006

Belgium1 12 12 12 8 10 10 4 6

Brazil 8 4 5 0 1 4 1 1

Finland 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0

Germany1 6 5 10 10 12 11 6 6

Mexico 5 4 4 4 9 7 4 5

Poland 1 3 0 0 2 1 1 0

Romania 1 1 8 4 10 5 1 0

Spain 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Sweden 9 8 3 0 3 2 2 2

Taiwan 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0

United

Kingdom 5 2 6 1 1 1 0 1

All others 12 12 12 12 12 12 6 6

 1 Nonsubject imports are included in entries from Belgium (floor plate) and Germany (X-70 plate).

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics.
 8

 USITC Publication 2664, p. I-98, and USITC Publication 3364, p. PLATE-IV-1.

CTL-IV-11

U.S. IMPORTERS’ INVENTORIES

Data relating to U.S. importers’ inventories of subject imports and all CTL plate imports are

presented in table CTL-IV-7.

Table CTL-IV-7

CTL plate: U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of imports, by source, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and

January-June 2006

Item

Calendar year January-June

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006

Imports from subject sources1

Inventories (short tons) 0 0 0 0 *** *** 0 0

Ratio to imports (percent) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 *** *** 0.0 0.0

Ratio to shipments of

imports (percent) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 *** *** 0.0 0.0

Imports from all other sources

Inventories (short tons) 3,605 2,257 1,557 905 *** *** 2,663 2,758

Ratio to imports (percent) 2.1 1.5 0.9 1.7 *** *** 0.8 0.8

Ratio to shipments of

imports (percent) 2.1 1.5 0.9 0.5 *** *** 0.8 0.7

Total imports

Inventories (short tons) 3,605 2,257 1,557 905 20,148 7,756 2,663 2,758

Ratio to imports (percent) 2.0 1.5 0.9 1.5 5.0 2.3 0.8 0.8

Ratio to shipments of

imports (percent) 2.0 1.5 0.9 0.5 5.3 2.2 0.7 0.7

 1

 Romania was the exclusive source of inventories of imports of CTL plate from subject sources.

Note–Partial-year ratios are based on annualized import and shipment data.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Responding U.S. importers reported that they had arranged for the delivery of *** short tons of

CTL plate from *** after June 30, 2006 through December 2007. For this same period, responding U.S.

importers reported arranging for delivery 20,360 short tons of CTL plate from nonsubject sources.

THE INDUSTRY IN BELGIUM

Overview

The Commission identified four Belgian producers of CTL steel plate - Clabecq, Cockerill,

Fabfer, and Sidmar - in the original investigations, and two producers in the first reviews - Duferco and

Industeel.8

 In the current second reviews, the Commission issued questionnaires to two producers in
 9

 However, non-responding producer Industeel’s U.S. affiliate supplied the Commission with a completed

importers’ questionnaire.

 10 ***.

 11 ***, contained in ***.

 12 Duferco’s prehearing brief, exhibit 2.

 13 Duferco’s 2005 Annual Report indicates that the firm is shifting from producing commodity plate to specialty

plate. See Duferco’s prehearing brief, exhibit 4.

 14 Duferco’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-13 (a) and (b).

 15 Duferco’s posthearing brief, exhibit 2.

 16 Ibid.

CTL-IV-12

Belgium, one of which, Duferco, responded and is a party.9 Accordingly, the data presented on Belgian

production of CTL plate for the current second reviews are for Duferco. *** reports that there are two

reversing plate mills in Belgium (both owned by Duferco),10 but gives no indication of reversing plate

mill capacity owned by Industeel (owned by Arcelor-Mittal).11 Duferco contends, however, that

Industeel’s product mix is heavily weighted toward stainless steel and other alloy steel plate.12 CTL plate

sales represented *** percent of Duferco’s total sales. Duferco reportedly represents *** percent of

production of CTL plate in Belgium. Table CTL-IV-8 presents comparative information available from

the original investigations, the first reviews, and these second reviews.

Table CTL-IV-8

CTL plate: Comparison of select Belgian industry data, 1992, 1999, and 2005

* * * * * * *

CTL Plate Operations

Duferco reported that it stopped producing steel in December 2001 and ***, without changing

***. Since 2003, both capacity and production have increased. Since 2004, Duferco has been operating

at the equivalent of *** shifts per week. From 2000 to 2003, it was operating at the equivalent of

*** shifts per week. ***. Although Duferco reported that ***.13 ***, are the target customers for ***.

Duferco reported that plate constitutes *** of its sales. Some of its sales are nonsubject plate

(e.g., alloy plate, floor plate, and sheet) which it sells in *** quantities, representing about *** percent of

its sales. Duferco reported that ***.

As shown in table CTL-IV-9, during the period for which data were collected, Duferco reported

exports to the United States in 2005 of *** short tons. Duferco reported ***. Free trade agreements

reportedly *** its operations. Duferco’s CTL plate exports are not subject to any tariff or nontariff

barriers in any countries, nor subject to current investigations in any other country.14 Duferco reported

that sales are ***. However, ***.

Duferco reported that average prices for CTL plate to the European market ranged from $*** per

short ton to $*** per short ton over the final quarter of 2006. Duferco estimates that for the first quarter

of 2007 its average price for CTL plate products in the European market will be ***.15 Sales to the rest of

the world are on a project basis, focusing on specialized products, ranging in price from ***.16 

Table CTL-IV-9

CTL plate: Belgium’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and

January-June 2006

* * * * * * *
 17 USITC Publication 2664, p. I-99; USITC Publication 3364, p. PLATE-IV-5.

 18 The non-responding company is Gerdau Acominas SA. However, according to the responses of COSIPA and

Usiminas, they account for all CTL plate production in Brazil. Additionally, according to ***, these two firms

account for all reversing plate mill capacity in Brazil. ***, contained in ***.

 19 Though legally two entities, COSIPA is a wholly owned subsidiary of USIMINAS, but both act under the same

commercial strategy. COSIPA’s and USIMINAS’ foreign producer questionnaires, section II-1.

CTL-IV-13

As shown in table CTL-IV-10, shipments of plate products less than 1 inch thick represent the

largest share of total shipments by thickness. In addition, as shown in table CTL-IV-11, carbon structural

CTL plate constitutes the largest amount of shipments of plate for home market consumption. Exports

constitute ***. Like the domestic market, carbon structural steel plate represents the largest amount of

sales, but the export market’s product mix includes substantial quantities of shipbuilding plate as well as

pressure vessel plate.

Table CTL-IV-10

CTL plate: Belgium’s total shipments of plate, by thickness, 2005, January-June 2005, and January-June

2006

* * * * * * *

Table CTL-IV-11

CTL plate: Belgium’s total shipments of specified plate, by market, 2005

* * * * * * *

Alternative Products

Duferco produces nonsubject plate, but *** does not track it separately from subject CTL plate

production. However, as demonstrated in table CTL-IV-12, Duferco was able to estimate subject and

nonsubject plate production alone for 2005.

Table CTL-IV-12

CTL plate: Belgium’s capacity, production, and capacity utilization for subject and nonsubject CTL plate,

2005, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

THE INDUSTRY IN BRAZIL

Overview

The Commission identified two Brazilian producers of CTL steel plate - COSIPA and

USIMINAS - in the original investigations and the same producers in the first reviews.17 In the current

second reviews, the Commission issued questionnaires to three producers in Brazil, two of which

responded and are parties.18 Accordingly, the data presented on Brazilian production of CTL plate for the

current second reviews are for USIMINAS and COSIPA. COSIPA, however, is a wholly owned

subsidiary of USIMINAS.19 CTL plate sales represented *** percent of COSIPA’s total sales and ***

percent of USIMINAS’ total sales. Responding Brazilian producers reportedly combine for 100 percent

of production of CTL plate in Brazil. Table CTL-IV-13 presents comparative information available from

the original investigations, the first reviews, and these second reviews.
 20 USIMINAS’ foreign producer questionnaire, section II-12.

 21 COSIPA’s and USIMINAS’ foreign producer questionnaires, section II-17.

 22 COSIPA’s and USIMINAS’ foreign producer questionnaires, section II-12.

 23 COSIPA’s and USIMINAS’ foreign producer questionnaires, section I-7.

 24 COSIPA’s and USIMINAS’ foreign producer questionnaires, section II-13 (a) and (b).

 25 COSIPA’s and USIMINAS’ foreign producer questionnaires, section II-14.

 26 COSIPA’s and USIMINAS’ foreign producer questionnaires, section II-3.

 27 Brazilian respondent interested parties’ posthearing brief, exhibit 5, p. 9.

CTL-IV-14

Table CTL-IV-13

CTL plate: Comparison of select Brazilian industry data: 1992, 1999, and 2005

* * * * * * *

CTL Plate Operations

Neither firm reported ***. USIMINAS reported that it is planning ***.20 COSIPA reported ***

anticipated changes. Planned future investments ***.21 USIMINAS noted that plans for ***.

Table CTL-IV-14 presents the Brazilian industry’s capacity, production, shipments, and

inventories of CTL plate for 2000-05 as well as interim (January-June) 2005 and 2006. Since 2000,

capacity has fluctuated irregularly; production trends mirrored this fluctuation. Capacity utilization ***. 

Home market sales constitute the largest share of shipments, but were at their lowest level relative to total

shipments in ***. Exports to non-EU and non-Asian markets represented the largest share of all

shipments after home market shipments. As noted above, Brazil reported Latin America as a primary

export market.

Table CTL-IV-14

CTL plate: Brazil’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and

January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

As shown in table CTL-IV-14, there were *** reported exports of CTL plate from Brazil to the

United States. Likewise, *** reported maintaining inventories of CTL plate in the United States.22

Brazilian producers believe that the preferential treatment that NAFTA offers its members ***.23

Brazilian CTL plate exports are not subject to any tariff or nontariff barriers, nor subject to current

investigations in any other countries.24 Brazilian CTL producers *** as a result of the orders. Since the

orders, however, Brazil’s CTL plate sales to its home market have increased. In addition, sales have

increased to existing customers in Europe and Asia, but predominantly in Latin America. The firms

operate ***, limiting potential sales to new markets.25 Finally, if the orders are revoked, these firms

***.26 Additionally, neither firm prepares independent projected prices, but, rather, both firms relies on

private pricing services (e.g., ***) and published price information.27

As shown in table CTL-IV-15, shipments of plate products less than 1 inch thick represent the

largest share of shipments by thickness. In addition, as shown in CTL-IV-16, carbon structural steel plate

constitutes the largest amount of shipments of plate for home market consumption and for exports.
 28 USITC Publication 2664, p. I-104; USITC Publication 3364, p. PLATE-IV-6.

 29 Rautaruukki’s only plant is Rautaruukki Oyj, located in Helsinki, Finland. *** confirms that this is the sole

producer of reversing CTL plate in Finland. ***, contained in ***. Rautaruukki also produces strip mill plate.

 30 This figure includes all CTL plate (subject and nonsubject) because Rautaruukki was unable to separate the

products in its records. Rautaruukki’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-10.

 31 Rautaruukki’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-18a.

CTL-IV-15

Table CTL-IV-15

CTL plate: Brazilian producers’ total shipments of plate, by thickness, 2005, January-June 2005, and

January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

Table CTL-IV-16

CTL plate: Brazilian producers’ total shipments of specified plate, by market, 2005

* * * * * * *

Alternative Products

Both Brazilian producers produce nonsubject plate, e.g., X-70 plate and alloy plate (table CTLIV-17). However, neither producer reported micro-alloy plate production.

Table CTL-IV-17

CTL plate: Brazil’s capacity, production, and capacity utilization for subject and nonsubject CTL plate, 2005,

January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

THE INDUSTRY IN FINLAND

Overview

The Commission identified one Finnish producer of CTL plate - Rautaruukki - in the original

investigations and in the first reviews.28 In the current second reviews, the Commission issued a

questionnaire to, and received data from, Rautaruukki, the sole Finnish producer of CTL plate.29 In the

most recent fiscal year, sales of CTL plate represented *** percent of Rautaruukki’s total sales.30 This

amount reportedly accounts for *** percent of CTL plate production in Finland.31 Table CTL-IV-18

presents comparative information available from the original investigations, the first reviews, and these

second reviews.

Table CTL-IV-18

CTL plate: Comparison of select Finnish industry data: 1992, 1999, and 2005

* * * * * * *

Rautaruukki has remained the sole producer of CTL plate since the original investigations. 

However, Rautaruukki reported *** because of its strategy of focusing on the markets in Europe. 
 32 Plate mills currently represent *** percent of the production of CTL plate in Rautaruukki mills and hot strip

mills account for the remaining *** percent of production. 

 33 Rautaruukki’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-1 and II-2.

 34 Rautaruukki’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-17.

 35 Rautaruukki uses ***. Rautaruukki’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-5.

 36 Rautaruukki reported that the overall steel production of the basic oxygen furnaces at the steel plant ***. 

Rautaruukki’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-9.

 37 Rautaruukki’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-2 and II-17.

 38 Rautaruukki’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-4.

 39 Rautaruukki’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-6 and II-8.

 40 Rautaruukki’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-11.

 41 Rautaruukki’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-12 and II-18a.

 42 Rautaruukki’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-15 and II-16.

 43 Rautaruukki’s response to the notice of institution, p. 10.

 44 Rautaruukki’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-18a.

 45 Rautaruukki’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-14.

 46 Rautaruukki’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-13 and I-7.

CTL-IV-16

Additionally, Rautaruukki’s CTL plate capacity was lower in 2003 because it was ***. Rautaruukki

noted that it ***. Rautaruukki ***.32 This would ***.33

CTL Plate Operations

Table CTL-IV-19 presents the Finnish industry’s capacity, production, shipments, and inventories

of CTL plate for 2000-05 as well as interim (January-June) 2005 and 2006.

Table CTL-IV-19

CTL plate: Finland’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and

January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

Rautaruukki ***.34 35 36 The changes in production that have taken place at Rautaruukki’s mills

have been due to ***.37 Other than ***, Rautaruukki reported ***.38 Rautaruukki only produces CTL

plate to order, which explains the small fluctuations in production over the period reviewed. As discussed

in greater detail under the subheading “Alternative Products,” Rautaruukki reportedly ***.39

Additionally, Rautaruukki reported that ***.40

Rautaruukki reported ***.41 Therefore, the company reported that the orders ***.42 The

overwhelming majority of export shipments of CTL plate made by Rautaruukki were to markets in ***,

followed by shipments to ***, which Rautaruukki identifies as its core markets.43 Very little was shipped

to *** over the period reviewed. Exports made up *** percent of Rautaruukki’s shipments in 2005, and

home market sales made up *** percent.44 Rautaruukki reported that its marketing strategy is ***.45

Rautaruukki’s exports of CTL plate are not currently subject to any tariff or non-tariff barriers in any

country, not subject to current investigations outside the United States, and not affected by any free trade

agreements.46

As shown in table CTL-IV-20, the largest share of CTL plate shipments from Finland were less

than one inch thick. The share of CTL plate shipments ***. Furthermore, as shown in table CTL-IV-21,
 47 Rautaruukki ’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-6.

 48 USITC Publication 2664, p. I-107; USITC Publication 3364, p. PLATE-IV-7.

CTL-IV-17

carbon structural steel plate constituted the largest volume of shipments for both the home market and

exports, followed by shipbuilding plate. 

Table CTL-IV-20

CTL plate: Finnish producer’s total shipments of plate, by thickness, 2005, January-June 2005 and JanuaryJune 2006

* * * * * * *

Table CTL-IV-21

CTL plate: Finnish producer’s total shipments of specified plate, by market, 2005

* * * * * * *

Alternative Products

As shown in table CTL-IV-22, Rautaruukki produces nonsubject CTL plate. Of the CTL plate

Rautaruukki produces, *** percent of it is nonsubject plate. Rautaruukki produces ***. Rautaruukki also

uses its sheeting line for producing sheets with thicknesses ***.47 In addition, Rautaruukki reported

producing ***.

Table CTL-IV-22

CTL plate: Finland’s capacity, production, and capacity utilization for subject and nonsubject CTL plate,

2005, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

Table CTL-IV-23 presents data on Finland’s production of micro-alloy CTL plate.

Table CTL-IV-23

Micro-alloy CTL plate: Finland’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2000-05, January-June

2005, and January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

THE INDUSTRY IN GERMANY

Overview

The Commission identified six German producers of CTL steel plate - Preussag, Ilsenburg,

Krupp, Kloeckner, Dillinger, and Thyssen - in the original investigations, and four such producers in the

first reviews - Bremen, Dillinger, Salzgitter, and Thyssen.48 In the current second reviews, the

Commission issued questionnaires to six companies in Germany, three of which responded and are

parties. Accordingly, the data presented on German production of CTL plate for the current second

reviews are for ThyssenKrupp, AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke (“Dillinger”), and Salgitter AG Stahl und

Technologie (“Salzgitter”).

Responding German producers reportedly combine for 100 percent of production of CTL plate in

Germany. According to *** there are three producers of CTL plate in Germany operating four reversing
 49 ***, contained in ***.

 50 Salzgitter provided the Commission with data on its Mannessmannrohrn facility in a separate supplemental

submission and its posthearing brief. The additional data are not presented in tables CTL-IV-24-27 because the

facility primarily produces alloy steel plate. Capacity and alloy steel plate production are included in table CTL-IV28. Salzgitter did not include the Mannessmannrohrn facility in its original response because, although it is a plate

mill, it is operationally considered to be under Salzgitter’s tube division. Plate produced at this facility is internally

transferred to its pipe division. Dillinger submission, October 18, 2006. Salzgitter’s plate facility for its pipe mill

was not included in the original investigations or reviews.

 51 German CTL plate respondent interested parties’ posthearing brief, pp 8-9.

 52 Dillinger’s, ThyssenKrupp’s, and Salzgitter’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-1.

 53 Dillinger’s and Salzgitter’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-2.

CTL-IV-18

plate mills, two of which are operated by Salzgitter.49 50 Since the original investigations, the German

plate industry has undergone restructuring and consolidations that reduced the number of producers from

six to three. A respondent to the original investigations, Preussag Stahl AG (now Salzgitter) closed a

heavy plate facility in Salzgitter when it purchased a plate facility in Ilsenburg. Krupp Hoesch Stahl

resulted from mergers in 1993 of Krupp and Hoesch Stahl. In 1997, this entity then merged with Thyssen

to form ThyssenKrupp. Overall plate capacity was reduced after these mergers. Klockner exited the plate

business in 1994 when selling its plate operations to Sidmar (which then became part of the Arcelor

group). Plate production was discontinued on December 31, 1999.51

Sales of CTL plate in 2005 accounted for *** percent of total firm sales from ***, *** percent

from ***, and *** percent from ***. Table CTL-IV-24 presents comparative information available from

the original investigations, the first reviews, and these second reviews.

Table CTL-IV-24

CTL plate: Comparison of select German industry data, 1992, 1999, and 2005

Item 1992 1999 2005

Capacity (1,000 short tons) 3,516 *** 2,053

Production (1,000 short tons) 2,499 *** 2,143

Capacity utilization (percent) 71.1 *** 104.4

Exports/shipments (percent) 37.0 *** 43.3

Inventories/shipments (percent) 4.8 *** 10.2

Note.– Data for 1992 were provided by Preussag, Ilsenburg, Krupp, Kloeckner, Dillinger, and Thyssen. Data for 1999 were

provided by Bremen, Dillinger, Salzgitter, and Thyssen. Data for 2005 were provided by ThyssenKrupp, Dillinger, and Salzgitter.

Source: USITC Publication 2664; confidential first review report (INV-X-221, October 18, 2000) table CTL-IV-7; and 2006

questionnaire responses identified above.

CTL Plate Operations

German producers reported several operational/ organizational changes since January 1, 2000.52

*** restructured its operations into independent divisions. *** has also gone through regular periodic

revisions to its labor agreements, but reported that these resulted in no change to the character of its

operations. In 2003, ***. *** reported no changes to the character of its operations or organization and,

like ***, anticipates *** in 2006 and 2007.53

*** did, however, report that it plans to replace its ***. ***. ***. ***.
 54 German producers reported similar production constraints in response to foreign producer questionnaire,

section II-9: Thyssen reported production constraints arise from ***. Production capacity constraints for Dillinger

arise from ***. Salzgitter reported that production constraints arise from the ***.

 55 Dillinger’s, ThyssenKrupp’s, and Salzgitter’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-11.

 56 German CTL plate respondent interested parties’ posthearing brief, appendix 1, p. 4.

CTL-IV-19

Table CTL-IV-25 presents the German industry’s capacity, production, shipments, and

inventories of CTL plate for 2000-05 as well as interim (January-June) 2005 and 2006.

German producers, in general, have not undergone capacity or production expansions during the

period of review.54 *** increased CTL plate capacity by *** metric tons from 2005 onwards due to

available capacity previously reserved for stainless steel plate tolling operations. *** reported that since

imposition of the orders in 1993, the capacity allocated to and subsequent production of subject CTL

plate has declined due to an increase in demand for nonsubject products (e.g, alloyed plate, X-70, and

higher line pipe plate). *** expects that sales of nonsubject plate will continue to grow, and it will

therefore ***. *** reported plans to add, expand, curtail, or shut down production capacity. As

discussed below in greater detail, German mills produce products other than CTL plate on equipment

used to produce CTL plate. However, ***.55 Additionally, German plate producers expect prices in the

European Union and the United States to remain stable through 2007, though commodity grade plate

prices may decline due to inventory corrections by service centers and distributors.56
CTL-IV-20

Table CTL-IV-25

CTL plate: Germany’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and

January-June 2006

Item

Calendar year January-June

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006

Quantity (short tons)

Capacity 2,485,000 2,303,000 2,521,000 2,437,000 2,333,000 2,053,000 1,105,000 1,220,000

Production 2,289,700 2,088,000 2,238,800 2,320,500 2,337,400 2,142,600 1,149,400 1,269,300

End-of-period inventories 199,500 191,100 182,800 206,600 178,800 214,700 174,300 215,300

Shipments:

Internal consumption /

transfers 132,300 123,800 129,000 153,300 126,100 170,500 97,100 106,600

Home market 1,251,100 1,007,500 1,162,500 1,182,000 1,283,900 1,025,000 578,500 635,600

Exports to:

United States *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

European Union 673,000 695,600 717,000 659,700 643,600 647,500 353,200 346,000

China *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Other Asia 84,300 103,800 100,800 114,300 103,200 83,800 31,300 101,800

All other markets 96,800 142,200 123,500 144,200 150,800 132,800 65,600 65,600

Total exports 862,300 965,100 955,600 961,400 955,200 911,200 478,300 526,500

Total shipments 2,245,700 2,096,400 2,247,100 2,296,700 2,365,200 2,106,700 1,153,900 1,268,700

Ratios and shares (percent)

Capacity utilization 92.1 90.7 88.8 95.2 100.2 104.4 104.0 104.0

Inventories/ production 8.7 9.2 8.2 8.9 7.7 10.0 7.6 8.5

Inventories/shipments 8.9 9.1 8.1 9.0 7.6 10.2 7.6 8.5

Share of total shipments:

Internal consumption/

transfers 5.9 5.9 5.7 6.7 5.3 8.1 8.4 8.4

Home market 55.7 48.1 51.7 51.5 54.3 48.7 50.1 50.1

Exports to:

United States *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

European Union 30.0 33.2 31.9 28.7 27.2 30.7 30.6 27.3

China *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Other Asia 3.8 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.4 4.0 2.7 8.0

All other markets 4.3 6.8 5.5 6.3 6.4 6.3 5.7 5.2

Total exports 38.4 46.0 42.5 41.9 40.4 43.3 41.5 41.5

Table continued on next page. 
 57 *** did not, however, maintain inventories of CTL plate in the United States and *** reported no plans to

export CTL plate to the United States.

CTL-IV-21

Table CTL-IV-25--Continued

CTL plate: Germany’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and

January-June 2006

Item

Calendar year January-June

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006

Value ($1,000)

Commercial shipments:

Home market 372,057 327,348 382,500 475,083 646,910 761,634 446,594 447,831

Exports to:

United States *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

European Union 213,468 238,761 243,154 270,047 333,230 485,583 271,723 248,369

China *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Other Asia 26,975 39,473 34,113 52,708 57,208 80,112 25,680 99,549

All other markets 35,906 54,361 48,308 68,047 87,448 118,021 57,322 52,951

Total exports 279,521 342,292 331,301 410,920 512,071 728,176 380,547 415,486

Total commercial shipments 651,578 669,640 713,801 886,003 1,158,981 1,489,810 827,141 863,317

Unit value (per short ton)

Commercial shipments:

Home market $297 $325 $329 $402 $504 $743 $772 $705

Exports to:

United States *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

European Union 317 343 339 409 518 750 769 718

China *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Other Asia 320 380 338 461 554 956 820 978

All other markets 371 382 391 472 580 889 874 807

Total exports 324 355 347 427 536 799 795 789

Total commercial shipments 308 339 337 413 518 769 783 743

 1

 Less than 0.05 percent.

 2

 Not applicable.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

The *** largest producer of CTL plate in Germany, ***, is the only German CTL plate producer

to report *** during the period for which data were collected,57 primarily through ***. *** reported

imports primarily consisting of micro-alloy CTL plate from ***. 
 58 Dillinger’s, ThyssenKrupp’s, and Salzgitter’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-13 (a) and (b).

 59 Dillinger’s, ThyssenKrupp’s, and Salzgitter’s foreign producer questionnaires, section I-7.

 60 SBBInsight, Issue 20, September 13, 2006, included in Nucor’s prehearing brief, attachment 8.

 61 Dillinger, foreign producer questionnaire, appendix 4.

 62 SBBInsight, Issue 20, September 13, 2006, included in Nucor’s prehearing brief, attachment 8.

CTL-IV-22

German CTL plate exports are not subject to any tariff or nontariff barriers in any countries, nor

subject to current investigations outside the United States.58 Free trade agreements reportedly do not

affect German mills’ operations.59 However, *** consider Europe to be their most important export

market and credit the expansion of the European Union as a major sales factor. Countries outside of

Europe *** account for *** percent of *** exports of CTL plate, but not as a result of the orders placed

against the firm by the United States. *** has also made inroads in the ***. Additionally, while

Germany is a leading CTL plate exporting country,60 according to official import statistics supplied by

Dillinger, Germany is a net importer of CTL plate.61 German mills reportedly concentrate on producing

valuable higher grade CTL plate and imports are comprised of commodity grade CTL plate.62

As shown in table CTL-IV-26, plate greater than 4 inches thick represents the largest share of

shipments by thickness, but constitutes less than half of all shipments by thickness. In addition, as shown

in table CTL-IV-27, the “all other” category for CTL plate constitutes the largest amount of shipments of

plate for home market consumption and for non-U.S. exports. In addition, ***.

Table CTL-IV-26

CTL plate: German producers’ total shipments of plate, by thickness, 2005, January-June 2005, and JanuaryJune 2006

Item 2005 Jan.-June 2005 Jan.-June 2006

Quantity (short tons)

< 1.00" 728,300 394,400 493,800

$ 1.00" but < 3.00" 481,700 259,500 280,700

$ 3.00" but < 4.00" 196,200 105,700 96,900

$ 4.00" 948,700 513,500 523,200

Total 2,354,900 1,273,100 1,394,600

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 63 Dillinger’s, ThyssenKrupp’s, and Salzgitter’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-6, and II-8.

CTL-IV-23

Table CTL-IV-27

CTL plate: German producers’ total shipments of specified plate, by market, 2005

Item Home U.S. Other exports

Quantity (short tons)

Carbon structural steel plate 300,249 *** 211,652

Floor plate 0 *** 0

Pressure vessel plate 111,863 *** 137,109

Platform plate 9,181 *** 60,510

Shipbuilding plate 130,563 *** 116,958

Other plate for line pipe 104,749 *** 46,449

Hot-rolled wide flat bar 0 *** 0

All other cut-to-length plate 538,895 *** 336,627

Total 1,195,500 *** 909,306

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Alternative Products

As shown in table CTL-IV-28, all three German producers produced nonsubject plate (e.g.,

micro-alloy plate, alloy plate, grade X-70 and greater, and sheet) on the same equipment and machinery,

using the same production related workers, that is used to produce subject merchandise.63 Production and

capacity allocation are dictated by longstanding customer relationships and project commitments. In spite

of sharing production equipment, and the insubstantial amount of time and expense needed to perform the

shift in product mix, *** reported that it can not switch production between CTL plate and other products

due to the potential cost in losing longstanding customers that purchase these other products.
 64 USITC Publication 2664, p. I-123; USITC Publication 3364, p. PLATE-IV-8.

 65 AHMSA reported that it produces CTL plate in Prolongacion Juarez s/n, Monclova, Coahuila, Mexico.

 66 AHMSA’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-18a. Additionally, *** confirms that AHMSA is the sole

producer of reversing mill plate in Mexico. ***, contained in ***.

 67 AHMSA’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-10.

CTL-IV-24

Table CTL-IV-28

CTL plate: Germany’s capacity, production, and capacity utilization for subject and nonsubject CTL plate,

2005, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

Item

Calendar year January-June

2005 2005 2006

Quantity (short tons)

Capacity 3,684,000 1,886,000 1,904,000

Production

Subject CTL plate 2,142,600 1,149,400 1,269,300

Specifically excluded (e.g., X-70) CTL plate *** *** ***

Micro-alloy CTL plate *** *** ***

Other nonsubject (e.g., alloy) steel plate 717,000 330,400 396,800

Total production of CTL plate 3,890,900 1,991,200 1,996,100

Capacity utilization (percent) 105.6 105.6 104.8

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Table CTL-IV-29 presents data on German production of micro-alloy CTL plate.

Table CTL-IV-29

Micro-alloy CTL plate: Germany’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2000-05, January-June

2005, and January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

THE INDUSTRY IN MEXICO

Overview

The Commission identified one producer of CTL steel plate in Mexico - AHMSA - in the original

investigations, the first reviews, and the current second reviews.64 Accordingly, the data presented on

Mexican production of CTL plate for the current second reviews are for AHMSA.65 AHMSA reportedly

accounts for *** percent of production of CTL plate in Mexico.66 Sales of CTL plate in 2005 accounted

for *** percent of total firm sales from AHMSA.67 Table CTL-IV-30 presents comparative information

available from the original investigations, the first reviews, and these second reviews.
 68 AHMSA’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-1.

 69 AHMSA’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-5. AHMSA’s constraints arise from limited raw material

supply, labor supply, and maintenance downtime. AHMSA’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-9.

 70 AHMSA’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-2.

 71 AHMSA’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-4, and II-17.

 72 AHSMA, however, since 1999, has been operating under suspension of payment status (ostensibly the Mexican

equivalent of Chapter 11 under U.S. bankruptcy law). AHMSA argues that operating under this status makes

obtaining capital difficult, thereby making capacity expansion uncertain. AHMSA’s posthearing brief, p. 3, and

attachment 3.

 73 Mittal’s CTL plate posthearing brief, public exhibit 4.

 74 Mittal’s CTL plate posthearing brief, response to Vice Chairman Aranoff’s questions.

 75 AHMSA’s foreign producer questionnaire, section I-6.

 76 AHMSA’s posthearing brief, p 11.

 77 AHMSA’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-13 (a) and (b).

 78 AHMSA’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-13.

 79 AHMSA’s foreign producer questionnaire, section I-7.

CTL-IV-25

Table CTL-IV-30

CTL plate: Comparison of select Mexican industry data: 1992, 1999, and 2005

* * * * * * *

CTL Plate Operations

AHMSA reported no changes to the character of its operations or organization since 2000.68

AHMSA reported that its production methods have not changed since 2000.69 As shown in CTL-IV-31,

capacity has *** throughout the period. AHMSA reported minimal CTL plate exports to *** in 2001,

and 2005 marked the only other year it reported exports to any markets; even then, exports accounted for

only *** percent of its shipments.

AHMSA is ***.70 ***71 ***72 ***. Mittal is purportedly interested in establishing CTL plate

operations in Mexico;73 ***.74

AHMSA reported that it ***.75 AHMSA anticipates ***. Additionally, AHMSA estimates that

high prices in the Mexican market are likely to persist for the foreseeable future.76

Table CTL-IV-31

CTL plate: Mexico’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and

January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

Mexican CTL plate exports are not subject to any tariff or nontariff barriers in any countries, nor

subject to current investigations in other countries.77 Canada’s antidumping duty order on CTL plate

from Mexico was revoked in January 2003. Since then, AHMSA has reportedly shipped *** short tons to

Canada. Shipments were made to ***.78

AHMSA believes that NAFTA has ***.79 CTL plate demand in Mexico has grown due to ***. 

NAFTA is also credited with ***.

Most of AHMSA’s shipments are less than one inch thick (table CTL-IV-32). CTL plate thicker

than three inches accounted for *** of its shipments in 2005. Carbon structural steel plate accounted for
 80 AHMSA’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-6 and II-8.

 81 Stalexport and Huta Czestochowa provided data on these three mills.

 82 USITC Publication 2664, p. I-126; USITC Publication 3364, p. PLATE-IV-9.

 83 HSC listed HK Walcownia Blach Grubych Batory and Huta Pokoj as other known producers of CTL plate and

listed Euroblacha, HSW–Zaklad Metalurgiczny, and HSW–Walcownia Blach as other known producers of plate, but

not necessarily CTL plate. HSC’s response to the notice of institution, p. 3.

 84 HSC’s only plant is Huta Stali Cz“stochowa, located in Cz“stochowa, Poland. HSC has two related firms,

Alchevsk Iron and Steel Works and Dunaferr, that produce CTL plate in the Ukraine and Hungary, respectively.

CTL-IV-26

the *** majority of CTL plate that AHMSA ships domestically and internationally (table CTL-IV-33). 

AHMSA also shipped pressure vessel plate, other plate for line pipe, and all other CTL plate. 

Table CTL-IV-32

CTL plate: Mexican producer’s total shipments of plate, by thickness, 2005, January-June 2005, and

January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

Table CTL-IV-33

CTL plate: Mexican producer’s total shipments of specified plate, by market, 2005

* * * * * * *

Alternative Products

As shown in table CTL-IV-34, AHMSA produces subject CTL plate alone on its production

related equipment. Capacity ***.80

Table CTL-IV-34

CTL plate: Mexico’s capacity, production, and capacity utilization for subject and nonsubject CTL plate,

2005, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

As shown in table CTL-IV-35, AHMSA plate operations include ***.

Table CTL-IV-35

Wide flat bar: Mexico’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and

January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

THE INDUSTRY IN POLAND

Overview

The Commission identified three Polish producers of CTL plate - Huta Batory, Huta

Cz“stochowa, and Huta Pokoj - in the original investigations81 and six such producers in the first reviews,

none of which responded to the first review questionnaires.82 In the current second reviews, the

Commission issued questionnaires to seven Polish firms believed to be producers of CTL plate and

received data from Huta Stali Cz“stochowa (HSC) and Huta Pokoj.83 84 In the most recent fiscal year,
 85 HSC could not estimate the percentage of total production of CTL plate in Poland accounted for by its

production in 2005, but noted that HSC’s share in quarto (discreet) plate production was *** percent. HSC’s foreign

producer questionnaire, section II-18a. CTL plate sales as a share of total sales is not available as Huta Pokoj

supplied the Commission with basic trade data.

 86 ***, contained in ***. Mittal Steel USA did, however, provide the Commission with an estimate of Huta

Batory’s 2006 production of *** metric tons and, for 2007, estimates production of *** metric tons. E-mail from

***, November 14, 2006.

 87 USITC Publication 3364, p. PLATE-IV-10. 

 88 HSC’s foreign producer’s questionnaire, section II-1.

 89 HSC’s foreign producer’s questionnaire, section II-2.

CTL-IV-27

sales of CTL plate represented *** percent of HSC’s total sales.85 Table CTL-IV-36 presents

comparative information available from the original investigations, the first reviews, and these second

reviews. According to ***, there are three firms that produce reversing plate in Poland. Of these, Huta

Batory, the non-responding firm, has reversing plate mill capacity of less than *** short tons.86

Table CTL-IV-36

CTL plate: Comparison of select Polish industry data, 1992, 1999, and 2005

Item 1992 1999 2005

Capacity (1,000 short tons) *** (1

) ***

Production (1,000 short tons) *** 1,175 ***

Capacity utilization (percent) *** (1

) ***

Exports/shipments (percent) *** (1

) ***

Inventories/shipments (percent) *** (1) ***

 1 Not applicable.

 2

 No Polish producers responded to questionnaires in the 2000 reviews. Production data are based on the 1998 heavy plate

production volume provided by the Metallurgical Chamber of Industry and Commerce.

Note.--Data for 1992 were provided by Huta Czestochowa and Stalexport (on behalf of Huta Batory, Huta Czestochowa, and

Huta Pokoj). Data for 2005 were provided by HSC and Huta Pokoj.

Source: Confidential original report (INV-Q-115, July 20, 1993), table 86; USITC Publication 3364, p. PLATE-IV-10; and 2006

questionnaire responses identified above.

CTL Plate Operations

Table CTL-IV-37 presents data on the Polish industry’s capacity, production, shipments, and

inventories of CTL plate for 2000-05 as well as interim (January-June) 2005 and 2006. The Polish

industry producing CTL plate has changed since the period examined in the original investigations. As

part of its entry into the European Union, Poland had been under pressure to privatize a significant part of

its industry.87 After much restructuring, including a bankruptcy filing in 2002 and a purchase by the IUD

in 2005, Huta Cz“stochowa emerged in its current form as HSC in 2006. The restructuring ***. 

However, HSC did ***.88 HSC reported anticipating a name change to ISD Huta Cz“stochowa by the end

of 2006. Additionally, HSC plans to *** in 2007.89

Table CTL-IV-37

CTL plate: Poland’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and

January-June 2006

* * * * * * *
 90 HSC’s posthearing brief, p. 2-5; see also HSC’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-4.

 91 HSC’s posthearing brief, p. 8.

 92 HSC’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-8, and HSC’s posthearing brief, p. 3.

 93 HSC’s posthearing brief, p. 10.

 94 HSC’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-6 and II-8.

 95 HSC’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-11.

 96 HSC reported ***. HSC’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-9.

 97 HSC’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-12 and II-18a.

 98 HSC’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-15 and II-16.

 99 Poland is reportedly a net importer of hot-rolled steel in general and CTL plate in particular. HSC’s response

to the notice of institution, p. 3.

 100 HSC’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-14.

 101 HSC’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-13.

 102 HSC’s foreign producer questionnaires, section I-7.

 103 HSC’s response to the notice of institution, p. 3.

CTL-IV-28

HSC produces CTL plate solely on plate mills. HSC’s capacity *** over the period in these

reviews, ***. The Polish industry’s production and capacity utilization were lower in 2005 than they

were in 2000.

HSC reported plans to *** because of ***. By 2010 the firm plans to ***. HSC reported

planning to ***.90 With its planned ***, HSC reported that its role within the IUD group is to supply

higher value and nonsubject alloy products to Europe, and that the Ukranian and Hungarian IUD mills

would supply the global market with CTL plate.91 However, according to HSC, the planned ***.92 In the

event that Poland’s capacity expansions to higher grade steel do not occur, HSC will reportedly supply

***.93 However, as discussed in the OVERVIEW section, CTL plate from Ukraine is subject to a

suspension agreement with the United States.

As discussed in greater detail under the subheading “Alternative Products,” HSC’s mills

reportedly produce other products on the same equipment used to produce CTL plate using the same

production workers.94 Additionally, HSC reported that ***.95 96

HSC reported ***.97 HSC also reported that the orders ***.98 A large proportion of HSC’s

exports in 2005 were to countries in the ***, followed by export shipments to ***. Home market

shipments comprised *** percent of HSC’s shipments, and exports made up *** percent.99 HSC reported

plans to continue targeting the markets in ***.100 HSC’s exports of CTL plate are not currently subject to

any tariff or non-tariff barriers in any country, nor subject to current investigations in any other

country.101 While free trade agreements ***,102 the development of the European Union - in particular its

expansion in 2004, as well as reportedly favorable pricing trends, delivery times, and reaction to customer

demand - is a consideration.103

As shown in table CTL-IV-38, the largest share of CTL plate shipments from Poland is less than

one inch thick. As shown in table CTL-IV-39, carbon structural steel plate represents the majority of

exports, while home market shipments were split between shipbuilding plate and carbon structural steel

plate.

Table CTL-IV-38

CTL plate: Poland’s total shipments of plate, by thickness, 2005, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

* * * * * * *
 104 HSC’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-6.

 105 USITC Publication 2664, p. I-128; USITC Publication 3364, p. PLATE-IV-11.

 106 MS Galati has the following affiliate companies: Mittal Steel USA in the United States, Mittal Steel Annaba

in Algeria, Mittal Steel Skopje in the Formal Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and Mittal Steel SA in South Africa.

MS Galati’s foreign producer questionnaire, section I-5.

 107 MS Galati’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-10.

 108 MS Galati’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-18a.

 109 ***, contained in ***.

CTL-IV-29

Table CTL-IV-39

CTL plate: Poland’s total shipments of specified plate, by market, 2005

* * * * * * *

Alternative Products

As shown in table CTL-IV-40, of the CTL plate HSC produces, a substantial minority is

nonsubject, primarily micro-alloy plate. In addition to subject CTL plate, HSC produces ***. HSC

reported planning to increase production of these products relative to CTL plate.104 

Table CTL-IV-40

CTL plate: Poland’s capacity, production, and capacity utilization for subject and nonsubject CTL plate,

2005, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

Table CTL-IV-41 provides additional details on HSC’s operations on micro-alloy steel plate.

Table CTL-IV-41

Micro-alloy CTL plate: Poland’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2000-05, January-June

2005, and January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

THE INDUSTRY IN ROMANIA

Overview

The Commission identified two Romanian producers of CTL plate - Sidex SA Galati and

Metalexportimport - in the original investigations and one such producer - Sidex - in the first reviews.105

In the current second reviews, the Commission issued questionnaires to, and received data from, Mittal

Steel (“MS”) Galati.106 In the most recent fiscal year, sales of CTL plate represented *** percent of MS

Galati’s total sales.107 This amount reportedly accounts for all or nearly all of CTL plate production in

Romania.108 According to ***, MS Galati represents *** in Romania.109 Table CTL-IV-42 presents

comparative information available from the original investigations, the first reviews, and these second

reviews.

Table CTL-IV-42

CTL plate: Comparison of select Romanian industry data, 1992, 1999, and 2005

* * * * * * *
 110 E-mail from ***, September 5, 2006.

 111 MS Galati’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-1.

 112 MS Galati’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-17.

 113 MS Galati’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-4.

 114 MS Galati’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-6 and II-11.

 115 MS Galati’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-18a.

 116 Most subject CTL plate was produced in ***. MS Galati’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-5.

 117 MS Galati reported ***. MS Galati’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-9.

 118 MS Galati’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-15 and II-16.

 119 MS Galati’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-13 and I-7.

 120 MS Galati’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-18a.

 121 MS Galati’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-7.

CTL-IV-30

CTL Plate Operations

Prior to 2001, MS Galati was a state-owned company operating as Sidex. The company was

purchased by LNM Holdings in 2001 and then acquired by Ispat International in 2004. Prior to

privatization, in 1998, Sidex ***. After the company was privatized, the decision was made ***. This

explains the increase in capacity from 2000 to 2001.110 However, there were no physical changes to

production capabilities, and MS Galati reported no anticipated changes to production of CTL plate in the

future.111

Table CTL plate IV-43 presents the Romanian industry’s capacity, production, shipments, and

inventories of CTL plate for 2000-05 as well as interim (January-June) 2005 and 2006.

Table CTL-IV-43

CTL plate: Romania’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and

January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

MS Galati’s capacity increased from 2000 to 2003, and then began decreasing, but ***. From

2000 to 2004, production of CTL plate increased substantially, but then decreased from 2004 to 2005. 

Capacity utilization fluctuated *** between *** percent and *** percent.

MS Galati ***.112 Additionally, MS Galati reported ***.113 CTL plate is not produced on

machinery used in the production of other products, ***.114 In general, both capacity and production

increased for MS Galati over the period reviewed.115 116 117

MS Galati ***. Exports were greater in 2005 than in 2000, but exports to the United States in

2004 were ***. MS Galati reported that the current orders had no effect on its exports to the United

States and anticipated no effect on exports should the orders change.118 MS Galati’s exports are currently

subject to tariff or non-tariff barriers to trade in Argentina, Canada, Mexico, and Thailand, but MS Galati

is not subject to current investigations in any other country nor is it affected by free trade agreements.119

Markets in Asia, specifically ***, received the largest proportion of MS Galati’s exports, followed by the

European Union.120

Production of CTL plate in Romania takes place primarily on plate mills. Less than *** of

Romanian CTL plate production is on hot-strip mills.121

As shown in table CTL-IV-44, the largest share of CTL plate shipments from Romania was of

CTL plate less than one inch thick. In addition, as shown in table CTL-IV-45, carbon structural steel
 122 USITC Publication 2664, p. I-129; USITC Publication 3364, p. PLATE-IV-11.

 123 Staff were unable to locate any plate-specific information on Arcelor’s website or Eucomsa’s website.

 124 ***, contained in ***.

CTL-IV-31

plate accounted for the largest portion of Galati’s total shipments, followed by shipbuilding plate and

pressure vessel plate.

Table CTL-IV-44

CTL plate: Romanian producer’s total shipments of plate, by thickness, 2005, January-June 2005, and

January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

Table CTL-IV-45

CTL plate: Romanian producer’s total shipments of specified plate, by market, 2005

* * * * * * *

Alternative Products

As shown in table CTL-IV-46, the majority of CTL plate production by MS Galati is subject

merchandise. However, MS Galati also reported production of *** amounts of micro-alloy plate, the data

of which is presented in table CTL-IV-47.

Table CTL-IV-46

CTL plate: Romanian capacity, production, and capacity utilization for subject and nonsubject CTL plate,

2005, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

Table CTL-IV-47

Micro-alloy CTL plate: Romania’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2000-05, January-June

2005, and January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

THE INDUSTRY IN SPAIN

Overview

The Commission identified one producer of CTL plate - Ensidesa - in the original investigations

and one in the first review- Arceralia.122 In the current second reviews, the Commission issued

questionnaires to Arceralia but received no response.123 Table CTL-IV-48 presents comparative

information available from the original investigations, the first reviews, and these second reviews. 

According to ***, Arceralia represents all Spanish ***.124

Table CTL-IV-48

CTL plate: Comparison of select Spanish industry data: 1992, 1999, and 2005

* * * * * * *

Table CTL-IV-49 presents data on Spanish exports of CTL plate.
 125 USITC Publication 2664, p. I-130; USITC Publication 3364, p. PLATE-IV-12.

 126 ***.

 127 SSAB has two plants that produce CTL plate: SSAB Oxelösund and SSAB Tunnplat. 

http://www.ssabox.com/company/en_index.htm, retrieved September 23, 2006.

 128 ***, contained in ***.

CTL-IV-32

Table CTL-IV-49

CTL plate: Spanish exports by destination, 2000-05

Partner Country 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

Quantity (short tons)

Top 5 EU destinations:

 France 116,093 86,756 65,299 67,969 72,226 77,207

 Portugal 41,797 39,127 43,035 40,386 53,198 55,858

 United Kingdom 43,357 48,237 43,645 33,982 27,062 18,072

 Germany 9,562 20,004 18,098 19,549 22,154 17,295

 Netherlands 26,830 38,882 27,357 13,676 19,171 17,067

 All Other EU 23,393 25,938 53,427 34,836 28,676 22,853

 Total EU 261,032 258,944 250,861 210,398 222,488 208,351

Top 5 Non-EU destinations:

 South Korea 16 5 99 3 8 13,650

 Syria 0 0 41 1,094 2,902 5,716

 Brazil 129 1 18 4 16 5,173

 Cuba 5,002 2,673 4,970 11,726 4,076 3,333

 Turkey 1,721 5,665 1,587 1,373 1,660 2,569

 All Other Non-EU destinations 22,114 26,387 44,048 25,226 13,116 17,820

 World total 290,013 293,677 301,624 249,823 244,267 256,613

Note.--HS codes included: 7208.40, 7208.51, 7208.52, 7208.53, 7208.90, 7210.70, 7211.13, 7211.14, 7211.90, 7212.40, and

7212.50.

Source: Reported by Global Trade Atlas.

THE INDUSTRY IN SWEDEN

Overview

The Commission identified one producer of CTL plate - SSAB - in the original investigations and

the first reviews.125 In the current second reviews, the Commission issued questionnaires to SSAB but

received no response. SSAB is believed to account for all of the plate produced in Sweden.126 127 Table

CTL-IV-50 presents comparative information available from the original investigations, the first reviews,

and these second reviews. According to ***, SSAB represents all Swedish ***.128
 129 Response of domestic producers to notice of institution, p. 19, and SSAB 2004 annual reports, found at

www.ssab.com/uk.

 130 http://www.ssab.com/templates/IFrame____784.aspx, retrieved September 5, 2006.

 131 http://www.ssab.com/templates/PressRelease____817.aspx ?releaseId=207362, retrieved September 5, 2006.

 132 http://www.ssab.com/upload/SSAB2Q06_International.pdf, retrieved September 5, 2006.

 133 http://www.ssab.com/templates/PressRelease____817.aspx ?releaseId=222962, retrieved September 5, 2006.

 134 www.ssabox.com/company/en_indext.htm, retrieved September 5, 2006.

CTL-IV-33

Table CTL-IV-50

CTL plate: Comparison of select Swedish industry data: 1992, 1999, and 2005

Item 1992 1999 2005

Capacity (1,000 short tons) *** *** ***1 2

Production (1,000 short tons) *** *** 6971 3

Capacity utilization (percent) *** *** (4)

Exports/shipments (percent) *** *** 90.03

Inventories/shipments (percent) *** *** (5)

 1 Original data published in metric tons, which were converted to short tons by multiplying by 1.102311.

 2

 ***.

 3

 Data are for heavy plate produced at Oxelösund. http://www.ssabox.com/company/en_index.htm

 4 Cannot be calculated from data reported in table because capacity and production come from different sources.

 5

 Data are not available.

Note.--Data for 1992 were provided by SSAB. Data for 1999 were provided by SSOX and SSTP (sister companies owned by

SSAB). Data for 2005 were calculated from SSAB’s website and *** data.

Source: Confidential original report (INV-Q-115, July 20, 1993), table 90; Confidential first review report (INV-X-221, October 18,

2000), table PLATE-IV-11; and SSAB’s website and *** data.

From 1999 to 2005, SSAB’s heavy plate production increased by 144,000 tons.129 However,

according to SSAB’s 2005 annual report, the company has been focusing on increasing production of

high-strength steel and other niche products.130 In March 2006, SSAB’s Board of Directors approved

investment of SEK 900 million at SSAB Oxelösund for continued expansion of quenched steel capacity,

such as abrasion-resistant and extreme high-strength construction steels. SSAB is also investing in a new

slag granulation plant and a sheet center in China.131 Additionally, according to SSAB’s half-year 2006

presentation, SSAB plans on reducing the volume of normal heavy plate production in favor of niche

products (such as quenched steel). Core niche products reportedly increased from 34 percent to

38 percent of SSAB’s production.132 In July 2006, SSAB reported its second highest half-year profit as

well as a higher inflow of orders and more sales than in 2005.133 

According to official U.S. import statistics, Sweden’s shipments of CTL plate to the United States

have been minimal during the period for which data were collected during these second reviews. In 2005,

90 percent of SSAB Oxelösund’s CTL plate was exported, and Germany was reportedly its biggest export

market. Further, SSAB Oxelösund reported maintaining extensive stocks in more than 40 countries.134

Table CTL-IV-51 presents data on Swedish exports of CTL plate.
 135 USITC Publication 970, p. A7; USITC Publication 3364, p. PLATE-IV-12.

 136 The two non-responding producers are Chin Ho Fa Steel & Iron Co. Ltd. and Tung Ho Steel Enterprise Corp.

 137 ***, contained in ***.

CTL-IV-34

Table CTL-IV-51

CTL plate: Swedish exports, by destination, 2000-05

Partner Country 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

Quantity (short tons)

Top 5 EU destinations:

 Germany 110,190 99,962 109,386 89,978 122,593 91,047

 Denmark 103,149 97,853 81,943 86,515 69,531 70,124

 Finland 50,341 47,519 37,036 46,665 36,377 33,168

 Poland 32,013 37,524 15,986 17,784 25,094 22,171

 Spain 15,155 25,105 21,464 16,242 16,530 20,564

 All Other EU 192,192 196,974 136,704 98,813 114,961 99,872

 Total EU 503,039 504,937 402,519 355,997 385,086 336,946

Top 5 Non-EU destinations:

 Norway 43,031 45,144 45,228 34,172 33,378 29,166

 Switzerland 10,552 8,761 7,081 7,101 8,450 6,482

 Syria 98 1,243 927 2,013 2,918 4,403

 Pakistan 200 348 360 148 267 3,592

 Russia 2,641 5,131 3,076 3,914 5,511 2,319

 All Other Non-EU destinations 14,844 22,393 23,742 39,799 18,252 12,180

 World total 574,406 587,957 482,933 443,143 453,862 395,087

Note.--HS codes included: 7208.40, 7208.51, 7208.52, 7208.53, 7208.90, 7210.70, 7211.13, 7211.14, 7211.90, 7212.40, and

7212.50.

Source: Reported by Global Trade Atlas.

THE INDUSTRY IN TAIWAN

Overview

The Commission identified ten small producers of CTL plate as well as the startup facility of

China Steel Corp. in the original investigations and used data provided by the American Institute of

Taiwan in the first reviews.135 In the current second reviews, the Commission issued questionnaires to

three producers in Taiwan, one of which responded.136 Accordingly, the data presented on Taiwan

production of CTL plate for the current second reviews are for China Steel. According to ***, China

Steel represents all Taiwan ***.137 CTL plate sales represented *** percent of China Steel’s total sales. 

China Steel reportedly represents *** percent of production of CTL plate in Taiwan. Table CTL-IV-52

presents comparative information available from the original investigations, the first reviews, and these

second reviews.
 138 China Steel’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-9.

 139 China Steel’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-1.

 140 China Steel’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-2.

 141 Likewise, China Steel reported ***. China Steel’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-4 and II-17.

 142 China Steel’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-18a.

 143 Mittal’s prehearing brief, exhibit 1.

 144 E-mail from ***, November 3, 2006.

 145 Consequently, China Steel reported ***. China Steel’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-12.

 146 China Steel’s foreign producer questionnaire, section I-6.

CTL-IV-35

Table CTL-IV-52

CTL plate: Comparison of select Taiwan industry data: 1978, 1999, and 2005

Item 1978 1999 2005

Capacity (1,000 short tons) 440 *** ***

Production (1,000 short tons) (1

) *** ***

Capacity utilization (percent) (1

) *** ***

Exports/shipments (percent) (2

) *** ***

Inventories/shipments (percent) (1

) *** ***

 1 Data not provided.

 2

 According to the staff report from the original investigation, a sizeable portion of China Steel Corporation’s output was

exported to the United States.

Note.--Data for 1978 are from the original staff report; data for 1999 were provided by U.S. Department of State telegram,

003117, American Institute of Taiwan, Taipei, September 29, 2000 for CSC. Data for 2005 were provided by China Steel.

Source: Carbon Steel Plate From Taiwan, Investigation No. AA1921-197, USITC Publication 970, May 1979, pages A7-8;

confidential first review report (INV-X-221, October 18, 2000), table PLATE-IV-12; and 2006 questionnaire responses identified

above.

CTL Plate Operations

Table CTL-IV-53 presents China Steel’s capacity, production, shipments, and inventories of CTL

plate for 2000-05 as well as interim (January-June) 2005 and 2006. As shown, production of CTL plate

by China Steel ***. Indeed, China Steel reported ***.138 China Steel ***. Capacity has remained

constant at more than *** short tons per year, and there have been ***.139 In spite of operating ***

during the entire period, China Steel reported ***,140 nor ***.141

Home market shipments accounted for more than *** percent of total shipments throughout the

period for which data were collected. Total exports as a share of shipments declined from *** percent in

2000 to *** percent in 2005. Asia was the only reported market to which China Steel ships. According

to China Steel’s questionnaire, the producer’s principal Asian market includes ***.142 However,

according to official import statistics from China,143 imports from Taiwan are substantial. In fact, China

Steel recognizes that ***, since Taiwan regulations stipulate that exports from Taiwan to China must go

through Hong Kong.144 There were no reported exports of CTL plate to the United States during the

period for which data were collected. Indeed, China Steel reported ***,145 nor ***.146 China Steel

reported that its CTL plate exports are not subject to any tariff or nontariff barriers in any countries, nor
 147 China Steel’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-13 (a) and (b).

 148 China Steel’s foreign producer questionnaire, section I-7.

 149 China Steel’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-3.

 150 China Steel’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-6.

 151 China Steel’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-11.

 152 USITC Publication 2664, p. I-131; USITC Publication 3364, p. PLATE-IV-13.

CTL-IV-36

subject to current investigations in any other country.147 Free trade agreements reportedly ***.148 If the

orders were to be revoked, China Steel believes that ***.149

Table CTL-IV-53

CTL plate: Taiwan’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and

January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

As shown in table CTL-IV-54, shipments of plate product less than 1 inch thick represent the

largest share of total plate shipments. In addition, as shown in table CTL-IV-55, carbon structural steel

plate accounts for the majority of shipments of plate for home market consumption and non-U.S. exports.

Table CTL-IV-54

CTL plate: Taiwan total shipments of plate, by thickness, 2005, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

Table CTL-IV-55

CTL plate: Taiwan total shipments of specified plate, by market, 2005

* * * * * * *

Alternative Products

As shown in table CTL-IV-56, China Steel does not produce nonsubject CTL plate. China Steel

produces CTL plate ***.150 Therefore, ***.151

Table CTL-IV-56

CTL plate: Taiwan’s production capacity, production, and capacity utilization for subject and nonsubject

CTL plate, 2005, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

THE INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED KINGDOM

Overview

The Commission identified one producer of CTL steel plate in the United Kingdom - British Steel

- in the original investigations and one such producer in the first reviews - Corus Steel.152 In the current

second reviews, the Commission issued questionnaires to four producers in the United Kingdom (Corus,

Niagara Lasalle, Spartan, and Celsa), all of which responded and are parties. The data presented on

production of CTL plate in the United Kingdom for the current second reviews are for Corus, Niagara
 153 Niagara LaSalle and Celsa solely produce wide flat bars. Celsa did not supply the Commission with a

completed questionnaire, but did provide partial shipment data. Because Celsa provided only partial shipment data,

its information is not included in the UK data in this report.

 154 ***, contained in ***.

 155 Corus’ and Niagara LaSalle’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-18a.

 156 Corus’ and Niagara LaSalle’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-10.

 157 Corus’ foreign producer questionnaire, section II-1.

 158 Corus’ and Niagara LaSalle’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-2.

 159 Corus’ foreign producer questionnaire, section II-4.

 160 On October 20, 2006, Tata, an Indian steel firm, offered to acquire Corus. The board of directors

recommended approving the takeover. Corus argues that the potential acquisition should have no impact on the

Commission’s analysis, believing that any new owners would be pleased with Corus’ plate operations. Corus’

posthearing brief, attachment O. However, domestic interested party Nucor argues that there is no reason to believe

that new management would adopt the same strategy as Corus’ current management. Nucor’s posthearing brief,

attachment 1.

 161 Corus’ and Niagara Lasalle’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-17.

 162 Spartan’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-1.

 163 Spartan’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-2.

 164 Spartan’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-4.

CTL-IV-37

LaSalle, and Spartan.153 According to ***, there are three reversing plate mills in the United Kingdom,

all of which are accounted for in this report.154 In 2005, Corus reportedly accounted for *** percent of

production of CTL plate in the United Kingdom, Spartan estimated that it accounted for *** percent, and

Niagara LaSalle for *** percent.155 Sales of CTL plate in 2005 accounted for *** percent of total sales

from Spartan, *** percent from Corus, and *** percent from Niagara LaSalle.156 Table CTL-IV-57

presents comparative information available from the original investigations, the first reviews, and these

second reviews.

Table CTL-IV-57 

CTL plate: Comparison of select UK industry data, 1992, 1999, and 2005

* * * * * * *

CTL Plate Operations

*** reported that its ***.157 In 2004, Corus sold its Tuscaloosa Plant in Alabama to Nucor, and

thus no longer has any production facilities in the United States. ***. Neither firm ***,158 and neither

has ***.159 160 ***, but in 2005 ***. ***.161 

Spartan began operations in 2001. It was known previously as Spartan Redheugh, whose assets

were acquired through bankruptcy procedures by the Italian firm Trametal SpA in 1999. In 2001,

Trametal established Spartan UK Ltd as a UK-registered company, and transferred the assets to

Spartan.162 Spartan reported that it expects no changes to the character of its operations or organization163

and has ***.164
 165 Corus’ revised October 27, 2006 foreign producer questionnaire, section II-18a.

 166 Niagara LaSalle reported production constraints arising from the ***. For Corus, capacity constraints are due

to ***. Corus’ and Niagara LaSalle’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-9. Currently, Corus has ***. 

Corus’ foreign producer questionnaire, section II-18a.

 167 Corus’ foreign producer questionnaire, section II-2.

 168 Corus’ and Niagara LaSalle’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-12.

 169 Corus’ and Niagara LaSalle’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-13 (a) and (b).

 170 Corus’, Niagara LaSalle’s, and Spartan’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-14.

 171 Corus’ posthearing brief, attachment 2.

CTL-IV-38

Table CTL-IV-58 illustrates the decline in production capacity after Corus ***.165 UK capacity

utilization reached its high mark ***, and was no less than *** percent since 2002.166 ***.167

The only reported export shipment of CTL plate from the United Kingdom to the United States

was *** short tons in ***. No firm reported ***.168 Throughout the period for which data were collected,

home market shipments constituted more than *** of total CTL shipments, exports accounted for ***,

and internal consumption and company transfers accounted for the remainder.

UK CTL plate exports are not subject to any tariff or nontariff barriers in any countries, nor

subject to current investigations in any other country.169 *** noted that many countries maintain ***

specific import tariffs, whose effects on *** trading policies are negligible. *** has, however, been

subject to Canadian antidumping orders which were rescinded in 1998. Subsequent to the recision, ***.

Niagara LaSalle reported ***. Corus reported ***, it did not develop alternative export markets

as a result of the orders. ***.170 Corus projects 2007 shipments of CTL plate outside Europe to range

from ***.171

Table CTL-IV-58

CTL plate: United Kingdom’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2000-05, January-June 2005,

and January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

Table CTL-IV-59 shows that most shipments in 2005 of CTL plate were less than one inch thick. 

In 2005, carbon structural steel plate accounted for the majority of home market shipments and exports

(table CTL-IV-60).

Table CTL-IV-59

CTL plate: United Kingdom’s total shipments of plate, by thickness, 2005, January-June 2005, and JanuaryJune 2006

* * * * * * *

Table CTL-IV-60

CTL plate: United Kingdom’s total shipments of specified plate, by market, 2005

* * * * * * *
 172 Corus’ and Niagara Lasalle’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-11.

 173 ***.

 174 Production data compiled by *** are for reversing mill plate and are believed to account for the large majority

of global CTL plate production. Such data do not include plate cut from coils produced on hot strip mills or on

combination (or “Steckel”) mills, as such mills are not dedicated to plate production. *** data do not distinguish

between carbon and non-carbon steel; accordingly, the production totals reported for reversing mill plate production

are somewhat overstated.

CTL-IV-39

Alternative Products

Table CTL-IV-61 presents data on overall British plate production. Niagara LaSalle reported that

***, but Corus reported that ***.172

Table CTL-IV-61

CTL plate: United Kingdom’s capacity, production, and capacity utilization for subject and nonsubject CTL

plate, 2005, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

Table CTL-IV-62 presents data on UK production of wide flat bar.

Table CTL-IV-62

Wide flat bar: United Kingdom’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2000-05, January-June

2005, and January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

Table CTL-IV-63 presents data on UK production of micro-alloy CTL plate.

Table CTL-IV-63

Micro-alloy CTL plate: United Kingdom’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2000-05,

January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

GLOBAL MARKET

Production

Global production of reversing mill plate products has grown considerably in recent years. 

According to one published source,173 global production of reversing mill plate increased by *** percent

between 1994 and 1999, and by *** percent between 2000 and 2005. In terms of sheer volume, the East

and Southeast Asia region accounted for the greatest production increases in both periods, and is forecast

to lead global production in the coming years as well. Data compiled by *** on historical, current, and

projected global production of reversing mill plate are presented in tables CTL-IV-64 through CTL-IV66.174

Table CTL-IV-64

Reversing mill plate: Global and regional production of reversing mill plate, 1994-99

* * * * * * *
 175 Consumption data compiled by *** are for reversing mill plate and are believed to account for the large

majority of global CTL plate consumption, although such data do not include plate cut from coils produced on a strip

mill or Steckel mill plate. *** data do not distinguish between carbon and non-carbon steel; accordingly, the

consumption totals reported for reversing mill plate are somewhat overstated.

 176 See Part CTL-II of this report for the individual perspectives of U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers on

demand in the United States and in other markets. 

CTL-IV-40

Table CTL-IV-65

Reversing mill plate: Global and regional production of reversing mill plate, 2000-05

* * * * * * *

Table CTL-IV-66

Reversing mill plate: Forecast of global and regional production of reversing mill plate, 2005-10

* * * * * * *

Consumption

Data compiled by *** on historical, current, and forecast global consumption of reversing mill

plate are presented in tables CTL-IV-67 through CTL-IV-69.175 Worldwide consumption of reversing

mill plate increased by *** percent between 1994 and 1999, despite reductions in consumption in North

America and Latin America. Worldwide consumption increased by *** percent between 2000 and 2005,

paced by a near-*** of consumption in East and Southeast Asia. Global consumption of reversing mill

plate is forecast to continue to grow in the coming years, with the growth evenly distributed in all major

markets except Europe.176

Table CTL-IV-67

Reversing mill plate: Global and regional consumption of reversing mill plate, 1994-99

* * * * * * *

Table CTL-IV-68

Reversing mill plate: Global and regional consumption of reversing mill plate, 2000-05

* * * * * * *

Table CTL-IV-69

Reversing mill plate: Forecast of global and regional consumption of reversing mill plate, 2005-10

* * * * * * *

Prices

The Commission asked producers, importers, and purchasers to compare market prices of CTL

plate in U.S. and non-U.S. markets. Three responding producers reported that U.S. prices are generally

higher than prices in other markets. *** reported that prices of CTL plate in the United States are similar

to prices in Canada. Importers also generally reported that U.S. prices are higher than prices in other

markets. However, *** reported that U.S. prices are similar to prices in other markets. Most purchasers
 177 *** reported that in early 2006, U.S. prices were approximately $140 to $200 per ton higher than the price of

steel from Thailand, *** reported that U.S. prices are slightly higher than Canadian prices, and *** reported that

U.S. prices are higher but did not specify what country or market it was using as a comparison.

 178 Original data are published in metric tons, and were converted to short tons using the following conversion

factor: 1 metric ton = 1.102311 short tons. MEPS, World Carbon Steel Product Prices, found at

http://www.meps.co.uk, retrieved on September 6, 2006, and updated on November 8, 2006 and December 1, 2006. 

This pricing series is available to the public and its use is unrestricted.

 179 Prices are an arithmetic average of the low transaction values identified in the EU, Asia, and North America,

converted into U.S. dollars.

 180 MEPS, International Steel Review, January 2005 - November 2006.

CTL-IV-41

were unable to compare prices, but two reported that prices were approximately the same in various

markets and two reported that U.S. prices are generally higher than anywhere else.177

Published price data are available from several reputable sources, although often such data are

available by subscription only and cannot be reproduced without consent of their publisher. These data,

however, are collected based on different product categories, timing, and commercial considerations, and

therefore may not be directly comparable with each other. Moreover, such data are distinct from the

pricing data presented in Part CTL-V of this report, which are collected directly from U.S. producers and

U.S. importers via the Commission’s questionnaires according to precise product definitions. 

As reported by MEPS, world prices for hot-rolled plate declined irregularly between January

2000 and February 2002, decreasing from $283 per short ton to $242 per short ton during that time. 

Thereafter, prices recovered, slowly at first, then more rapidly, surpassing $300 per short ton in February

2003, $400 per short ton in March 2004, $500 per short ton in May 2004, and $600 per short ton in

September 2004. World prices peaked in January 2005 at $686 per short ton, then declined to as low as

$586 per short ton in February 2006 before rebounding to $685 per short ton by September.178 179

As presented in table CTL-IV-70, country-specific monthly transaction prices for hot-rolled plate

are also compiled by MEPS,180 and show monthly price fluctuations across major producing countries. 

According to data compiled by MEPS, for January 2005 through November 2006, U.S. negotiated

transaction prices for U.S.-produced hot-rolled plate generally decreased over the first three quarters of

2005 before increasing in the fourth quarter of 2005 and in 2006, and in the fall of 2006 reached their

highest price levels in the January 2005 - November 2006 period. In Europe, major steel market prices

for hot-rolled plate generally decreased from January 2005 through the first quarter of 2006, before

recovering in the second quarter of 2006. At the start of 2005, transaction prices in Europe were

generally higher than transaction prices in the United States, but, by the second quarter of 2005, these

trends were reversing, with U.S. prices being the highest relative to most European prices in the first

quarter of 2006. U.S. prices and European prices are currently very similar. Prices in Poland followed a

slightly different trend, increasing in the first quarter of 2005 and remaining higher than U.S. prices into

the fourth quarter of 2005. Prices in Poland dropped much lower relative to U.S. prices in the second

quarter of 2006 than the other European prices. In the U.S. market, prices exceeded those in the Taiwan

market throughout 2005 and 2006 year-to-date, with price differentials in the $*** range.

Table CTL-IV-70

Hot-rolled plate: Negotiated transaction prices (ex mill) for prime hot-rolled plate, by subject country and by

month, January 2005-October 2006

* * * * * * *

In addition, *** compiles country- and region-specific monthly prices for steel plate, presented in

table CTL-IV-71. According to these data, U.S. prices were relatively stable during 2000-03, though

clearly “softer” in 2001 than in any other year. Reported U.S. prices rose sharply over the course of
 181 Compiled from data published in the ***.

 182 Ibid.

 183 Information presented in this section is primarily derived from the following sources: Steel Business Briefing,

SBB Global Market Outlook, July 2006; MEPS International Steel Review, July-November 2006; ***; American

Metal Market, “Two Steel Markets Veering Off in Opposite Directions,” August 11, 2006, “Duration of Correction

Tied to Imports, but Execs Say It’s Likely Short-Lived,” October 20, 2006, “U.S. Flat-Roll Import Tags Fall; 

Downturn Seen Shortlived,” November 2, 2006, and “Revealing the Inner Details of Steel’s Inventory Run-Up,”

November 6, 2006; and Paul Glader, “Steel Prices are Likely to Jump, Adding to Manufacturers’ Woes,” The Wall

Street Journal, May 24, 2006. 

 184 ***. According to the same source, China alone accounts for nearly *** percent of South and South East

Asian reversing mill plate capacity, or nearly *** percent of global reversing mill plate capacity. ***. 

CTL-IV-42

2004, retrenched in 2005, but have shown signs of strengthening further in 2006. German, UK, EU

export, and Japan export prices likewise could be viewed as relatively stable between 2000 and 2003,

albeit without the “softness” that characterized the U.S. market in 2001. In contrast, Far East prices

proved more volatile, and like U.S. prices did fall to lower levels in 2001. In 2004, all reported prices

increased over the course of the year, though none as sharply as U.S. prices. Indeed, Far East prices

increased only modestly. In 2005, most non-U.S. prices initially increased or at least maintained newlyestablished levels, but over the course of the year softened, with the exception of Japan export prices. 

Through November 2006, however, non-U.S. prices have largely recovered, with the exception of Japan

export prices.181

Based on ***’s published monthly prices for steel plate, U.S. prices were generally higher than

non-U.S. prices. Over the 83-month period presented in table CTL-IV-71, U.S. prices were consistently

and noticeably higher than Far East (and later China) prices. Japan export prices were frequently higher

than U.S. prices from late 2000 through 2003, but lower thereafter, as were German (until November

2006) and EU export prices. UK prices, however, were more often than not higher than U.S. prices,

frequently during the period 2000-03 but continuing with less frequency in 2004-06.182

Table CTL-IV-71

Plate: Prices for steel plate, by country or by region, and by month, January 2000-November 2006

* * * * * * *

Additional Global Supply and Demand Factors183

Worldwide, the majority of reversing mill plate capacity resides in East and South East Asia - ***

percent, by ***’s estimate, compared to *** percent in Western Europe. The Commonwealth of

Independent States (CIS) accounts for a further *** percent. In contrast, the majority of Steckel mill

capacity (approximately *** the capacity of reversing plate mills globally) is located in the North

America, home to *** percent of total Steckel mill capacity. The following tabulation presents rated

capacities of reversing and Steckel plate mills, by region (in metric tons).184

* * * * * * *

Although the quantity of steel produced in China grew throughout the first half of 2006, several

disruptions to global supply allowed China’s increased production to be absorbed. Global demand was

firm and the price of finished steel remained strong. However, demand has weakened in many markets in

recent months.
CTL-IV-43

While there are currently no safeguard measures in place for CTL plate, several countries (in

addition to the United States) implemented safeguard measures from 2002 to 2004. Table CTL-IV-72

summarizes the countries, products covered, safeguard type, and implementation and termination dates.

Table CTL-IV-72

Steel safeguards imposed by foreign trade partners, 2002–05

Country Products covered Safeguard type

Implementation

 date

Termination

date

China

Subject products: Carbon steel plate.

Non-subject products: Carbon steel slab,

sheet, galvanized sheet, and organiccoated sheet.

Electrical steel sheets.

Tin mill products.

Stainless steel plates and sheets.

Carbon steel bars, rebars, and wire.

Carbon steel sections.

Iron or steel seamless pipes.

Provisional– Tariff rates

ranging from 7 percent to 26

percent on imports

exceeding quota levels. May 24, 2002 Nov. 19, 2002

European

Union

Subject products: Carbon steel plate.

Non-subject products: Carbon sheet, strip,

and quatro plate. 

Alloy steel flat-rolled products.

Electrical steel sheets.

Tin mill products.

Carbon and alloy steel bar and rebar. 

Stainless steel wire.

Alloy steel fittings and flanges. 

Provisional– Tariff rates for

above-quota imports range

from 14.9 percent to 26.0

percent depending on

product category. Mar. 29, 2002 Sept. 28, 2002

European

Union

Subject products: Carbon steel plate.

Non-subject products: Hot-rolled and coldrolled sheet, and strip.

Alloy steel flat-rolled products.

Alloy steel fittings and flanges.

Definitive– Initial tariff

quotas are based on the

average annual import

volume over the prior 3

years plus 10 percent. The

quota level is to increase by

5 percent in each

subsequent year beginning

Sept. 29, 2002.

Tariff rates for above-quota

imports range from 14.1

percent to 26.0 percent

depending on product

category. Sept. 29, 2002 Dec. 5, 2003

Hungary

Subject products: Carbon steel plate.

Non-subject products: Carbon sheet, bar,

rod, sections, pipe, tube, hollow profiles,

wire-cloth, grill netting, and fencing.

Tariff rate quota increases

by 2.5 percent in each

successive 6-months

period.

Tariff rates for above-quota

imports set between 15-25

percent, depending on

product category, and

declines by 5 percent in

each successive 6-months

period.

Provisional:

June 3, 2002

Definitive: 

Apr. 2, 2003 May 1, 20041

 1

 Safeguards terminated with country’s accession to the European Union.

Source: World Trade Organization.
 185 For the purpose of this chapter, this report presents import data for subject countries and not export data due to

apparent discrepancies between import and export statistics reported by Global Trade Atlas.

CTL-IV-44

Notwithstanding the impact of global safeguard actions on trade in CTL plate, imports worldwide

increased between 2000 and 2005.185 As shown in tables CTL-IV-73, between 2000 and 2005, worldwide

CTL plate imports increased by 6.2 million short tons.

Table CTL-IV-73

CTL plate: Global imports, 2000-05

Reporting country 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

Quantity (short tons)

Subject countries:

Belgium 742,173 636,945 659,877 786,792 976,468 1,010,939

Brazil 11,494 51,524 27,877 10,727 11,851 23,179

Finland 130,002 151,081 123,488 139,155 122,061 132,750

Germany 2,102,239 2,364,313 2,151,393 2,046,787 2,263,483 2,091,513

Mexico1 287,242 225,740 262,471 195,376 406,340 330,037

Poland 583,851 799,305 649,096 678,845 750,764 937,723

Romania 45,185 96,998 74,693 92,302 84,384 157,931

Spain 558,764 610,700 704,734 718,280 762,108 642,235

Sweden 277,816 237,431 247,814 242,016 216,135 233,809

Taiwan 593,251 311,306 507,915 473,550 648,675 352,952

United Kingdom 566,158 730,079 600,119 597,368 607,579 587,271

Total: subject countries 5,898,175 6,215,422 6,009,477 5,981,198 6,849,848 6,500,339

Top 10 other sources:

South Korea 984,370 1,002,852 1,266,891 1,535,056 2,537,325 2,680,686

India 365,108 389,464 544,695 710,120 648,366 1,453,738

China 1,099,304 1,369,651 2,270,161 3,954,722 2,447,882 1,316,642

United States 949,805 1,096,794 835,627 656,787 987,580 1,163,800

France 1,212,037 1,057,839 1,081,390 968,290 1,111,510 990,954

Turkey 449,294 253,340 433,258 451,948 681,529 986,180

Canada 487,357 436,430 633,888 545,328 826,539 868,002

Netherlands 679,715 702,013 681,875 631,779 830,215 794,756

Singapore 397,283 499,363 470,677 454,347 602,372 752,008

Russia 230,749 353,046 311,183 465,078 471,547 632,731

Subtotal 6,855,021 7,160,794 8,529,645 10,373,455 11,144,864 11,639,497

All other sources 5,606,526 5,484,140 5,610,676 5,649561 6,133,027 6,441,367

World total 18,359,722 18,860,356 20,149,798 22,004,214 24,127,739 24,581,203

 1 As Mexico did not report its imports in most years during 2000-05, the data shown for Mexico are the quantities that partner

countries reportedly exported to Mexico.

Note.--HS codes included: 7208.40, 7208.51, 7208.52, 7208.53, 7208.90, 7210.70, 7211.13, 7211.14, 7211.90, 7212.40,

7212.50.

Source: Reported by Global Trade Atlas.

According to published reports, end user demand for steel plate in the United States continues to

be strong, especially from the oil and gas industry, even as sheet demand has weakened. Earlier in 2006,

many analysts believed there was a shortage in domestic production capacity for plate, and lead times
 186 American Metal Market, “Tata Steel in $8.1B deal to acquire Corus Group,” October 20, 2006, at

http://amm.com/2006-10-20__14-37-46.html, retrieved on November 13, 2006.

CTL-IV-45

were extended due to unexpected outages at Mittal’s mills. However, over the past few months, these

mills have come back online and demand for commercial grade products has slowed. Prices generally

have remained steady, despite growing U.S. imports and high inventory levels at service centers (now destocking, likely into the first quarter of 2007), as production cuts by U.S. producers have offset lower

service center orders.

The European market for flat products is also experiencing strong demand and prices have

increased since mid-2005, with prices robust at present and, at worst, mixed views regarding possible

future weakness in Southern European commodity plate markets. Both the oil industry and other

consuming industries are continuing to drive up plate demand. Maintenance outages have also

contributed to a tight European market. Demand in the European plate market is strongest for the higher

qualities and grades. European plate mills have benefitted from a strategic shift away from the

commodity market and are finding good export opportunities for higher value-added production.

China’s domestic demand for plate is low compared with its production levels; however, there

has been a recent increase in prices stemming from demand from the shipbuilding and construction

sectors. Shipments of Chinese plate to Europe have resumed, following the European summer holiday

season, alleviating a buildup of excess production in the Chinese domestic markets. Along with low

regional stocks and generally solid supply / demand fundamentals in other Asian markets, these factors

have so far offset growing local supply.

Consolidation Among Global Producers

Consolidation in the global steel industry has accelerated in recent years. Most recently, Indian

company Tata Steel Ltd. has agreed to purchase European producer Corus Group Plc for $8.1 billion.186

In the largest recent merger, Mittal and Arcelor came together to form Arcelor Mittal. In this transaction,

Mittal acquired 92 percent of Arcelor’s assets for 26.9 billion euros. The new company has the capacity

to produce 120 million metric tons per year of raw steel. Other notable mergers and acquisitions are

reviewed in Part CTL-III.

Global Raw Material Availability and Prices

Despite strong demand at the beginning of the year that resulted in steel producers reinstating raw

materials surcharges, prices of raw materials have eased. Global iron ore prices, which had risen 72

percent during July 2005-July 2006, declined due to decreased demand and lower steel prices in China

before rising again in recent months on increased Chinese demand. Many steelmakers own iron ore

mines, but need to rely on the global market for some of their supply. Three large iron ore producers, Rio

Tinto PLC, Companhia Vale do Rio Doce, and BHP Billiton Ltd., account for 75 percent of global iron

ore production. 

Global coke prices have stabilized after recent falls. Demand from India, Europe, and Brazil has

increased. The coke market is improving within China, as demand has increased amid tighter supply.

Scrap prices have declined and are expected to fall further in the United States, but are steady

throughout the rest of the world. Steel production cuts within the United States have led to decreased

demand and prices for scrap. High shipping costs, particularly on long routes, partially offset the recent

price decreases in these raw materials. 
 187 This section discusses Mercosur and the European Union. For information on NAFTA, please refer to Part

CORE-IV.

 188 Profile: Mercosur – Common Market of the South, BBC News, July 26, 2006;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5195834.stm. The European Union and Mercosur are engaged in

negotiations regarding a potential free trade agreement, however important differences exist over issues such as

agricultural subsidies and tariffs on industrial goods.

 189 Christopher M. Bruner, Hemispheric Integration and the Politics of Regionalism: The Free Trade Area of the

Americas (FTAA). 33 U. Miami Inter-Am. L. Rev. 1 (2002).

 190 Merco Press, June 15, 2004.

 191 Profile: Mercosur – Common Market of the South, BBC News, July 26, 2006;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5195834.stm.

 192 General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT), Article XXIV.

 193 Foreign Trade Barriers: Argentina, 2006;

http://search.crownpeak.com/cpt_search/result_1?q=steel+2006&account=1003.

 194 The European Union, producing 193 million tonnes of crude steel, accounts for 18 percent of world

production. The value of the annual EU steel production is estimated at i21 billion, representing more than 1

percent of the EU’s GDP. Employment in the steel sector has contracted steadily over the years, from 1 million

people working in the sector in 1970 to just 347,000 in 2005. Employment in the industry is less than 1.5 percent of

(continued...)

CTL-IV-46

Regional Developments187

Mercosur comprises five member countries (Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, and the latest

addition in December 2005, Venezuela), five associate countries, and one observer country in South

America. Founded in 1991 to promote free trade and eliminate trade barriers among the signatory parties,

it has granted associate membership status to all members of the Andean Community (Bolivia, Colombia,

Ecuador, and Peru). Associate members can enter into the free trade agreements of Mercosur but remain

outside of its customs union. Full members are barred from entering into bilateral trade deals outside the

organization.188

Mercosur represents the third largest trading bloc in the world after the European Union and

NAFTA. It brought an initial reduction of approximately 95 percent of trade barriers among its

members.189 Since the signing of the Asunción Treaty establishing Mercosur, inter-regional trade quickly

expanded from $5.1 billion in 1990 to $14.38 billion in 1995.190 The combined gross domestic product of

the trading bloc is approximately $1.1 trillion a year with about 220 million customers.191

Although Mercosur was, to a certain extent, inspired by the European Union model, it is not a

supranational organization. Rather, Mercosur is an intergovernmental organization geared towards the

creation of a common market, without discarding the possibility of an economic union or a common

currency in the future. Mercosur is a customs union -- one characterized by the elimination of barriers of

trade between member states and a Common External Tariff (CET), which dictates the customs duty rates

applicable for imports of goods into the member countries.192 As it stands currently, Mercosur has

eliminated most trade barriers in goods and services and achieved a common external tariff. More than

90 percent of intra-Mercosur trade is duty-free, while the group's CET applies to more than 85 percent of

imported goods. Remaining goods are scheduled to be phased into the CET by the end of 2006, although

some delay is anticipated. CETs range from zero to 20 percent ad valorem, with a number of countryspecific exceptions.193

The membership of the European Union (EU) in 2006 stood at 25 Member States. The EU

Member States combined represent the world's largest economy by GDP. Its economy is expected to

grow further over the next decade as more countries join the union; the 2005 growth rate was

approximately 1.5 percent.194 The European Union has a common single market consisting of a customs
 194 (...continued)

total employment in the Union ’s manufacturing industries. Steel Sector, Europa, July 2006, found at

http://ec.europa.eu/comm/trade/issues/sectoral/industry/steel/index_en.htm.

 195 Activities of the EU: Internal market, Europa, May 2006.

 196 2006 Trade Policy Agenda and 2005 Annual Report, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, www.ustr.gov.

 197 “The Euro: Our Currency,” found at http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/euro/our_currency_en.htm, retrieved

on September 22, 2006.

 198 “The Customs Policy of the European Union” athttp://ec.europa.eu/publications/booklets/move/19/txt_en.htm,

retrieved on September 22, 2006.

 199 “EU Accessions Bill", BBC News; January 27, 2006.

CTL-IV-47

union, a single currency managed by the European Central Bank, a Common Trade Policy, a Common

Agricultural Policy, a Common Fisheries Policy, and a Common Foreign and Security Policy.195 The

European Union constitutes a market of some 450 million consumers with a total gross domestic product

of more than $11 trillion.196

The euro is currently the common currency for 12 of the 25 Member States with a combined

population of over 300 million: Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy,

Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain. Slovenia is scheduled to adopt the euro as its

currency in 2007.197

As a customs union, the European Union maintains a common external tariff, has abolished

customs duties between Member States, and since 1993, has removed internal border restrictions. The

EU has expanded gradually, increasing from six Member States to 15 between 1958 and 1995. The “EU

Enlargement” in May 2004 added ten new Member States, increasing population in the EU by nearly

20 percent and increasing GDP by almost 5 percent.198 Bulgaria and Romania are scheduled to become

members on January 1, 2007, provided that they meet the conditions for membership. The Treaty of

Accession for the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania has been ratified by parliaments of EU Member

States since April 2005, but issues remain for both countries remain before ratification is possible.199

 1

 Rising iron ore costs in 2006 reportedly have pushed steel price forecasts for the second half of 2006 up by

approximately 19 percent. “Steel prices are likely to jump, adding to manufacturers’ woes,” The Wall Street

Journal, May 24, 2006.

 2

 U.S. producers announced price increases for July 2006 due, in part, to rising scrap prices. “Carbon plate prices

poised for up to $30 per ton hike in July,” American Metal Market, April 27, 2006, found at

http://amm.com/2006-04-27__18-06-13.html, retrieved September 1, 2006.

CTL-V-1

PART CTL-V: PRICING AND RELATED INFORMATION

FACTORS AFFECTING PRICES

Raw Materials

The cost of raw materials, consisting primarily of iron ore, coal, and steel scrap, is an important

component of the total cost of producing CTL plate. Public data show that prices in the United States of

iron ore and coal rose during the January 2000 to September 2006 period, with the increase for iron ore

occurring primarily in 2005 and 2006 (figure CTL-V-1).1

 The price of iron and steel scrap in the United

States decreased in 2000 and 2001 and then increased markedly. After a decrease in early 2005, scrap

prices then increased through mid-20062

 and have only fallen slightly in late 2006.

Figure CTL-V-1

Raw material costs: Producer price indexes (January 2000=100) of iron ore, coal, and iron and

steel scrap in the United States, by months, January 2000-September 2006

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, November 7, 2006.

Energy costs are another important factor in the production of CTL plate. Both natural gas prices

and electricity prices in the United States were higher in January-July 2006 than in any of the full years

between 2000 and 2005, as shown in the following tabulation:

50

70

90

110

130

150

170

190

210

230

250

Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06

January 2000 = 100

Iron ore Coal Iron and steel scrap
 3

 “Carbon plate prices poised for up to $30 per ton hike in July,” American Metal Market, April 27, 2006, found

at http://amm.com/2006-04-27__18-06-13.html, retrieved September 1, 2006.

 4

 These estimates are based on a weighted average of HTS statistical reporting numbers 7208.40.3030,

7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, and

7211.14.0045. A weighted average of data from 2000 through 2005 was used for Finland, Spain, and Taiwan due to

a lack of data in 2005.

CTL-V-2

Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 20063

U.S. natural gas industrial price1 $4.45 $5.24 $4.02 $5.81 $6.41 $7.09 $8.21

Electricity industrial price2 4.64 5.04 4.88 5.13 5.11 5.27 5.93

 1 In dollars per thousand cubic feet.

 2

 In cents per kilowatt-hour.

 3 Monthly average for January through July.

Sources: U.S. Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.doe.gov.

Producers and importers were asked to what extent changes in the prices of raw materials had

affected the selling price of CTL plate since 2000. All 19 responding producers reported that selling

prices have increased as a direct result of higher prices for raw materials (e.g., scrap, iron ore, coal, and

others). Five producers reported implementing surcharges as a result of increased raw material costs. 

The domestic mills implemented raw material surcharges beginning in January 2004, but recently some

U.S. producers have reportedly rolled surcharges into base prices.3

 Most importers reported that raw

material price increases had a marked affect on CTL plate prices since 2000.

Transportation Costs to the United States

Transportation costs for shipping CTL plate to the United States (excluding U.S. inland costs)

from the subject countries are estimated for 2005 in the tabulation that follows. These estimates are

derived from official import data for the HTS statistical reporting numbers for the subject product in 2005

and represent the transportation and other charges on imports valued on a c.i.f. basis, as compared with a

customs value basis.4

Country Estimated shipping cost in 2005 (in percent)

Belgium 9.00

Brazil 5.40

Finland 13.30

Germany 7.03

Mexico 4.76

Poland 7.54

Romania 10.92

Spain 0.66

Sweden 2.46

Taiwan 7.21

United Kingdom 14.36
 5

 *** reported that 15 percent of the total cost of CTL plate purchased is accounted for by U.S. inland

transportation costs when it sources from Oregon Steel, and *** reported that inland transportation accounted for 60

percent of the total cost when shipping by truck, compared with 20 percent when shipping by barge or rail.

CTL-V-3

U.S. Inland Transportation Costs

U.S. inland transportation costs for delivery of CTL plate vary widely. Most producers estimated

that U.S. inland transportation costs ranged from 2.5 to 10 percent of their costs of CTL plate. Importers

reported that U.S. inland transportation costs generally ranged from less than 5 percent to 15 percent of

their costs of CTL plate. Twenty-four of the 37 responding purchasers reported that inland transportation

costs were not a major factor in consideration of which suppliers to source their CTL plate requirements. 

Purchasers also reported that inland transportation costs generally ranged from 2 to 10 percent of the total

cost of CTL plate purchased.5

Fourteen of the 19 responding producers reported that they arranged delivery and three reported

that the purchaser arranged delivery. Producers reported shipping the vast majority of their CTL plate

1,000 miles or less, with only three responding producers reporting that they ship between 20 and 35

percent of their CTL plate more than 1,000 miles. Among importers, 11 of the 14 responding firms

reported that the purchaser arranged delivery, one reported that it arranged delivery, and two reported that

both producer and purchaser arranged delivery. While six of the ten responding importers shipped 75

percent or more of their CTL plate less than 100 miles, one importer shipped the vast majority between

101 and 1,000 miles, and two shipped all of their CTL plate more than 1,000 miles.

Exchange Rates

Quarterly data reported by the International Monetary Fund indicate that the real and nominal

values of the euro (Belgium, Finland, Germany, and Spain) and the Swedish krona first depreciated and

then appreciated relative to the U.S. dollar during the period for which data were collected (figure CTLV-2). Both the real and nominal values of the Brazilian real depreciated relative to the U.S. dollar until

late 2002 when both began to appreciate. While the nominal value of the Brazilian real was higher in

early 2006 than it was in early 2000, the real value was lower than in 2000. The real and nominal values

of the Mexican peso and Taiwan dollar remained relatively constant during the period. The real and

nominal values of the Polish zloty remained relatively constant before appreciating in late 2004 and

leveling off in 2005. The nominal value of the Romanian leu depreciated during the period, but the real

value appreciated relative to the U.S. dollar. The real and nominal values of the British pound first

appreciated and then depreciated relative to the U.S. dollar during the period.
CTL-V-4

Figure CTL-V-2

Exchange rates: Indices of the nominal and real exchange rates of the Belgian, Brazilian, Finnish,

German, Mexican, Polish, Romanian, Spanish, Swedish, Taiwan, and British currencies relative to

the U.S. dollar, by quarters, January 2000-June 2006

Figure continued on next page.

Belgium

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Nominal Real

Jan-Mar 2000=100

Brazil

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Nominal Real

Jan-Mar 2000=100
CTL-V-5

Figure CTL-V-2--Continued

Exchange rates: Indices of the nominal and real exchange rates of the Belgian, Brazilian, Finnish,

German, Mexican, Polish, Romanian, Spanish, Swedish, Taiwan, and British currencies relative to

the U.S. dollar, by quarters, January 2000-June 2006

Figure continued on next page.

Finland

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Nominal Real

Jan-Mar 2000=100

Germany

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Nominal Real

Jan-Mar 2000=100
CTL-V-6

Figure CTL-V-2--Continued

Exchange rates: Indices of the nominal and real exchange rates of the Belgian, Brazilian, Finnish,

German, Mexican, Polish, Romanian, Spanish, Swedish, Taiwan, and British currencies relative to

the U.S. dollar, by quarters, January 2000-June 2006

Figure continued on next page.

Mexico

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Nominal Real

Jan-Mar 2000=100

Poland

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Nominal Real

Jan-Mar 2000=100
CTL-V-7

Figure CTL-V-2--Continued

Exchange rates: Indices of the nominal and real exchange rates of the Belgian, Brazilian, Finnish,

German, Mexican, Polish, Romanian, Spanish, Swedish, Taiwan, and British currencies relative to

the U.S. dollar, by quarters, January 2000-June 2006

Figure continued on next page.

Romania

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Nominal Real

Jan-Mar 2000=100

Spain

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Nominal Real

Jan-Mar 2000=100
CTL-V-8

Figure CTL-V-2--Continued

Exchange rates: Indices of the nominal and real exchange rates of the Belgian, Brazilian, Finnish,

German, Mexican, Polish, Romanian, Spanish, Swedish, Taiwan, and British currencies relative to

the U.S. dollar, by quarters, January 2000-June 2006

Figure continued on next page.

Sweden

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Nominal Real

Jan-Mar 2000=100

Taiwan

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Nominal

Jan-Mar 2000=100
 6

 Caterpillar reported that it ***. Caterpillar’s posthearing brief, p. 6.

CTL-V-9

Figure CTL-V-2--Continued

Exchange rates: Indices of the nominal and real exchange rates of the Belgian, Brazilian, Finnish,

German, Mexican, Polish, Romanian, Spanish, Swedish, Taiwan, and British currencies relative to

the U.S. dollar, by quarters, January 2000-June 2006

Source: International Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics, retrieved from http://ifs.apdi.net/imf/about.asp

on October 26, 2006.

PRICING PRACTICES

Pricing Methods

Producers generally reported determining prices on a transaction-by-transaction basis, based on

market conditions and competition. Four of 18 responding producers reported having contracts for

multiple shipments, and five producers reported using price lists. Importers also reported determining

prices on a transaction-by-transaction basis based on market conditions and negotiations. Only two

importers reported contract pricing, and only one, ***, reported using price lists.

Most purchasers reported contacting between two and six suppliers before making a purchase,

with three purchasers reporting that they only contact one supplier and eight purchasers not giving a

specific number or range. Twenty-seven of the 39 responding purchasers reported that purchases of CTL

plate usually involve negotiations between supplier and purchaser, with some explaining that prices,

availability, delivery, and compliance with specifications are part of the negotiations. Five purchasers

reported that they rarely or never quote competing prices, and two purchasers reported that they do quote

competing prices.6

 Fifteen purchasers reported varying their purchases from a given supplier based on the

price offered for a specified period, with the time period being monthly, quarterly, or annually.

Purchasers were asked how frequently the price of CTL plate they are purchasing changes. 

Twenty-two purchasers reported that the price changes monthly; nine quarterly; two weekly, one semiUnited Kingdom

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Nominal Real

Jan-Mar 2000=100
 7

 *** reported that long-term contracts are anywhere from six months to two years in length, and *** reported

that they are six months to one year in length. Caterpillar reported that it ***. Caterpillar’s posthearing brief, p. 4.

 8

 ***, the only importer to report sales using long-term contracts, reported that long-term contracts are one year in

duration, with price fixed, renegotiations possible, and no meet-or-release provisions.

CTL-V-10

annually, two annually, and two daily. In explaining the main factors that cause price changes, most

purchasers reported that the supply and demand situation in the marketplace or changes in the various raw

material, energy, and transportation surcharges contribute to regular price changes.

Twenty-three purchasers reported that there have been no individual producers, importers, or

purchasers that have influenced the U.S. wholesale market price of CTL plate since 2000. Of the ten

purchasers that reported firms having influenced the market price, six named U.S. producers, specifically

Mittal (6), Nucor (1), and IPSCO (1). One purchaser reported that imports of CTL plate affect the U.S.

market price if large distributors are involved, and one purchaser reported that producers in Malaysia and

Thailand have had a negative effect on plate pricing.

Sales Terms and Discounts

Seven producers and six importers reported that they normally quote f.o.b. prices, three producers

and two importers commonly quote on a delivered basis, and eight producers and four importers reported

doing both or some other basis. Producers’ sales terms are generally 0.5/10 net 30 days, and importers’

are generally net 30 days. Nine of 18 producers reported that 75 percent or more of their sales are on a

spot basis, with one producer reporting that almost all of its sales are on a short-term contract basis. 

Seven producers reported some sales on a long-term contract basis, but generally involving 33 percent or

less of total CTL plate sales. Among importers, 8 of the 11 responding firms reported that all of their

sales are on a spot basis, and one reported that all of its sales are on a short-term contract basis. Only one

importer reported some sales on a long-term contract basis.

Producers generally reported that long-term contracts are one year in length,7

 with both price and

quantity fixed, renegotiations possible, and no meet-or-release provisions.8

 Producers reported that shortterm contracts are generally from three to six months, with both price and quantity fixed, renegotiations

possible, and no meet-or-release provisions. Generally, importers reported that short-term contracts are

usually three to four months in duration, with no renegotiations, and no meet-or-release provisions. One

importer reported that both price and quantity are fixed, one reported that only price is fixed, and one

reported that only quantity is fixed.

Producers and importers were asked if they imposed any surcharges or other price increases

during the pendency of any long-term contracts. Four producers reported implementing surcharges, and

one producer/importer reported applying no surcharges at the present time.

Ten of the 19 responding producers reported having a discount policy; four reporting volume

discounts, one reporting discounts for early payment, two reporting both volume discounts and discounts

for early payment, and three reporting that discounts are negotiated on an individual basis or based on

market conditions. Twelve of the 13 responding importers reported offering no discounts, with one

reporting that its discount policy varies. Only two producers, ***, and one importer, ***, reported

offering financing to U.S. purchasers of CTL plate.
 9

 Products 1 through 4 are the same pricing items that were specified in the first reviews, with certain

modifications. Mittal requested that the Commission change the thickness range on product 1 from 0.5" through

0.99" to 0.5" through 1.0" and the width and thickness ranges on product 2 from 60" through 70" and 0.1875"

through 0.249" to 72" through 96" and 0.1875" through 0.499". In addition, UK producer Niagara requested that

product 5 (wide flat bars) be added.

 10 *** reported that it was “too onerous” to provide pricing data; *** could not report pricing data for 2000; and

*** could not report pricing data for the years prior to 2005.

 11 For product 5, *** reported much larger quantities in 2002-06 than in 2000-01. *** did not report any data

prior to 2004.

 12 Importers did not report data for imports from Finland or Germany in 2005. *** reported data for imports from

Finland in 2002, but official import statistics do not show any imports from Finland in 2002. The quantity of

imports from Germany reported in 2004 was *** percent of total imports from Germany in 2004.

CTL-V-11

PRICE DATA

The Commission requested U.S. producers and importers of CTL plate to provide quarterly data

for the total quantity and f.o.b. value of CTL plate that was shipped to unrelated customers in the U.S.

market. Data were requested for the period January 2000 to June 2006. The products for which pricing

data were requested are as follows:9

Product 1.–Hot-rolled carbon steel plate, ASTM A36 or equivalent as rolled, sheared edge,

not heat treated, not cleaned or oiled, in cut lengths, 72 inches through 96 inches in width,

0.5 inches through 1.0 inches in thickness;

Product 2.–Hot-rolled carbon steel plate, ASTM A36 or equivalent as rolled, sheared edge,

not heat treated, not cleaned or oiled, in cut lengths, 72 inches through 96 inches in width,

0.1875 inches through 0.499 inches in thickness;

Product 3.–Hot-rolled carbon steel plate, high strength low alloy (HSLA), ASTM A572,

Grade 50, sheared edges, not cleaned or oiled, in cut lengths, 72 inches through 120 inches

in width, 0.5 inches through 1.5 inches in thickness;

Product 4.–Hot-rolled carbon steel plate, SAE 1045, no ASTM specification, trimmed edges, 

not cleaned or oiled, in cut lengths, 72 inches through 96 inches in width, 1.0 inches 

through 1.5 inches in thickness; and

Product 5.–Hot-rolled wide flat bars, in free-cutting grades, in cut lengths, 6 inches through 

12 inches in width, 0.25 inches through 2.0 inches in thickness.

Twelve U.S. producers10 and six importers provided usable pricing data for sales of the requested

products, although not all firms reported pricing for all products for all quarters.11 Pricing data reported

by these firms, shown in tables CTL-V-1 to CTL-V-5 and figures CTL-V-3 to CTL-V-7, accounted for

14.9 percent of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of CTL plate and *** percent of U.S. imports from

Romania in 2005.12
CTL-V-12

Table CTL-V-1

CTL plate: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities as reported by U.S. producers and importers

of product 1,1

 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2000-June 2006

Period

U.S. producers Imports from Germany Imports from Romania

Quantity Price Quantity Price Margin Quantity Price Margin

Short tons

Per short

ton Short tons

Per short

ton Percent Short tons

Per short

ton Percent

2000:

 Jan.-Mar. 54,942 $328.57 -- -- -- *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 50,424 346.08 -- -- -- -- -- --

 July-Sept. 42,428 354.07 -- -- -- -- -- --

 Oct.-Dec. 36,839 350.47 -- -- -- -- -- --

2001:

 Jan.-Mar. 82,198 338.28 -- -- -- -- -- --

 Apr.-June 79,993 334.68 -- -- -- -- -- --

 July-Sept. 61,887 345.46 -- -- -- -- -- --

 Oct.-Dec. 56,988 329.63 -- -- -- -- -- --

2002:

 Jan.-Mar. 58,143 335.11 -- -- -- -- -- --

 Apr.-June 70,085 345.35 -- -- -- -- -- --

 July-Sept. 64,020 353.38 -- -- -- -- -- --

 Oct.-Dec. 55,054 363.61 -- -- -- *** *** ***

2003:

 Jan.-Mar. 60,768 364.79 -- -- -- -- -- --

 Apr.-June 61,213 353.50 -- -- -- -- -- --

 July-Sept. 69,085 348.13 -- -- -- -- -- --

 Oct.-Dec. 70,180 361.35 -- -- -- -- -- --

2004:

 Jan.-Mar. 67,814 487.02 -- -- -- -- -- --

 Apr.-June 61,122 632.61 -- -- -- -- -- --

 July-Sept. 71,217 758.56 -- -- -- -- -- --

 Oct.-Dec. 48,989 815.24 *** *** *** -- -- --

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. 37,114 831.85 -- -- -- *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 32,575 800.72 -- -- -- -- -- --

 July-Sept. 51,785 752.66 -- -- -- *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 66,683 782.36 -- -- -- *** *** ***

2006:

 Jan.-Mar. 78,486 760.02 -- -- -- -- -- --

 Apr.-June 87,041 764.07 -- -- -- -- -- --

 1

 Product 1.–Hot-rolled carbon steel plate, ASTM A36 or equivalent as rolled, sheared edge, not heat treated, not cleaned or

oiled, in cut lengths, 72 inches through 96 inches in width, 0.5 inches through 1.0 inches in thickness.

Source: Compiled from information submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
CTL-V-13

Table CTL-V-2

CTL plate: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities as reported by U.S. producers and importers

of product 2,1

 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2000-June 2006

Period

U.S. producers Imports from Finland

Quantity Price Quantity Price Margin

Short tons Per short ton Short tons Per short ton Percent

2000:

 Jan.-Mar. 59,566 $353.64 -- -- --

 Apr.-June 58,196 366.20 -- -- --

 July-Sept. 43,928 370.68 -- -- --

 Oct.-Dec. 42,996 364.65 -- -- --

2001:

 Jan.-Mar. 77,366 350.67 -- -- --

 Apr.-June 70,881 357.23 -- -- --

 July-Sept. 60,698 366.29 -- -- --

 Oct.-Dec. 58,270 356.51 -- -- --

2002:

 Jan.-Mar. 68,591 340.98 *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 57,660 400.59 -- -- --

 July-Sept. 60,261 367.27 -- -- --

 Oct.-Dec. 50,870 369.44 -- -- --

2003:

 Jan.-Mar. 53,173 387.30 -- -- --

 Apr.-June 55,461 382.89 -- -- --

 July-Sept. 59,489 386.76 -- -- --

 Oct.-Dec. 52,174 400.90 -- -- --

2004:

 Jan.-Mar. 64,028 535.65 -- -- --

 Apr.-June 59,181 649.72 -- -- --

 July-Sept. 59,610 663.40 -- -- --

 Oct.-Dec. 45,607 693.06 -- -- --

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. 49,823 818.28 -- -- --

 Apr.-June 46,297 786.19 -- -- --

 July-Sept. 44,496 809.11 -- -- --

 Oct.-Dec. 47,215 807.42 -- -- --

2006:

 Jan.-Mar. 76,624 765.99 -- -- --

 Apr.-June 64,122 779.89 -- -- --

Table continued on next page.
CTL-V-14

Table CTL-V-2--Continued

CTL plate: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities as reported by U.S. producers and importers

of product 2, and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2000-June 2006

* * * * * * *

Table CTL-V-3

CTL plate: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities as reported by U.S. producers and importers

of product 3, and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2000-June 2006

* * * * * * *

Table CTL-V-4

CTL plate: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities as reported by U.S. producers of product 4, 

by quarters, January 2000-June 2006

* * * * * * *

Table CTL-V-5

CTL plate: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities as reported by U.S. producers of product 5, 

by quarters, January 2000-June 2006

* * * * * * *

Figure CTL-V-3

CTL plate: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices per short ton as reported by U.S. producers and importers

of product 1, by quarters, January 2000-June 2006

* * * * * * *

Figure CTL-V-4

CTL plate: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices per short ton as reported by U.S. producers and importers

of product 2, by quarters, January 2000-June 2006

* * * * * * *

Figure CTL-V-5

CTL plate: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices per short ton as reported by U.S. producers and importers

of product 3, by quarters, January 2000-June 2006

* * * * * * *

Figure CTL-V-6

CTL plate: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices per short ton as reported by U.S. producers of product 4,

by quarters, January 2000-June 2006

* * * * * * *

Figure CTL-V-7

CTL plate: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices per short ton as reported by U.S. producers of product 5,

by quarters, January 2000-June 2006

* * * * * * *
 13 Kenilworth described prices as “severely depressed” in 2000 through 2003 and reported that initial subsequent

price increases were generally accepted by the marketplace. Hearing transcript, p. 161 (Heltzel).

 14 News and industry reports have attributed the 2004 steel price increases to various factors, including increased

demand in China, raw material price increases, increased demand in end-use markets, and changes within the U.S.

industry that caused tight supply. “Plate makers see strength, kick tags up another notch,” American Metal Market,

December 26, 2003, found at http://amm.com/2003-12-26__01-05-00.html, retrieved September 1, 2006; “Brisk

demand for plate serves up price hikes,” American Metal Market, August 27, 2004, found at

http://amm.com/2004-08-27__01-07-00.html, retrieved September 1, 2006; and “Careful, plate’s hot,” Metal Center

News, August 2004.

 15 U.S. producers reported that service centers were destocking inventories in 2005 and that spot prices decreased

by more than $100 per short ton. Hearing transcript, p. 57 (Insetta) and p. 79 (Ruane).

 16 U.S. producers reportedly sought price increases in response to controlled import levels, comparable prices on

imports, and expectations that the U.S. plate market will be strong through the end of 2006. “DiMicco and company

look ahead and definitely like what they see,” American Metal Market, April 21, 2006, found at

http://amm.com/2006-04-21__11-34-29.html, retrieved September 1, 2006. Both producers and purchasers are

reportedly expecting a strong plate market through the end of 2006. “Plate market’s strength expected to last all

year,” American Metal Market, August 4, 2006, found at http://amm.com/2006-08-04__20-08-07.html, retrieved

September 1, 2006. More recently, Nucor reported that it announced a price increase in October 2006 but that prices

in November 2006 will be lower. Hearing transcript, p. 156 (McFadden). IPSCO reported that its October 2006

price increase announcement did not result in “additional pricing.” Hearing transcript, p. 157 (Tulloch). There have

been recent CTL plate price decreases, but most market participants reportedly agree that end-use demand for CTL

plate remains strong. “Inventory selloffs push steel plate prices down,” American Metal Market, October 30, 2006,

found at http://amm.com/2006-10-30__13-20-46.html, retrieved November 2, 2006. Caterpillar reported that in its

ongoing 2007 contract negotiations, ***. Caterpillar’s posthearing brief, p. 5.

 17 One purchaser reported that the price of U.S.-produced CTL plate is now higher than the price of the product

from Asia and the EU; one purchaser reported that the price of U.S.-produced CTL plate is now higher than the price

of the product from Russia and Ukraine; one purchaser reported that the price of the U.S. product is higher than the

price of the product from the EU, China, Japan, and Korea; and one purchaser reported that the price of U.S.-

produced CTL plate is now higher than the price of the product from Korea but lower than the price of the product

from Canada. 

CTL-V-15

Price Trends

Among Commission pricing products, U.S. prices of CTL plate showed relatively little change

from 2000 through 2003.13 Substantial price increases for all five products began in the first quarter

2004,14 with some leveling off or small decreases in early 2005,15 with the exception of product 5, which

showed additional price increases in 2006.16 There was too little data reported by importers to comment

on price trends of imports from Finland, Germany, and Romania. Importers responding to Commission

questionnaires did not report data for imports from Belgium, Brazil, Mexico, Poland, Spain, Sweden,

Taiwan, or the United Kingdom.

Purchasers were asked if there had been a change in the price of CTL plate since 2000 and, if so,

how the price of domestic CTL plate changed relative to the price of CTL plate produced in the various

subject countries. One purchaser reported that there has been no change in price, and 16 purchasers

reported that prices have changed by the same amount. The responses for how U.S. prices reportedly

changed relative to the various subject countries17 are presented in the following tabulation:
 18 Mittal reported that its forecasts, ***, show that the U.S. price for A36 or equivalent CTL plate are *** prices

in Germany and are *** the EU export price and the South China import price for 2006, 2007, and 2008. Mittal’s

posthearing brief, response to Commissioner Koplan’s questions, pp. 9-10.

CTL-V-16

Country

Price of U.S. product is

now relatively higher

than price of subject

country product

Price of U.S. product is

now relatively lower than

price of subject country

product

Brazil 2 0

Mexico 1 0

Poland 0 1

Romania 1 0

Price Comparisons

Consistent with the reported volumes of subject imports, there were relatively few comparisons

possible between subject imports and the domestic like product. As shown in table CTL-V-6, subject

imports from Finland, Germany, and Romania undersold the comparable U.S. product in 17 of 20

comparisons.18

Finland

Imports from Finland oversold the U.S. product in the one quarter where a comparison

was possible. The margin was *** percent (table CTL-V-2).

Germany

Imports from Germany undersold U.S. product 1 in one quarter where a comparison was possible,

with a margin of underselling of *** percent (table CTL-V-1). For product 2, the German product

oversold the U.S. product in the only possible comparison. The margin was *** percent (table CTL-V-2).

Romania

For products 1, 2, and 3, imports from Romania undersold the U.S. product in 16 of 17 quarters

where comparisons were possible, with margins of underselling ranging from 6.9 to 35.0 percent (tables

CTL-V-1 through CTL-V-3). In the one instance of overselling by the Romanian import, the margin was

*** percent.
CTL-V-17

Table CTL-V-6

CTL plate: Instances of underselling/(overselling) and the range and average margins for products 1-3, by

source country,1

 January 2000 - June 20062

Country

Underselling Overselling

Number of

instances

Range

(percent)

Average

margin

(percent)

Number of

instances

Range

(percent)

Average

margin

(percent)

Finland 0 -- -- 1 -- ***

Germany 1 -- *** 1 -- ***

Romania 16 6.9 to 35.0 20.6 1 -- ***

 1 Importers responding to Commission questionnaires did not report data for imports from Belgium, Brazil, Mexico, Poland,

Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, or the United Kingdom. In addition, there were no data reported for imports of products 4 or 5 from any

subject country.

 2

 In the first reviews, there were 10 possible price comparisons between U.S.-produced CTL plate and imports from Belgium. 

Such imports oversold the U.S. products in all 10 comparisons. ***, however, reported that all of its imports from Belgium were

of floor plate. In the original investigations, there were 247 possible price comparisons between U.S.-produced CTL plate and

imports from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. In 188 of

those comparisons, subject imports undersold the domestic product; in the remaining 59 instances, the subject product oversold

the domestic product. For Belgium, there were 8 instances of underselling and 11 instances of overselling, with margins of

underselling ranging from 0.2 to 10.5 percent. For Brazil, there were 18 instances of underselling and 12 instances of

overselling, with margins of underselling ranging from 0.4 to 26.6 percent. For Finland, there were 25 instances of underselling

and 9 instances of overselling, with margins of underselling ranging from 1.1 to 25.7 percent. For Germany, there were 33

instances of underselling and 15 instances of overselling, with margins of underselling ranging from 0.4 to 23.7 percent. For

Mexico, there were 2 instances of underselling and no instances of overselling, with margins of underselling ranging from 2.0 to

3.8 percent. For Poland, there were 8 instances of underselling and 2 instances of overselling, with margins of underselling

ranging from 0.1 to 11.5 percent. For Romania, there were 12 instances of underselling and 1 instance of overselling, with

margins of underselling ranging from 1.9 to 47.5 percent. For Spain, there were 22 instances of underselling and no instances of

overselling, with margins of underselling ranging from 7.7 to 43.1 percent. For Sweden, there were 27 instances of underselling

and 6 instances of overselling, with margins of underselling ranging from 4.9 to 29.3 percent. For the United Kingdom, there

were 33 instances of underselling and 3 instances of overselling, with margins of underselling ranging from 1.1 to 26.5 percent.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires; Certain Carbon Steel Products from

Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain,

Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom, Inv. Nos. AA1921-197, 701-TA-231, 319-320, 322, 325-328, 340, 342, 348-350, and

731-TA-573-576, 578, 582-587, 604, 607-608, 612, 614-618 (Review), USITC Publication 3364 (November 2000); Certain FlatRolled Carbon Steel Products from Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Italy,

Japan, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, Inv. Nos.

701-TA-319-332, 334, 336-342, 344, 347-353, and 731-TA-573-579, 581-592, 594-597, 599-609, 612-619 (Final), USITC

Publication 2664 (August 1993); and Certain Carbon Steel Products (Cut-to-Length Plate) from Belgium and Germany, Inv. Nos.

701-TA-319, 322 and 731-TA-573, 578 (Review) (Remand), confidential staff report (March 2003).

CORE-I-1

PART CORE-I: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

GENERAL INFORMATION

U.S. industry data are based on questionnaire responses of 23 firms that accounted for nearly all

of the U.S. production of corrosion-resistant steel during the period for which data were collected in these

second reviews. U.S. import data are based on official Commerce statistics. Responses by U.S.

producers, importers, and purchasers of corrosion-resistant steel to a series of questions concerning the

significance of the existing countervailing duty orders and the existing antidumping duty orders and the

likely effects of revocation are presented in appendix J. Responses concerning the comparability of

corrosion-resistant carbon and micro-alloy steel are presented in appendix H.

Table CORE-I-1 presents comparative information available from the original investigations, the

first reviews, and these second reviews.
Table CORE-I-1

Corrosion-resistant steel: Comparative data from the original investigations, first reviews, and current reviews, 1990-92, 1997-99, and 

Item

Calendar years

1990 1991 1992 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 

Quantity (short tons)

Apparent U.S. consumption 12,795,000 11,489,000 13,562,000 17,776,625 18,318,059 19,934,889 21,948,820 20,478,057 22,680,025 

Share (percent)

Producers’ share 85.6 85.0 82.7 91.2 91.7 90.2 92.6 92.4 90.5 Importers’ shares-- Australia 0.9 1.3 1.4 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) 

 Canada2 1.4 2.1 3.4 2.2 2.2 1.8 1.7 1.6 2.3 

 France 0.5 0.6 0.7 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) 0.1 

 Germany 1.3 1.2 1.4 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2  Japan 6.6 6.0 6.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1  Korea 1.0 1.1 1.4 0.3 0.8 1.6 1.2 1.1 0.9  Subtotal 11.7 12.3 14.4 3.0 3.3 3.8 3.2 3.0 3.7  All other sources 2.7 2.7 2.9 5.8 4.9 6.0 4.2 4.6 5.8  Total imports 14.4 15.0 17.3 8.8 8.3 9.8 7.4 7.6 9.5 

Value (1,000 dollars)

Apparent U.S. consumption 7,786,000 6,801,000 7,826,000 10,896,245 10,880,352 11,031,334 11,997,978 10,138,475 11,839,622 

Share (percent)

Producers’ share 84.1 84.0 81.7 91.5 91.9 90.8 92.6 92.6 90.4 Importers’ shares-- Australia 1.1 1.4 1.4 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) 

 Canada2 1.3 1.9 3.0 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.7 1.7 2.5 

 France 0.5 0.6 0.7 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) 0.1 

 Germany 1.4 1.2 1.5 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3  Japan 7.6 6.9 7.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3  Korea 1.2 1.2 1.5 0.4 0.9 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.0  Subtotal 13.1 13.2 15.3 2.9 3.2 3.8 3.4 3.3 4.1  All other sources 2.8 2.8 3.0 5.6 4.9 5.4 4.0 4.2 5.5  Total imports 15.9 16.0 18.3 8.5 8.1 9.2 7.4 7.4 9.6 

Quantity (short tons), Value (1,000 dollars), Average unit value (per short ton)

U.S. imports from— Australia: Quantity 121,230 147,624 183,782 636 82 39 220 176 275  Value 82,377 94,020 112,968 524 111 100 216 228 260  Average unit value $680 $637 $615 $824 $1,359 $2,561 $981 $1,292 $945 Table continued on next page. 

CORE-I-2
Table CORE-I-1--Continued

Corrosion-resistant steel: Comparative data from the original investigations, first reviews, and current reviews, 1990-92, 1997-99, and 

Item

Calendar years

1990 1991 1992 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 

Quantity (short tons), Value (1,000 dollars), Average unit value (per short ton)

U.S. imports from –continued Canada: Quantity2 180,030 245,091 451,082 393,986 397,529 356,620 380,490 331,774 530,248 

 Value2 102,188 132,391 234,752 215,365 208,575 192,081 208,645 173,957 292,684  Average unit value2 $568 $540 $520 $547 $525 $539 $548 $524 $552 

 France: Quantity 59,087 70,786 94,523 5,677 2,478 4,121 3,608 9,302 15,753  Value 36,666 40,776 53,306 3,725 1,890 2,377 1,543 3,944 8,601  Average unit value $621 $576 $564 $656 $763 $577 $428 $424 $546  Germany: Quantity 161,712 137,767 189,192 54,869 21,557 34,434 46,453 23,557 53,479  Value 106,892 84,820 119,055 33,776 16,060 21,071 28,221 13,955 30,585  Average unit value $661 $616 $629 $616 $745 $612 $608 $592 $572  Japan: Quantity 838,598 681,563 824,743 24,269 34,182 49,248 27,543 17,338 24,304  Value 591,512 468,218 562,349 21,908 27,159 35,961 23,072 15,273 30,092  Average unit value $705 $687 $682 $903 $795 $730 $838 $881 $1,238  Korea: Quantity 124,220 124,897 193,513 58,658 154,984 309,989 253,528 235,041 212,413  Value 89,731 83,030 119,120 42,580 97,667 166,010 140,605 123,305 122,919  Average unit value $722 $665 $616 $726 $630 $536 $555 $525 $579  All subject sources: Quantity 1,484,877 1,407,728 1,936,835 538,095 610,811 754,451 711,842 617,188 836,473  Value 1,009,366 903,255 1,201,550 317,878 351,463 417,600 402,301 330,662 485,142  Average unit value $680 $642 $620 $591 $575 $554 $565 $536 $580  Other sources: Quantity 348,330 308,147 391,118 1,030,237 906,203 1,198,894 919,625 933,033 1,325,751  Value 225,255 184,471 230,977 612,252 532,307 595,013 481,017 420,783 647,862  Average unit value $647 $599 $591 $594 $587 $496 $523 $451 $489  All sources: Quantity 1,833,207 1,715,875 2,327,953 1,568,332 1,517,014 1,953,345 1,631,467 1,550,221 2,162,224  Value 1,234,621 1,087,726 1,432,527 930,130 883,770 1,012,613 883,318 751,445 1,133,004  Average unit value $673 $634 $615 $593 $583 $518 $541 $485 $524 Table continued on next page. 

CORE-I-3
Table CORE-I-1--Continued

Corrosion-resistant steel: Comparative data from the original investigations, first reviews, and current reviews, 1990-92, 1997-99, and 

Item

Calendar years

1990 1991 1992 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 

Quantity (short tons), Value (1,000 dollars), Average unit value (per short ton)

U.S. producers’– Capacity 13,752,000 14,258,000 14,983,000 18,325,094 19,870,392 21,725,474 26,321,105 25,698,401 26,161,576  Production 11,288,000 9,941,000 11,450,000 16,777,451 17,747,333 18,960,113 21,213,322 19,537,128 21,289,304  Capacity utilization3 82.1 69.7 76.4 91.6 89.3 87.3 80.6 76.0 81.4 

 U.S. shipments Quantity 10,962,000 9,774,000 11,235,000 16,208,293 16,801,045 17,981,544 20,317,353 18,927,836 20,517,801 

 Value 6,551,000 5,714,000 6,393,000 9,966,115 9,996,582 10,018,721 11,114,660 9,387,030 10,706,618  Unit value $599 $589 $575 $615 $595 $557 $547 $496 $522  Ending inventories 1,398,000 1,376,000 1,409,000 1,511,463 1,845,068 2,123,546 2,086,296 1,900,994 1,939,320  Inventories/total shipments3 12.8 14.2 12.6 9.1 10.7 11.5 9.9 9.6 9.1 

 PRWs (number) 10,129 9,680 9,942 23,318 24,074 22,879 24,546 24,568 20,868  Hours worked (1,000) 20,366 19,025 20,113 48,468 50,251 49,057 50,757 44,888 41,018  Net sales (1,000 dollars) Quantity 10,789,000 9,526,000 11,048,000 16,637,652 17,380,151 18,614,348 20,141,105 19,629,769 20,954,676 

 Value 6,513,000 5,615,000 6,312,000 10,224,465 10,348,910 10,393,878 11,091,856 9,797,243 10,989,071  Unit value $604 $589 $571 $615 $595 $558 $551 $499 $524  COGS 5,780,000 5,357,000 5,959,000 8,810,259 9,062,220 9,383,494 10,514,307 9,868,736 10,726,907  Gross profit or (loss) 733,000 258,000 353,000 1,414,206 1,286,690 1,010,384 577,549 (71,493) 262,164  Operating income or (loss) 447,000 (28,000) 77,000 1,070,501 895,383 617,421 151,581 (485,119) (173,824)  Unit COGS $536 $562 $539 $530 $521 $504 $522 $503 $512  Unit operating income or (loss) $41 ($3) $7 $64 $52 $33 $8 ($25) ($8)  COGS/sales3 88.7 95.4 94.4 86.2 87.6 90.3 94.8 100.7 97.6 

 Operating income or (loss)/ sales3 6.9 (0.5) 1.2 10.5 8.7 5.9 1.4 (5.0) (1.6) 

1 Less than 0.05 percent.2 As discussed in Part CORE-IV, subject U.S. imports from Canada are believed to be somewhat overstated due to the inclusion of tin- and chromium-coated s3 In percent.

Note.–Data for the period 2000-05 include 11 more mills (representing 13.5 percent of 2005 production) than data for 1997-99.

Source: Certain Carbon Steel Products from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, The Netherlands, Poland, Rom

The United Kingdom, Inv. Nos. AA1921-197 (Review), 701-TA-231, 319-320, 322, 325-328, 340, 342, and 348-350 (Review), and 731-TA-573-576, 578, 582-587

(Review) , USITC Publication 3364, November 2000, official Commerce import statistics, and data compiled from responses to Commission questionnaires.

CORE-I-4
 1

 There were no administrative reviews for firms covered by the antidumping duty order or (prior to its

revocation) countervailing duty order on corrosion-resistant steel from Germany.

 2

 For previously reviewed or investigated companies not included in an administrative review, the cash deposit

rate continues to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period.

 3

 66 FR 39145, July 27, 2001.

CORE-I-5

COMMERCE’S REVIEWS

Administrative Reviews

The following tables present information on Commerce’s administrative reviews of the subject

orders.1 2

Australia

Commerce completed two antidumping duty order administrative reviews of producers/exporters

from Australia. The results of the administrative reviews are shown in the following table: 

Table CORE-I-2

Corrosion-resistant steel: Administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order for Australia

Date results published Period of review Producer or exporter Margin

March 29, 1996 (61 FR 14649) 2/04/1993 - 7/31/1994

BHP 39.051

All others 24.962

August 27, 1996 (61 FR 44039) 8/01/1994 - 7/31/1995

BHP 39.05

All others 24.96

 1 Amended on August 2, 1996. 61 FR 40399.

 2

 Rate from duty order.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

Canada

Commerce completed nine antidumping duty order administrative reviews of producers/exporters

from Canada and has published the preliminary results of a tenth administrative review. A review for the

period of August 1, 1999 through July 31, 2000 was initiated and then rescinded.3

 Commerce found duty

absorption in its administrative reviews for August 1, 1995 to July 31, 1996 and August 1, 1997 to July

31, 1998. The results of the completed administrative reviews are shown in the following table: 

Table CORE-I-3

Corrosion-resistant steel: Administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order for Canada

Date results published Period of review Producer or exporter Margin

March 28, 1996 (61 FR 13815) 2/04/1993 - 7/31/1994

CCC (Continuous Colour Coating) 1.96

Dofasco 1.65

Stelco 0.191

All others 18.71

April 15, 1997 (62 FR 18448)2 8/01/1994 - 7/31/1995

CCC 1.31

Dofasco 0.59

Stelco 0.553

All others 18.71

Table continued on next page.
CORE-I-6

Table CORE-I-3--Continued

Corrosion-resistant steel: Administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order for Canada

Date results published Period of review Producer or exporter Margin

 March 16, 1998 (63 FR 12725)4 8/01/1995 - 7/31/1996

CCC5 0.54

Dofasco5 0.72

Stelco5 06

All others 18.71

January 13, 1999 (64 FR 2173)7 8/01/1996 - 7/31/1997

CCC 2.26

Dofasco 1.00

Stelco 2.73

All others 18.71

February 24, 2000 

(65 FR 9243)8 8/01/1997 - 7/31/1998

CCC9 1.01

Dofasco 0.201

National 5.65

Stelco9 4.24

All others 18.71

January 16, 2001 (66 FR 3543)10 8/01/1998 - 7/31/1999

CCC 2.11

Dofasco 0.51

Sorevco 0.51

All others 18.71

January 16, 2004 

(69 FR 2566)11,12 8/01/2001 - 07/31/2002

Dofasco 1.87

All others 18.71

March 21, 2005 

(70 FR 13458)13, 14, 15 8/01/2002 - 7/31/2003

Dofasco 2.15

Stelco 0.02

All others 18.71

March 16, 2006 (71 FR 13582)16 8/01/2003 - 7/31/2004

Dofasco 2.96

Stelco 3.08

All others 18.71

September 11, 2006 (71 FR 53363)17 8/01/2004 - 7/31/2005

Dofasco 4.78

Stelco 1.45

All others 18.71

 1

 De minimis margin (i.e., margin is less than 0.5 percent), therefore no cash deposit was required to be paid to Customs.

 2

 Results amended on August 19, 1997. 62 FR 44105.

 3

 Results amended in accordance with NAFTA Binational Panel Decision on May 20, 2003. 68 FR 27529.

 4

 Results amended on May 18, 1998. 63 FR 27258.

 5

 Commerce found that duties were absorbed on 2.72 percent of CCC's U.S. sales; 16.05 percent of Dofasco's U.S. sales; and

16.50 percent of Stelco's sales. 63 FR 12725, March 16, 1998.

 6

 Results amended in accordance with NAFTA Panel Decision on October 12, 2001. 66 FR 52095.

 7

 Results amended on February 16, 1999. 64 FR 7622.

 8

 Results amended on April 7, 2000. 65 FR 18287.

 9

 Commerce found that duties were absorbed on 20.38 percent of CCC's U.S. sales and 22.63 percent of Stelco's sales.

 10 Results amended on February 26, 2001. 66 FR 11553.

 11 Results amended on February 24, 2004. 69 FR 8380.

 12 Stelco included in initial review, but rescinded on July 11, 2003. 68 FR 41302.

 13 Results amended on May 3, 2005. 70 FR 22846.

 14 CCC, Impact Steel, and Ideal Roofing included in initial review, but rescinded on December 19, 2003. 68 FR 70764. Russel

Metals included in initial review, but rescinded on March 30, 2004. 69 FR 16521.

 15 Dofasco, Sorevco, and Do Sol Galva were collapsed and treated as a single respondent as in prior segments of the

proceeding, 69 FR 55138. September 13, 2004.

 16 Impact Steel included in initial review, but rescinded on April 7, 2005. 70 FR 17648.

 17 Preliminary results.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.
 4

 71 FR 16553, April 3, 2006, and 59 FR 56056, November 10, 1994.

 5

 71 FR 68549, November 27, 2006.

 6

 69 FR 17131, April 4, 2004.

 7

 65 FR 14534, March 17, 2000; 69 FR 18346, April 7, 2004; and 70 FR 36369, June 23, 2005.

CORE-I-7

France

Commerce initiated and then rescinded an antidumping duty administrative review for the period

August 1, 2004 to July 31, 2005 and initiated and rescinded a countervailing duty administrative review

for the period December 7, 1992 to December 31, 1993.4

 In September 2006, Commerce published the

preliminary results of a countervailing duty administrative review for the period January 1, 2004 to

December 31, 2004, and calculated a preliminary margin of 0.00 percent for Duferco.5

Germany

Commerce initiated no antidumping or countervailing duty administrative reviews of subject

merchandise from Germany. Commerce revoked Germany’s countervailing duty order in 2004.6

Japan

Since the issuance of the antidumping duty order, three administrative reviews have been

completed with regard to subject imports from Japan. Commerce rescinded reviews for the periods

August 1, 1998 to July 31, 1999; August 1, 2002 to July 31, 2003; and August 1, 2003 to July 31, 2004.7

The results of the completed administrative reviews are shown in the following table:

Table CORE-I-4

Corrosion-resistant steel: Administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order for Japan

Date results published Period of review Producer or exporter Margin

March 16, 1999 (64 FR 12951) 6/30/1996 - 7/01/1997

Nippon 12.51

All others 36.41

February 23, 2000 (65 FR 8935) 6/30/1997 - 7/01/1998

Nippon 2.47

Kawasaki 1.61

All others 36.41

July 17, 2006 (71 FR 40471)1 8/01/2004 - 7/31/2005

Nippon Steel 36.41

All others 36.41

 1 Kawasaki included in the initial review, but rescinded due to no shipments of corrosion-resistant steel by Kawasaki during

Commerce’s period of review.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

Korea

Commerce completed nine antidumping duty order administrative reviews of producers/exporters

from Korea and has published the preliminary results of another. Reviews for the periods August 1, 2000
 8

 66 FR 63521, December 7, 2001, and 67 FR 68832, November 13, 2002.

CORE-I-8

to July 31, 2001 and August 1, 2001 to July 31, 2002 were rescinded.8 The results of the completed

administrative reviews are shown in the following table:

Table CORE-I-5

Corrosion-resistant steel: Administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order for Korea

Date results published Period of review Producer or exporter Margin

April 26, 1996 (61 FR 18547) 2/04/1993 - 7/31/1994

Dongbu 1.50

Union 10.74

All others 17.70

April 15, 1997 

(62 FR 18404)1 8/01/1994 - 7/31/1995

Dongbu 0.04

The POSCO Group 0.092

Union 1.41

All others 17.70

March 18, 1998 

(63 FR 13170)3 8/01/1995 - 7/31/1996

Dongbu4 0.60

The POSCO Group4 1.46

Union4 0.392

All others 17.70

March 16, 1999 (64 FR 12927) 8/01/1996 - 7/31/1997

Dongbu 1.49

The POSCO Group 0.16

Union 0.14

All others 17.70

March 13, 2000 (65 FR 13359)5 8/01/1997 - 7/31/1998

Dongbu6 1.42

The POSCO Group6 0.68

Union 0.14

All others 17.70

January 16, 2001 (66 FR 3540)7 8/01/1998 - 7/31/1999

Dongbu 0.13

The POSCO Group 2.24

Union 0.29

All others 17.70

March 18, 2002 (67 FR 11976)8 8/01/1999 - 7/31/2000

Dongbu 0.26

SeAH 0

The POSCO Group 0.86

Union 0.27

All others 17.70

March 14, 2005 (70 FR 12443)9 8/01/2002 - 7/31/2003

Dongbu 0.332

Union 0.362

POSCO 2.34

HYSCO 0.00

Dongshin 17.70

All others 17.70

Table continued on next page.
 9

 63 FR 69045, December 15, 1998, and 65 FR 6162, February 8, 2000.

CORE-I-9

Table CORE-I-5--Continued

Corrosion-resistant steel: Administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order for Korea

Date results published Period of review Producer or exporter Margin

February 13, 2006 

(71 FR 7513)10, 11 8/01/2003 - 7/31/2004

Dongbu 2.26

Union 1.60

The POSCO Group 2.16

HYSCO 0.00

Dongshin 17.70

All others 17.70

September 11, 2006 

(71 FR 53370)12 8/01/2004 - 7/31/2005

Dongbu 1.97

HYSCO 0.032

The POSCO Group 0.482

Union 1.69

All others 17.70

 1 Results amended in accordance with court decision on June 11, 2002. 67 FR 39955. First amended on June 20, 1997. 62

FR 33587.

 2

 De minimis margin (i.e., margin is less than 0.5 percent), therefore no cash deposit was required to be paid to Customs.

 3

 Results amended on April 27, 1998, 63 FR 20572, and results amended in accordance with court decision on June 11, 2002. 

67 FR 39956.

 4

 Duty absorption occurred during the period through respondents' U.S. affiliates: the percentage of U.S. affiliates' sales with

dumping margins for Dongbu was 5.82 percent, for the POSCO Group was 14.64 percent, and for Union Steel was 8.99 percent. 

63 FR 13170, March 18, 1998.

 5

 Results amended on April 25, 2000. 65 FR 24180.

 6

 Duty absorption occurred during the period through respondents' U.S. affiliates: the percentage of U.S. affiliates' sales with

dumping margins was 20.68 percent for Dongbu and 6.85 percent for the POSCO Group. 65 FR 24180, April 25, 2000.

 7

 Results amended on March 14, 2001. 66 FR 14883.

 8

 Results amended on April 29, 2002. 67 FR 20956.

 9

 SeAH included in the initial review, but rescinded because it did not have exports or sales of the subject merchandise to the

United States in the period of review. 69 FR 34646, June 22, 2004.

 10 Results amended on March 20, 2006. 71 FR 13962.

 11 SeAH included in initial review, but rescinded because it did not have exports or sales of the subject merchandise to the

United States in the period of review. 70 FR 53153, September 7, 2005.

 12 Preliminary results. 

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

Commerce initiated and then rescinded countervailing duty administrative reviews for Korea for

the periods of January 1 to December 31, 1997 and January 1 to December 31, 19989

 and, as presented in

table CORE-I-6, has published the preliminary results of a countervailing duty administrative review.

Table CORE-I-6

Corrosion-resistant steel: Administrative review of the countervailing duty order for Korea

Date results published Period of review Producer or exporter Margin

September 11, 2006 

(71 FR 53413)1 1/01/2004 - 12/31-2004

Dongbu 0.392

POSCO 0.072

 1 Preliminary results.

 2

 De minimis margin (i.e., margin is less than 0.5 percent), therefore no cash deposit was required to be paid to Customs.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.
 10 63 FR 12725, March 16, 1998.

 11 65 FR 9243, February 24, 2000.

 12 63 FR 13170, March 18, 1998.

 13 65 FR 24180, April 25, 2000.

CORE-I-10

Duty Absorption Findings

Commerce made four duty absorption findings in its antidumping administrative reviews. For the

August 1, 1995 to July 31, 1996 review period for Canadian producers, Commerce found that CCC

absorbed duties on 2.72 percent of its U.S. sales, Dofasco absorbed duties on 16.05 percent of its U.S.

sales, and Stelco absorbed duties on 16.50 percent of its sales.10 For the August 1, 1997 to July 31, 1998

review period for Canadian producers, CCC absorbed duties on 20.38 percent of its U.S. sales, and Stelco

absorbed duties on 22.63 percent of its sales.11 For the August 1, 1995 to July 31, 1996 period for Korea,

duty absorption occurred through respondents’ U.S. affiliates: the percentage of U.S. affiliates’ sales with

dumping margins was 5.82 percent for Dongbu, 14.64 percent for the POSCO Group, and 8.99 percent

for Union Steel.12 For the August 1, 1997 to July 31, 1998 period for Korea, Commerce found that duty

absorption occurred through respondents’ U.S. affiliates: the percentage of U.S. affiliates’ sales with

dumping margins was 20.68 percent for Dongbu and 6.85 percent for the POSCO Group.13

Results of Expedited and Full Five-Year Reviews

Commerce has issued final determinations with respect to all subject countries. Tables CORE-I-7

and CORE-I-8 present the margins calculated by Commerce in its original investigations, first reviews,

and recent second reviews.

Table CORE-I-7

Corrosion-resistant steel: Commerce’s original, first five-year, and second five-year antidumping duty

margins for producers/exporters, by subject country

Producer/exporter

Original margin

(percent)

First five-year review

margin (percent)

Second five-year review

margin (percent)

Australia1

BHP 24.96 24.96 24.96

All others 24.96 24.96 24.96

Canada2

Dofasco3 11.714 11.71 11.71

Stelco 28.27 22.70 22.70

All others 22.29 18.71 18.71

France5

Usinor 29.41 29.41 29.41

All others 29.41 29.41 29.41

Table continued on next page.
CORE-I-11

Table CORE-I-7--Continued

Corrosion-resistant steel: Commerce’s original, first five-year, and second five-year antidumping duty

margins for producers/exporters, by subject country

Producer/exporter

Original margin

(percent)

First five-year review

margin (percent)

Second five-year review

margin (percent)

Germany6

Thyssen 10.02 10.02 10.02

All others 10.02 10.02 10.02

Japan7

Nippon 36.41 36.41 36.41

Kawasaki 36.41 36.41 36.41

All others 36.41 36.41 36.41

Korea8

POSCO 17.70 17.70 17.70

All others 17.70 17.70 17.70

 1 Antidumping duty order, 58 FR 44161, August 19, 1993; final results of first expedited sunset review, 65 FR 18049, April 6,

2000; final results of second expedited sunset review, 71 FR 32508, June 6, 2006.

 2

 Antidumping duty order, 58 FR 44162, August 19, 1993; final results of first full sunset review, 65 FR 47379, August 2, 2000;

final results of second expedited sunset review, 71 FR 32508, June 6, 2006.

 3

 Commerce collapsed Sorevco into Dofasco, which had a 50-percent ownership interest in Sorevco. 65 FR 18286, April 7,

2000.

 4

 Amended results, 60 FR 49582, September 26, 1995.

 5

 As the result of a determination by the U.S. Court of International Trade, Commerce recalculated the final margins that

appeared in the original antidumping duty order (58 FR 44169, August 19, 1993), 61 FR 51274, October 1, 1996; final results of

first expedited sunset review, 65 FR 18050, April 6, 2000; final results of second expedited sunset review, 71 FR 32508, June 6,

2006.

 6

 Antidumping duty order, 58 FR 44170, August 19, 1993; final results of first expedited sunset review, 65 FR 18051, April 6,

2000; amended final results of sales at less than fair value, 65 FR 58044, September 27, 2000; final results of second expedited

sunset review, 71 FR 32508, June 6, 2006.

 7

 Antidumping duty order, 58 FR 44163, August 19, 1993; final results of first full sunset review, 65 FR 47380, August 2, 2000;

final results of second expedited sunset review, 71 FR 32508, June 6, 2006.

 8

 Amended final determination of sales at LTFV, 58 FR 41083, August 2, 1993; antidumping duty order, 58 FR 44159, August

19, 1993; final results of first expedited sunset review, 65 FR 18044, April 6, 2000; final results of second expedited sunset

review, 71 FR 32508, June 6, 2006.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.
 14 Section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)).

 15 19 CFR 159.64 (g).

CORE-I-12

Table CORE-I-8

Corrosion-resistant steel: Commerce’s original, first five-year, and second five-year countervailing duty

margins for corrosion-resistant steel producers/exporters, by subject country

Producer/exporter

Original margin

(percent)

First five-year review

margin (percent)

Second five-year review

margin (percent)

France1

Usinor (2) 15.13 (2)

Country-wide 15.13 15.13 0.16

Germany3

Country-wide 0.54 0.54 (4)

Korea5

Country-wide 1.156 0.54 1.15

 1 Countervailing duty order, 58 FR 37304, July 9, 1993, and countervailing duty order and amendment of final countervailing

duty order, 58 FR 43759, August 17, 1993; final results of first expedited sunset review, 65 FR 18063, April 6, 2000; final results

of second full sunset review, 71 FR 58584, October 4, 2006.

 2

 No rate specified for Usinor.

 3

 Countervailing duty order, 58 FR 43756, August 17, 1993; final results of first full sunset review determination, 65 FR 47407,

August 2, 2000.

 4

 Commerce revoked the countervailing duty order against corrosion-resistant steel from Germany in 2004. 69 FR 17131,

April 1, 2004.

 5

 Countervailing duty order, 58 FR 37304, July 9, 1993; final results of first expedited sunset review, 65 FR 18973, April 10,

2000; final results of second expedited sunset review, 71 FR 32519, June 6, 2006.

 6

 Amended final affirmative countervailing duty determinations in accordance with decision upon remand, 66 FR 16656,

March 27, 2001.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

DISTRIBUTION OF CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT FUNDS

The Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (“CDSOA”) (also known as the Byrd

Amendment) provides that assessed duties received pursuant to antidumping or countervailing duty

orders must be distributed to affected domestic producers for certain qualifying expenditures that these

producers incur after the issuance of such orders.14 During the review period, qualified U.S. producers of

corrosion-resistant steel were eligible to receive disbursements from the U.S. Customs and Border

Protection (“Customs”) under CDSOA relating to three countervailing duty and six antidumping duty

orders on the subject product beginning in Federal fiscal year 2001.15 Tables CORE-I-9 and CORE-I-10

present CDSOA disbursements and claims for Federal fiscal years (October 1-September 30) 2001-05 by

source and by firm, respectively.
CORE-I-13

Table CORE-I-9

Corrosion-resistant steel: CDSOA disbursements, by source, Federal fiscal years 2001-05

Item

Federal fiscal year

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Disbursements (1,000 dollars)

Australia (AD) 0 0 13 0 20

Canada (AD) 2,025 103 8,364 6,423 226

France (AD) 280 1 1 7 658

France (CVD) 0 (1

) 0 29 338

Germany (AD) 29 6 2,878 185 1,497

Germany (CVD)2 0 1 371 15 78

Japan (AD) 4,722 979 1,398 969 84

Korea (AD) 1 3,980 525 216 590

Korea (CVD) 0 0 1,169 (6) 124

 Total 7,056 5,069 14,721 7,839 3,614

 1 Less than $500.

 2

 Order revoked.

Note.--Negative disbursement amounts are the result of refunds to importers as a result of liquidations or court cases. Because of

rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s CDSOA Annual Reports. Retrieved from www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import/add_cvd.

Table CORE-I-10

Corrosion-resistant steel: CDSOA disbursements, by firm, and total claims, Federal fiscal years 2001-05

Item

Federal fiscal year

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Disbursements (1,000 dollars)

AK Steel Corporation1 560 1,103 2,722 1,322 685

Bethlehem Steel 3,282 1,240 0 0 0

California Steel Industries 0 0 370 248 102

International Steel Group 0 0 4,620 2,622 0

Ispat Inland, Inc.2 411 779 1,756 994 492

LTV Steel 421 0 0 0 0

Mittal Steel USA ISG Inc. 0 0 0 0 1,088

National Steel 242 457 0 0 0

Rouge Steel Company 0 0 614 0 0

Severstal North America Inc. 0 0 0 (3

) 170

Thompson Steel Co. Inc. 0 0 0 61 0

U.S. Steel 1,765 1,069 0 0 0

United States Steel Corp.4 0 0 3,923 2,444 1,023

United Steel,

Paper...International Union 0 0 0 0 (3

)

WCI Steel 371 137 227 145 55

Weirton Steel 0 283 488 0 0

 Total 7,056 5,069 14,721 7,839 3,614

Table continued on next page.
 16 As a result of a scope ruling, steel coils having a thickness of 0.8 mm and a width of 2000 mm, electrolytically

coated with zinc, were within the scope of the order (63 FR 29700, June 1, 1998). As a result of a scope ruling,

annealed nickel plate is within the scope of the order (70 FR 55110, September 20, 2005).

CORE-I-14

Table CORE-I-10–Continued

Corrosion-resistant steel: CDSOA disbursements, by firm, and total claims, Federal fiscal years 2001-05

Claims (1,000 dollars)

 Total 395,375,820 360,987,710 256,421,963 501,720,126 758,432,126

 1 AK Steel became the successor to Armco Steel after 2001. 

 2

 Ispat Inland, Inc. became the successor to Inland Steel Industries after 2001.

 3

 Less than $500.

 4

 United States Steel Corp. became the successor to National Steel and U.S. Steel after 2002.

Note.--Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s CDSOA Annual Reports. Retrieved from www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import/add_cvd.

THE SUBJECT MERCHANDISE

Commerce’s Scope

The scope definition for the imported product subject to the countervailing duty and antidumping

duty orders under review, as defined by Commerce, is as follows:

Flat-rolled carbon steel products, of rectangular shape, either clad, plated, or coated with

corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or

iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished or coated with plastics

or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating, in coils (whether or

not in successively superimposed layers) and of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, or in

straight lengths which, if of a thickness less than 4.75 millimeters, are of a width of 0.5

inch or greater and which measures at least 10 times the thickness or if of a thickness of

4.75 millimeters or more are of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at

least twice the thickness. Included in these orders are flat-rolled products of

nonrectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the

rolling process (i.e., products which have been “worked after rolling”)--for example,

products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges.

Excluded from these reviews are: flat rolled steel products either plated or coated with

tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead (“terne plate”), or both

chromium and chromium oxides (“tin-free steel”), whether or not painted, varnished or

coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating;

clad products in straight lengths of 0.1875 inch or more in composite thickness and of a

width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness; and

certain clad stainless flat-rolled products, which are three-layered corrosion-resistant

carbon steel flat-rolled products less than 4.75 millimeters in composite thickness that

consist of a carbon steel flat-rolled product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a

20%-60%-20% ratio.16

The subject orders have been partially revoked four times for product from Japan: (1)

with regard to a three-layered product (a zinc alloy layer, followed by a layer of
 17 62 FR 66848, December 12, 1997.

 18 64 FR 14862, March 29, 1999.

 19 64 FR 57032, October 22, 1999.

 20 65 FR 53983, September 6, 2000.

 21 Information in this section is drawn to a large degree from previous reviews on carbon steel products. In

particular, see Certain Carbon Steel Products from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany,

Japan, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom

(Review), Inv. Nos. AA1921-197, 701-TA-231, 319-320, 322, 325-328, 340, 342, and 348-350, and 731-TA-573-576,

578, 582-587, 604, 607-608, 612, and 614-618, USITC Publication 3364, November 2000, pp. CORROSION-I-17

to I-18.

CORE-I-15

chromate, and a final layer of silicate) having specific dimensions;17 (2) with regard to

corrosion-resistant steel flat products with certain dimensions and coatings used by a

domestic producer of rubber seals and metal inserts for ball bearings;18 (3) with regard to

two products: (a) steel coil with an aluminum alloy lining and (b) steel coil with a

polytetrafluorethylene (PTFE) lead-based lining;19 and (4) doctor blades.20

Tariff Treatment

The subject merchandise is imported under the following HTS statistical reporting numbers: 

7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000,

7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000,

7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000,

7212.60.0000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560,

7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090. General U.S. tariffs on corrosion-resistant

steel, applicable to U.S. imports that are products of the subject countries (other than certain goods of

Canada, as discussed below) and classified under these headings, ranged from 2.4 to 6.5 percent ad

valorem at the time of the original investigations. These duties were subject to phased elimination

beginning in 1995 and were eliminated as of January 1, 2004. Duties on eligible goods of Canada under

the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement ranged from 1.2 to 3.2 percent ad valorem at the time of the

original investigations, were subject to phased elimination, and were eliminated as of January 1, 1998. 

Further details regarding the relevant HTS statistical reporting numbers are presented in appendix D.

THE DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT

Description and Applications21

Corrosion-resistant steel is steel sheet that has been coated or plated with a corrosion- or heatresistant, metal coating to prevent corrosion and thereby extend the service life of products produced from

the steel. Galvanized steel (coated with zinc), aluminized steel (coated with aluminum), and steel coated

with any of several zinc-aluminum alloys comprise almost all of the product at issue. Steel coated with

other metals, however, including nickel and copper, as well as steel clad with aluminum or stainless steel

sheet also are included within Commerce’s scope.

Corrosion-resistant steel is used in the manufacture of automobiles and trucks, in appliances,

industrial equipment, agricultural equipment and is widely used in such construction applications as

roofing, siding, hardware, roof and bridge deck, guard rails, culverts and the like. The use of corrosionresistant steel has been a key factor in extending the service life of automobiles; it is used for almost all

automobile bodies, fenders, doors, and hood and deck lids.
 22 Although not domestically-produced, TCC reported that its electrolytic nickel-plated corrosion-resistant steel is

used for battery manufacture and automotive fuel lines, and its copper-plated corrosion-resistant steel is used for

self-lubricating bearings manufacture. TCC’s prehearing brief, pp. 1-2.

 23 The raw material input for cold-rolled steel is hot-rolled steel. Hot-rolled steel is cleaned, or pickled, in a bath

of sulfuric or hydrochloric acid to remove surface oxide (scale) formed during hot rolling. The cleaned (pickled)

steel is then processed through a cold-rolling mill, which is typically a continuous (or tandem) mill having four to six

roll stands, and which reduces the thickness of the hot-rolled material by 30-90 percent. The cold-rolling process

hardens steel so that it usually must be heated in an annealing furnace to make it more formable.

 24 For particularly thick corrosion-resistant steel, hot-rolled steel is used as the primary input. 

CORE-I-16

Galvannealed steel is zinc-coated steel whose coating has been heated to allow the zinc to form

an alloy with the base steel. Galvannealed steel is considered to be more suitable for painting than

galvanized steel, however, the coating is more prone to flaking when fabrication involves extensive cold

forming. Aluminized steel and zinc-aluminum alloy coated steel are considered to be more heat resistant,

resisting corrosion at higher temperatures than galvanized steel.

Corrosion-resistant steel with other metal coatings, including copper, nickel, nickel-zinc, and

cobalt, is produced in much smaller quantities than galvanized and aluminized steel, and usually by

smaller firms specializing in such coatings. Such products are used for specialized applications, often for

automobile parts and in battery manufacture.22

Manufacturing Processes

There are two widely used processes for producing corrosion-resistant steel: the hot-dip process,

in which steel sheet is passed through a bath of molten zinc or aluminum, and the electrolytic process, in

which steel sheet is passed though a series of electrolytic cells and zinc or other metal is electrolytically

plated onto the surface of the steel. In either case, the starting material is cold-rolled sheet steel.23 24

Most hot-dip processing lines have in-line annealing, therefore, steel can be processed directly

after cold rolling. The steel coil is set up on a decoiler and the leading end is welded onto the trailing end

of the previously processed coil. The steel moves through an annealing furnace and then directly into a

pot of molten metal (zinc, aluminum, or zinc-aluminum alloy). Upon emerging from the molten metal,

excess metal is blown from the surface by gas jets, controlling the amount remaining on the surface (the

coating weight). The coated steel continues through a cooling section and additional processing steps,

including leveling and coating with any of several oil or chemical surface treatments. The steel is then

recoiled, cut away from the succeeding coil, and removed from the processing line. Processing lines used

to produce galvannealed steel have a special furnace through which the steel passes after leaving the gas

jets and before entering the cooling section.

Because processing lines for electrolytically galvanized steel do not normally include in-line

annealing equipment, the starting material is cold-rolled steel that has been annealed and usually temper

rolled prior to processing. The processing line includes a series of electrolytic cells rather than the

annealing, metal pot, and cooling section of a hot-dip line. The coating metal is electrolytically plated

from a sulfate or chloride solution onto the surface of the steel. Other metallic coatings, including nickel

and copper, are produced by electrolytic coating.

Marketing

The largest share of U.S. sales of corrosion-resistant steel is to automotive end users. From 2000

to 2002, the largest share of U.S. imports of corrosion-resistant steel was to steel service centers and

distributors; whereas from 2003 to 2005 the largest share was to automotive end users. Table CORE-I-11

presents information on U.S. producers’ and U.S. importers’ channels of distribution. 
 25 In the original investigations, the Commission did not consider the issue of whether to expand the domestic like

product beyond carbon (non-alloy) steel. Although such an expansion was advocated belatedly by domestic

producers in the first reviews, the Commission concluded that there was insufficient record evidence to support

modification of the domestic like product. USITC Publication 3364, November 2000, pp. 6-7. 

No party initially advocated expansion of the domestic like product to include micro-alloy steel in these

second reviews. Nonetheless, the Commission has considered micro-alloy steel to be part of the domestic like

product (consistent with Commerce’s scope) in original investigations on plate, hot-rolled steel, and cold-rolled

steel, and expanded the domestic like product to include micro-alloy steel in the 2003 five-year review Certain

Carbon Steel Plate from China, Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-753-756 (Review). 

Accordingly, the Commission opted to collect data on micro-alloy steel. Data permitting evaluation of the resulting

broader industries based on the inclusion of micro-alloy steel appear in appendix C of this report.

During the hearing, counsel for U.S. Steel and AK Steel stated that they supported the inclusion of microalloy in the domestic like product definition. Hearing transcript, p. 261 (Hecht). However, in its posthearing brief,

Nucor agreed with the like product definition from the first reviews (i.e. micro-alloy not included in the definition of

the domestic like product). Nucor’s posthearing brief, answers to Commissioners’ questions, p. 27. Mittal stated in

its prehearing brief (p. 7) that it supported the like product definition used in the first review which did not include

micro-alloy product.

CORE-I-17

Table CORE-I-11

Corrosion-resistant steel: U.S. producers’ and U.S. importers’ channels of distribution, 2000-05, JanuaryJune 2005, and January-June 2006

Item

Calendar year January-June

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006

Share (percent)

Share of U.S. producers’

shipments--

 To automotive end users 37.0 35.7 36.2 34.9 32.3 35.6 37.0 33.3

 To construction end users 24.8 25.2 23.6 23.3 24.4 24.0 23.1 26.2

 To other end users 8.4 8.0 9.7 10.3 8.4 9.4 10.1 9.2

 To steel service centers

 and distributors 29.8 31.2 30.4 31.6 35.0 31.0 29.8 31.3

Share of U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments--

 To automotive end users 28.1 22.9 33.4 52.6 36.8 42.4 40.0 40.8

 To construction end users 23.1 18.8 21.8 16.9 23.7 31.3 38.0 31.7

 To other end users 9.7 7.6 6.4 8.5 7.0 4.4 4.6 2.8

 To steel service centers

 and distributors 39.1 50.8 38.4 22.0 32.6 21.9 17.4 24.7

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT ISSUES CONCERNING

MICRO-ALLOY CORROSION-RESISTANT STEEL

In its original investigations on corrosion-resistant steel the Commission found a single domestic

like product consisting of all corrosion-resistant steel (excluding clad plate). In the first reviews in 2000,

the Commission did not include micro-alloy steel in the domestic like product.25

Physical Characteristics and Uses

The HTSUS differentiates between three categories of steel: stainless steel, “other alloy steel” and

“non-alloy steel.” Steel that is not stainless steel but that contains one or more alloying elements in an

amount that exceeds a specified limit is defined as “other alloy steel.” Steel that is not stainless steel or
 26 The HTSUS does not mention “carbon steel”; rather, it provides a definition of “other alloy steel” as steel,

other than stainless steel, containing more than a specified amount of at least one of several elements. Steel that is

not stainless steel or other alloy steel is referred to as “non-alloy steel.” HTSUS, Chapter 72 Note 1(f).

 27 Lankford, William T., Jr., Ed., The Making, Shaping and Treating of Steel, Tenth Edition, p. 1313.

 28 Cut-To-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, and Korea, Invs. Nos.

701-TA-388-391 and 731-TA-816-821 (Review), USITC Publication 3816, November 2005.

CORE-I-18

other alloy steel is referred to as “non-alloy steel.”26 The scope of these reviews includes only steel that is

classified as “non-alloy” under the HTSUS, whereas a commonly used industry term “carbon steel”

arguably includes some steel that must be classified under the HTSUS as alloy steel. In particular, the use

of small amounts of such alloying elements as columbium, vanadium, and titanium to produce a class of

steels known as high-strength, low-alloy (HSLA) steels is common, and these steel compositions are often

considered within the industry to be carbon steel, regardless of whether the amounts of the alloying

elements are sufficient to require that the steel be classified as alloy steel under the HTSUS definitions.27

For purposes of these reviews, this report uses the term “micro-alloy” in a narrow sense to refer to steel

that contains one or more alloying elements in an amount that falls within the range specified in the

tabulation below, and none of the elements in a quantity greater than that indicated. The definition for

micro-alloy used in these reviews was based on the requirements specified in the most recent five-year

reviews covering CTL plate.28

As discussed above, the principal difference between non-alloy corrosion-resistant steel and

micro-alloy corrosion-resistant steel is the level of alloying elements in the steel. Micro-alloy steel may

have greater strength or toughness than non-alloy steel; however, the amounts of the micro-alloying

elements in the micro-alloy steel are only slightly higher than may be present in non-alloy steel; therefore,

major differences in mechanical properties should not be expected. 

Interchangeability

According to ***, “In most of the end-uses . . . carbon and micro-alloy corrosion resistant would

be interchangeable unless the customer spec restricted certain alloys for improved formability.” 

According to ***, however, “The automotive companies design the parts based on the knowledge of how

the steel will form. Dies are designed to stamp the parts based on how the steel will form, and these dies

are usually “tuned” to the steel of the company that worked on the part from the Early Vendor

Involvement (EVI) stage. As a result of this process, alloy and subject corrosion resistant steels cannot be

interchanged one with the other.”

Channels of Distribution

According to ***, “carbon and micro-alloy corrosion-resistant are sold in the same channels of

distribution.” Seven U.S. importers likewise reported that carbon and micro-alloy corrosion-resistant

steel are sold in the same channels of distribution. *** reported that virtually all such shipments were

made to steel service centers/distributors.

Common Manufacturing Facilities, Employees, and Processes

The manufacture of micro-alloy corrosion-resistant steel sheet utilizes the same manufacturing

facilities, employees, and processes as the manufacture of carbon steel sheet. According to ***, “carbon

and micro-alloy corrosion-resistant are made on the same equipment and with the same employees.” 

Nonetheless, only two U.S. producers of corrosion-resistant steel, Nucor and U.S. Steel, reported
 29 Nucor and U.S. Steel’s questionnaire responses, questions II-20 and II-21.

 30 ***. 

 31 Double G also responded to the Commission’s questionnaire. ***.

 32 While some firms reported data for toll production, generally on behalf of U.S. mills, the quantity and value of

such production were generally small and inconsistently reported. Therefore, these data are not presented separately

in this section of the report. Toll production for ***, which provided complete and generally consistent data for its

toll operations for companies other than U.S. mills, is presented in appendix C.

CORE-I-19

production of micro-alloy forms of the product, and both indicated that their production of micro-alloy

corrosion-resistant steel was ***.29

Producer and Consumer Perceptions

According to ***, “customers and producers see no differences in carbon and micro-alloy

corrosion-resistant that is made for the same applications.” Six U.S. importers reported that micro-alloy

is of a higher quality and preferred for certain end uses. Four U.S. purchasers said there is no

interchangeability between micro-alloy corrosion-resistant steel and carbon corrosion-resistant steel.

Price

According to ***, “the price of corrosion-resistant is based on the gauge range, coating weights

and any extras whether the corrosion-resistant in question is carbon or micro-alloy.” Five U.S. importers

and three U.S. purchasers reported that the price of micro-alloy corrosion-resistant steel is generally

higher than carbon corrosion-resistant steel. The tabulation below presents the average unit value of U.S.

producers' U.S. shipments of carbon corrosion-resistant steel and micro-alloy corrosion-resistant steel,

based on questionnaire data.30

Item

Calendar year January-June

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006

Unit value (per short ton)

Carbon corrosionresistant steel $547 $496 $522 $542 $687 $716 $739 $731

Micro-alloy corrosionresistant steel *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. MARKET PARTICIPANTS

U.S. Producers

Twenty-three U.S. producers of corrosion-resistant steel responded to the Commission’s

questionnaire with usable data.31 Based on *** data these mills account for approximately 94 percent of

U.S. capacity in 2005. Table CORE-I-12 presents information on U.S. producers, their ownership, their

geographic locations, toll agreements,32 and share of production. Table CORE-I-13 presents information

on U.S. producers’ positions on the existing orders.
CORE-I-20

Table CORE-I-12

Corrosion-resistant steel: U.S. producers, ownership, plant locations, toll agreements, and shares of U.S.

production, 2005

Firm Ownership Plant location(s)

Toll

agreement

Share of

production 

(percent)

AK AK (OH) (100%)

Ashland, KY

Middletown, OH

Rockport, IN *** *** 

AK-ISG Steel Coating Co.

(formerly L-S ElectroGalvanizing Company) AK Steel, Mittal Steel USA Cleveland, OH *** ***

Apollo Corus Group (UK) (100%) Bethlehem, PA *** ***

Arrow -- Wayne, NJ *** ***

Canfield

Handy & Harman (NY)

(100%) Canfield, OH *** ***

CSI

JFE Shoji (Japan) (50%)

Rio Doce (Brazil) (50%) Fontana, CA *** ***

CSN CSN-SA (Brazil) (100%) Terre Haute, IN *** ***

Double Eagle Steel Coating

Co.

U.S. Steel, Severstal North

America Dearborn, MI *** ***

Double G Coatings

U.S. Steel (50%)

Mittal Steel USA (50%) Jackson, MS *** ***

Gregory Industries -- Canton, OH *** ***

I/N Kote

Mittal Steel USA, Nippon

Steel New Carlisle, IN *** ***

Mittal

Mittal Steel Co.

(Netherlands) (100%)

Burns Harbor, IN

Cleveland, OH

Columbus, OH

Hennepin, IL

Indiana Harbor, IN

Lackawanna, NY

Sparrows Point, MD

Weirton, WV *** ***

National Galvanizing

Heidtman Steel (***%)

National Material (***%) Monroe, MI *** ***

Nucor --

Armorel, AR

Berkeley County, SC

Charlotte, NC

Crawfordsville, IN *** ***

Pro-Tec 

U.S. Steel (PA) (50%)

Kobe Steel (Japan) (50%) Leipsic, OH *** ***

SDI -- Butler, IN *** ***

Severstal Severstal (MI) (100%) Dearborn, MI *** ***

Spartan Steel Coating

Severstal North America,

Worthington Monroe, MI *** ***

Steelscape

IMSA Acero (Mexico)

(100%)

Kalama, WA

Rancho Cucamonga,

CA *** ***

Table continued on next page.
CORE-I-21

Table CORE-I-12–Continued

Corrosion-resistant steel: U.S. producers, ownership, plant locations, toll agreements, and shares of U.S.

production, 2005

Firm Ownership Plant location(s)

Toll

agreement

Share of

production 

(percent)

The Techs The Techs (100%)

Pittsburgh, PA

Turtle Creek, PA *** ***

Thomas Corus Group (UK) (100%) Warren, OH *** ***

U.S. Steel U.S. Steel (PA) (100%)

Ecorse, MI

Granite City, IL

Portage, IN

Gary, IN

Dravosburg, PA

Fairfield, AL *** ***

USS-POSCO

Pitcal (PA) (50%), a direct

wholly owned subsidiary of

U.S. Steel (PA); POSCOCalifornia (CA) (50%), an

indirect wholly owned

subsidiary of POSCO

(Korea) Pittsburg, CA *** ***

WCI WCI (100%) Warren, OH *** ***

Wheeling-Nisshin

Nisshin (Japan) (***%)

WPS (WV) (***%) Follansbee, WV *** ***

Winner -- Sharon, PA *** ***

WPS WPS (WV) (100%)

Martins Ferry, OH

Wheeling, WV *** ***

Worthington Worthington (OH) (100%)

Columbus, OH

Delta, OH *** ***

Total 100.0

* * * * * * *

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

 

Table CORE-I-13

Corrosion-resistant steel: U.S. producers’ positions on the orders

* * * * * * *

U.S. Importers

For these reviews, the Commission sent importers’ questionnaires to all U.S. producers as well as

to 42 firms believed to be importing corrosion-resistant steel. The Commission received U.S. importer

responses from 27 firms, all of which provided usable data, while 10 firms indicated they did not import

corrosion-resistant steel. Based on official Commerce statistics, firms providing usable questionnaire

responses accounted for 82 percent of subject imports in 2005. Three U.S. producers imported subject or

nonsubject corrosion-resistant steel. Table CORE-I-14 presents information on U.S. importers’ source of

imports, U.S. headquarters, and parent company.
CORE-I-22

Table CORE I-14

CORE: U.S. importers, source of imports, U.S. headquarters, and parent company

Firm Source of imports Headquarters Parent company

Arcelor *** New York, NY Arcelor S.A.

Apollo *** Bethlehem, PA Corus Group

Arrow *** Wayne, NJ

Leonard Green &

Partners

Coilplus *** Philadelphia, PA

Metal One Holding

America

Dofasco *** Hamilton, Ontario Arcelor

Dongbu *** Torrance, CA Dongbu USA

Dongkuk *** Torrance, CA

Dongkuk Steel Mill ***,

Union Steel ***, KISCO

***

Duferco *** Matawan, NJ Nina Finance

Hille & Mueller *** Warren, OH Corus Group

Honda *** Marysville, OH

Honda Trading Corp.

***, American Honda

Motor Co. ***

Hysco *** Greenville, AL Hyundai Hysco

Hyundai *** Houston, TX Hyundai Hysco

JFE *** Long Beach, CA JFE Shoji

MAN *** Houston, TX MAN Capital Corp.

Marubeni *** New York, NY MISI

Metal One *** Rosemont, IL

Metal One Holdings

America

Mitsui *** New York, NY Mitsui

Polychem *** Mentor, OH --

POSCO *** Fort Lee, NJ

POSCO ***, POSCO

Canada ***

Sorevco *** Coteau-du-Lac, Quebec

Dofasco ***, Mittal

Canada ***

Stelco *** Hamilton, Ontario --

Taylor *** Lordstown, OH Taylor Steel

TK Materials *** Southfield, MI ThyssenKrupp USA

TK Steel Services *** Richburg, SC

ThyssenKrupp

Materials

TK Steel NA *** Detroit, MI TKS AG

Totem *** Portland, OR --

U.S. Steel *** Pittsburgh, PA --

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
CORE-I-23

U.S. Purchasers

In response to purchaser questionnaires issued by the Commission to 64 firms, 35 purchasers

supplied usable data and six reported that they had not purchased the subject product during the period for

which data were collected. U.S. purchasers, their headquarters, sources, and type of firm, are shown in

table CORE-I-15. 

Table CORE-I-15

Corrosion-resistant steel: U.S. purchasers, their U.S. headquarters, their sources of purchases, and type of

firm

Company Headquarters

Source of

purchases Type of firm

Allied Tube & Conduit1 Harvey, IL *** ***

Alpha Steel Sales, Inc. La Habra, CA *** ***

Atlas Steel Products Co. Twinsburg, OH *** ***

Block Steel Corp.2 Skokie, IL *** ***

Cooper Standard

Automotive3 Auburn Hills, MI *** ***

Curtis Steel Company

Ltd. Houston, TX *** ***

Daimler Chrysler Auburn Hills, MI *** ***

Delphi Corporation Troy, MI *** ***

Dietrich Industries, Inc.4 Pittsburgh, PA *** ***

Drive Automotive

Industries of America,

Inc.5 Piedmont, SC *** ***

Ford Motor Company Dearborn, MI *** ***

General Motors Corp. Detroit, MI *** ***

Hanwha International

Corp.6 Cranbury, NJ *** ***

Heidtman Steel

Products, Inc.7 Toledo, OH *** ***

Honda of America Mfg. 

Inc.8 Marysville, OH *** ***

Hysco America Co.9 Greenville, AL *** ***

Hyundai Motor

Manufacturing Alabama

LLC10 Montgomery, AL *** ***

LG International

America, Inc.11 Cerritos, CA *** ***

McElroy Metal Bossier City, LA *** ***

Mitek Industries, Inc.12 Chesterfield, MO *** ***

Mitsubishi Motors North

America, Inc.13 Normal, IL *** ***

Mitsui Steel, Inc.14 New York, NY *** ***

New United Motor

Manufacturing, Inc.15 Fremont, CA *** ***

Nissan North America,

Inc.16 Nashville, TN *** ***

Table continued on next page.
CORE-I-24

Table CORE-I-15–Continued

Corrosion-resistant steel: U.S. purchasers, their U.S. headquarters, their sources of purchases, and type of

firm

Company Headquarters

Source of

purchases Type of firm

Procon Metals, Inc. Warren, OH *** ***

Rigid Building Systems Houston, TX *** ***

Samsung America, Inc.17 Ridgefield Park, NJ *** ***

Taylor Steel, Inc.18 Lordstown, OH *** ***

Thomas & Betts Corp. Memphis, TN *** ***

ThyssenKrupp Steel

Services19 Richburg, SC *** ***

Toyota Motor North

America, Inc.20 Washington, DC *** ***

United Steel Deck South Plainfield, NJ *** ***

Viking Materials, Inc.21 Minneapolis, MN *** ***

Vulcan Steel, Inc. Gardena, CA *** ***

Whirlpool Corp. Benton Harbor, MI *** ***

 1 Owned by Tyco International.

 2

 Owned by Block Industries.

 3

 Owned by Cooper Standard Automotive.

 4

 Owned by Worthington Industries, Inc.

 5

 Owned by Cosma International of America, Inc.

 6

 Owned by Hanwha Chemical Corp.

 7

 Owned by Centaur Inc.

 8

 Owned by American Honda Motor Co. Inc.

 9

 Owned by Hyundai Hysco.

 10 Owned by Hyundai Motor America.

 11 Owned by LG International.

 12 Owned by Berkshire Hathaway, Inc.

 13 Owned by Mitsubishi Motors Corp.

 14 Owned by Mitsui & Co.

 15 Owned by General Motors Corp. and Toyota Motors Corp.

 16 Owned by Nissan Motor Co. Ltd.

 17 Owned by Samsung Corp.

 18 Owned by Taylor Steel, Inc. (Canada).

 19 Owned by ThyssenKrupp Materials N.A., Inc.

 20 Owned by Toyota Motor Corp. 21 Owned by Reliance Steel & Aluminum.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
CORE-I-25

APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION AND MARKET SHARES

Table CORE-I-16 presents apparent U.S. consumption and table CORE-I-17 presents market

shares. 

Table CORE-I-16

Corrosion-resistant steel: Apparent U.S. consumption, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and 

January-June 2006

Item

Calendar year January-June

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006

Quantity (short tons)

U.S. producers' 

U.S. shipments 20,317,353 18,927,836 20,517,801 20,030,450 21,807,155 20,065,664 9,999,264 11,159,578

Imports from--

 Australia 220 176 275 297 119 16 16 3

 Canada 380,490 331,774 530,248 552,434 524,711 547,326 281,944 291,356

 France 3,608 9,302 15,753 6,530 4,613 1,778 1,728 190

 Germany 46,453 23,557 53,479 34,530 31,191 75,941 48,977 20,939

 Japan 27,543 17,338 24,304 18,570 19,628 16,762 8,693 11,012

 Korea 253,528 235,041 212,413 113,810 201,002 330,858 181,205 272,592

 Subtotal 711,842 617,188 836,473 726,171 781,264 972,681 522,563 596,092

 Nonsubject

 countries 919,625 933,033 1,325,751 936,741 2,424,153 1,647,998 932,153 1,372,961

 Total imports 1,631,467 1,550,221 2,162,224 1,662,911 3,205,416 2,620,679 1,454,716 1,969,053

Apparent 

U.S. consumption 21,948,820 20,478,057 22,680,025 21,693,361 25,012,571 22,686,343 11,453,980 13,128,631

Value (1,000 dollars)

U.S. producers' 

U.S. shipments 11,114,660 9,387,030 10,706,618 10,849,835 14,976,525 14,374,559 7,388,310 8,155,795

Imports from--1

 Australia 216 228 260 262 123 22 22 4

 Canada 208,645 173,957 292,684 331,067 341,546 398,538 207,943 221,845

 France 1,543 3,944 8,601 3,848 3,268 1,949 1,745 379

 Germany 28,221 13,955 30,585 20,312 17,999 48,634 31,540 14,718

 Japan 23,072 15,273 30,092 20,206 19,464 19,054 9,959 13,684

 Korea 140,605 123,305 122,919 77,195 156,934 285,156 157,308 206,273

 Subtotal 402,301 330,662 485,142 452,890 539,333 753,352 408,519 456,903

 Nonsubject

 countries 481,017 420,783 647,862 515,137 1,808,700 1,286,429 763,351 926,215

 Total imports 883,318 751,445 1,133,004 968,027 2,348,033 2,039,782 1,171,870 1,383,118

Apparent 

U.S. consumption 11,997,978 10,138,475 11,839,622 11,817,862 17,324,558 16,414,341 8,560,180 9,538,913

 1

 Import values are landed, duty paid.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires, and official import statistics. 
CORE-I-26

Table CORE-I-17

Corrosion-resistant steel: U.S. market shares, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

Item

Calendar year January-June

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006

Quantity (short tons)

Apparent 

U.S. consumption 21,948,820 20,478,057 22,680,025 21,693,361 25,012,571 22,686,343 11,453,980 13,128,631

Value (1,000 dollars)

Apparent 

U.S. consumption 11,997,978 10,138,475 11,839,622 11,817,862 17,324,558 16,414,341 8,560,180 9,538,913

Share of quantity (percent)

U.S. producers' 

U.S. shipments 92.6 92.4 90.5 92.3 87.2 88.4 87.3 85.0

Imports from--

 Australia (1

) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)

 Canada 1.7 1.6 2.3 2.5 2.1 2.4 2.5 2.2

 France (1

) (1) 0.1 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)

 Germany 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.2

 Japan 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

 Korea 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.5 0.8 1.5 1.6 2.1

 Subtotal 3.2 3.0 3.7 3.3 3.1 4.3 4.6 4.5

 Nonsubject

 countries 4.2 4.6 5.8 4.3 9.7 7.3 8.1 10.5

 Total imports 7.4 7.6 9.5 7.7 12.8 11.6 12.7 15.0

Share of value (percent)

U.S. producers' 

U.S. shipments 92.6 92.6 90.4 91.8 86.4 87.6 86.3 85.5

Imports from--

 Australia (1

) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)

 Canada 1.7 1.7 2.5 2.8 2.0 2.4 2.4 2.3

 France (1

) (1) 0.1 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)

 Germany 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.2

 Japan 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

 Korea 1.2 1.2 1.0 0.7 0.9 1.7 1.8 2.2

 Subtotal 3.4 3.3 4.1 3.8 3.1 4.6 4.8 4.8

 Nonsubject

 countries 4.0 4.2 5.5 4.4 10.4 7.8 8.9 9.7

 Total imports 7.4 7.4 9.6 8.2 13.6 12.4 13.7 14.5

 1

 Less than 0.05 percent.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires, and official Commerce import statistics. 
CORE-II-1

PART CORE-II: CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION IN THE U.S. MARKET

U.S. MARKET CHARACTERISTICS

As discussed in Part CORE-I, corrosion-resistant steel is widely used in automotive applications,

including those where the final product is visible or exposed to weather or other corroding agents. In

addition to improved aesthetics and enhanced downstream forming operations, corrosion-resistant steel

prolongs the useful life of end products. Corrosion-resistant steel, however, is not only used in the

automotive industry but also in industrial applications and in the appliance and construction industries.

U.S. CHANNELS OF DISTRIBUTION

U.S. producers and importers ship corrosion-resistant steel to automotive, construction, and other

end users, as well as to distributors and service centers (see table CORE-II-1). U.S. producers shipped

more than one-third of their corrosion-resistant steel to automotive end users, while shipping just under

one-third to distributors during the review period. Just under one quarter of U.S. shipments were to

construction end users, and smaller amounts went to other types of end users. Importers of corrosionresistant steel from Canada shipped *** of their corrosion-resistant steel to automotive end users, while

importers of corrosion-resistant steel from Germany and Japan shipped *** to automotive end users and

other types of end users. Importers of corrosion-resistant steel from Korea, in contrast, shipped *** to

construction end users and distributors.

Table CORE-II-1

Corrosion-resistant steel: Channels of distribution for domestic product and imports1

 sold in the U.S. market

(as a percent of total) by year and by source, 2000-052

Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

 Share of quantity (percent)

Domestic industry:

 Shipments to automotive end users 37.0 35.7 36.2 34.9 32.3 35.6

 Shipments to construction end users 24.8 25.2 23.6 23.3 24.4 24.0

 Shipments to other end users 8.4 8.0 9.7 10.3 8.4 9.4

 Shipments to distributors/service centers 29.8 31.2 30.4 31.6 35.0 31.0

Imports from Canada:

 Shipments to automotive end users *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Shipments to construction end users *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Shipments to other end users *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Shipments to distributors/service centers *** *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on next page.
 1

 One producer reported sales to Hawaii, and three importers reported sales in the Gulf Coast region. Six of the

nine importers that reported nationwide sales imported corrosion-resistant steel from subject countries.

CORE-II-2

Table CORE-II-1--Continued

Corrosion-resistant steel: Channels of distribution for domestic product and imports1

 sold in the U.S. market

(as a percent of total) by year and by source, 2000-052

Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

 Share of quantity (percent)

Imports from Germany:

 Shipments to automotive end users *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Shipments to construction end users *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Shipments to other end users *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Shipments to distributors/service centers *** *** *** *** *** ***

Imports from Japan:

 Shipments to automotive end users *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Shipments to construction end users *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Shipments to other end users *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Shipments to distributors/service centers *** *** *** *** *** ***

Imports from Korea:

 Shipments to automotive end users *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Shipments to construction end users *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Shipments to other end users *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Shipments to distributors/service centers *** *** *** *** *** ***

 1 No data were reported for imports from Australia or France.

 2

 In the original investigations, U.S. producers shipped 78.0 percent of their corrosion-resistant steel to end users and 22.0

percent to distributors, service centers, and processors. U.S. importers shipped 69.6 percent of their corrosion-resistant steel to

end users and 30.4 percent to distributors, service centers, and processors. In the first review investigations, U.S. producers

shipped 61.5 percent of their corrosion-resistant steel to end users and 38.5 percent to distributors. For information on imports of

corrosion-resistant steel from the first review investigations, see supplemental memorandum INV-X-229, October 30, 2000.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires; Certain Carbon Steel Products from

Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain,

Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom, Inv. Nos. AA1921-197, 701-TA-231, 319-320, 322, 325-328, 340, 342, 348-350, and

731-TA-573-576, 578, 582-587, 604, 607-608, 612, 614-618 (Review), USITC Publication 3364 (November 2000); and Certain

Flat-Rolled Carbon Steel Products from Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Italy,

Japan, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, Inv. Nos.

701-TA-319-332, 334, 336-342, 344, 347-353, and 731-TA-573-579, 581-592, 594-597, 599-609, 612-619 (Final), USITC

Publication 2664 (August 1993).

U.S. producers and importers, as a whole, reported nationwide sales, although many individual

firms reported that their sales were concentrated in particular regions. Generally, producers and importers

reported serving primarily the Midwest, Northeast, and Southeast regions, as well as the national market

(see table CORE-II-2).1
 2

 Additional information on the U.S. safeguard action on certain steel products appears in the Overview of this

report.

CORE-II-3

Table CORE-II-2

Corrosion-resistant steel: Geographic market areas in the United States served by domestic producers and

importers of subject product1

Region Producers Importers

Contiguous United States 7 9

Northeast 7 8

Midwest 10 9

Central Southwest 6 3

Southeast 7 11

Mountains 3 0

Pacific Coast 5 5

 1 In the first reviews, six U.S. producers reported selling corrosion-resistant steel nationwide; nine reported selling in the

East/Midwest; and one reported selling in the West, while three importers reported selling nationwide; seven reported selling in

the East/Midwest (with one reporting also selling to the Southwest and Gulf Coast); and one reported selling in the West. In the

original investigations, the staff report did not discuss geographic market area data reported by U.S. producers and importers but

official statistics showed that imports from the subject countries entered all four regions of the United States.

Note.–Eighteen producers and 26 importers responded to this question. Firms were not limited to the number of market areas

that they could report.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires; Certain Carbon Steel Products from

Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain,

Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom, Inv. Nos. AA1921-197, 701-TA-231, 319-320, 322, 325-328, 340, 342, 348-350, and

731-TA-573-576, 578, 582-587, 604, 607-608, 612, 614-618 (Review), USITC Publication 3364 (November 2000); and Certain

Flat-Rolled Carbon Steel Products from Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Italy,

Japan, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, Inv. Nos.

701-TA-319-332, 334, 336-342, 344, 347-353, and 731-TA-573-579, 581-592, 594-597, 599-609, 612-619 (Final), USITC

Publication 2664 (August 1993).

Only one U.S. producer, ***, reported some sales of corrosion-resistant steel using the internet,

generally less than 5 percent of sales. None of the 34 responding purchasers reported buying corrosionresistant steel over the internet.

SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS

U.S. Supply

Domestic Production

Four importers reported that the U.S. safeguard action on steel, which included increased duties

on corrosion-resistant steel from March 2002 until December 2003, affected the availability of corrosionresistant steel in the U.S. market.2

 Other producers and importers reported that increased raw material,

energy, and transportation costs, increased production and demand in China and India, and additional
 3

 *** reported that U.S. capacity has been increased at CSN Heartland, Columbus Coatings, SDI, Winner, U.S.

Steel, and Mittal since 2000. It also reported that there have been coating line closures since 2000. *** producer

questionnaire, response to question IV-B-18.

 4

 Mittal opened a new processing line at its Cleveland plant that is designed to produce in excess of 700,000 tons

of hot-dipped corrosion-resistant steel annually to meet demand from automakers and other customers. It is working

to add galvannealing to the line to begin as early as the second quarter 2007. “Mittal Steel starts new galvanized

sheet processing line in Cleveland,” American Metal Market, April 27, 2006 found at

http://amm.com/2006-04-26__12-25-40.html, retrieved September 1, 2006. Nucor has announced it will construct a

new sheet steel galvanizing facility at its Decatur, AL, plant with capacity to produce 500,000 tons per year of hotdipped sheet and will be targeted toward the automotive market. “Nucor targets transplants with new galvanizing

line,” American Metal Market, June 14, 2006, found at http://amm.com/2006-06-14__14-41-40.html, retrieved

September 1, 2006.

 5

 Zinc and energy costs, as well as technological improvements, have reportedly been factors in the switch from

electrogalvanizing to hot-dipped galvanizing. “Tried, true, and tweaked, hot dip just keeps getting hotter and

hotter,” American Metal Market, August 18, 2006, found at http://amm.com/2006-08-18__11-06-11.html, retrieved

September 1, 2006. Nucor reported that electrogalvanizing is a more costly process and that the less costly hotdipped galvanized steel can be used for many of the same applications. Hearing transcript, pp. 142 and 217

(DiMicco).

 6

 CSN restarted its blast furnace in June 2006. “CSN resumes No. 3 furnace after five months,” American Metal

Market, June 27, 2006, found at http://amm.com/2006-06-27__15-46-24.html, retrieved September 1, 2006.

 7

 *** increased spot market purchases due to shortages from U.S. suppliers. ***. Auto producers reported that

there have been shortages on committed tons of corrosion-resistant steel and for additional tons at contract prices. 

Hearing transcript, p. 437 (Kelly) and p. 440 (King). Witness testimony suggested very different conditions through

late 2003, when U.S. producers considered any incremental increase in volume from “premier accounts” such as the

auto producers “a win.” Hearing transcript, p. 442 (Cover).

CORE-II-4

U.S. capacity have affected supply since 2000.3

 Twelve of the 17 responding producers and 7 of the 18

responding importers reported that they anticipate an increase in the availability of U.S.-produced

corrosion-resistant steel in the U.S. market in the future. Most reported that there are expansions planned

by Nucor, Mittal, and SeverCorr.4

 Five producers and 13 importers do not anticipate any change in

availability, and three importers anticipate a decrease in availability of corrosion-resistant steel due to

new auto plants and the availability and pricing of raw materials.

Purchasers were asked if there have been changes in any factors that affected the availability of

corrosion-resistant steel in the U.S. market since 2000. Twenty-four of the 33 responding purchasers

reported that there had been changes, such as raw material, energy, and transportation cost increases; a

trend shift from electrogalvanized to hot-dipped galvanized steel,5

 the U.S. safeguard action, and

consolidation of the U.S. industry. *** reported that events at individual mills, such as a fire at USSPOSCO in May 2001, an outage at LTV in December 2001, and an AK Steel lock-out in March 2006 all

affected the availability of corrosion-resistant steel in the U.S. market. *** also reported that a blast

furnace accident at CSN in Brazil in January 2006 affected the availability of slabs, which ultimately

impacted the availability of corrosion-resistant steel.6

Purchasers also were asked if any suppliers refused, declined, or were unable to supply corrosionresistant steel since 2000. Twenty-three of the 33 responding purchasers reported that there had been

problems with supply, with most reporting that domestic mills had placed them on allocation, or

controlled order entry, from early 2004 to early-to-mid 2005, with some reporting that shortages have

continued into 2006.7

 Other purchasers reported that some foreign suppliers also have had tight supply

situations during the review period.
 8

 With the exception of the results of the world-wide raw material shortage situation in 2004, U.S. producers who

appeared at the hearing denied allegations of a supply shortage. Hearing transcript, p. 136 (Goodish), p. 144

(DiMicco), and pp. 151-152 (Gant). U.S. Steel reported that auto producers have sought additional tons, or more

than what was stipulated in their contracts, at the contract price when the contract price was below the market price

and were denied these additional tons. U.S. Steel’s posthearing brief, pp. 5-7.

 9

 A hydrogen plant shut down in New Orleans as a result of Hurricane Katrina may have caused some short-term

supply disruptions. Hearing transcript, p. 189 (DiMicco). In addition, ***.

 10 *** also reported that the lockout at AK Steel and the planned closure of Severstal’s hot-dipped galvanizing

line in October 2006 have created conditions supporting high prices for corrosion-resistant steel.

 11 In addition, *** reported that since 2000, galvanneal has higher strength, stretch flange, and dual-phase grades

and that it expects continued improvements in the future.

CORE-II-5

Eleven of the 17 responding producers and 8 of the 26 responding importers reported having

refused, declined, or been unable to supply corrosion-resistant steel since 2000.8

 Some producers

reported placing customers on general allocation or controlled order entry, while others reported that they

reserved space for long-term customers or did not pursue new customers.9

 Two producers reported being

unable to make timely shipments. Importers also reported being unable to make timely shipments and

placing customers on allocation. These problems generally occurred in 2004 through early 2005, with

eight producers and four importers reporting that there are continuing supply restrictions in 2006.

Producers and importers reported that, generally, there have been no significant changes in the

product range, product mix, or marketing of corrosion-resistant steel since 2000. However, *** reported

that there has been increased demand for light-gauge material, and also that there has been a switch in

preferences from electrogalvanized to hot-dipped galvanized steel. Two importers reported that there has

been an increase in sales of aluminum-zinc alloy corrosion-resistant steel, in part due to the recent price

increases of zinc. *** reported an increase in high-strength and ultra-high-strength corrosion-resistant

steel for use in autos. Three producers and six importers reported anticipating changes in the future,

including more high-strength, bake-hardenable, and dent-resistant corrosion-resistant steel; more hotdipped galvanized products at the expense of electogalvanized products; and continued merger activity in

the U.S. industry. *** reported that SDI is converting a coating line that only produced galvanized steel

to one that will be able to produce both galvanized and galvalume products.

Purchasers were asked to identify and discuss any improvements/changes in the U.S. corrosionresistant steel industry since 2000 and any improvements/changes that they anticipate in the future, and

11 purchasers responded. *** reported that U.S. mills have gained competitiveness through bankruptcies

and consolidation and that China has played a significant role in terms of causing a shortage in raw

materials and increased production capacity. *** reported that consolidation of the industry has produced

fewer and smaller companies. *** reported that consolidation in the U.S. industry has resulted in

tightening of supply of corrosion-resistant steel and that the growth of the industry in China and India,

along with increased prices for raw materials, has caused surcharges to be implemented and further

reductions in supply.10 *** reported that industry consolidation has resulted in improved financial

performance of U.S. producers and that new market entrants, specifically SeverCorr and Nucor, are

planning significant investments in the United States. *** reported expecting additional capacity to bring

prices down but that prices are still high. *** reported that it has limited knowledge of the U.S. market,

but that there have been no improvements or changes due to legacy costs and insufficient re-investment in

U.S. facilities, thus causing a decline in competitiveness. *** reported that galvanneal suppliers have

improved so that there has been a reduced and more consistent surface friction and better formability and

that galvanneal coating lines have added prephosphatability to the lines.11 *** reported that U.S.

producers of *** have not added capacity to support the growth in demand and that the U.S. has
 12 In addition, *** reported that it expects continued growth in end-use markets and that without additional

sources of supply, proliferation of products that use the material will be limited and production may eventually be

moved outside of the United States.

 13 *** also reported that there are several grade and width combinations that are not domestically available and

will not be in the future due to the costs associated with upgrading existing equipment in the United States.

 14 *** reported that there are opportunities to shift sales to the EU but that ***. *** reported that its production

facilities are set only for U.S. standards.

CORE-II-6

experienced a constrained supply situation.12 *** reported that U.S. mills have been developing more

high-strength products and that it expects more high-strength and hot-dipped products to come from U.S.

suppliers.13 *** reported that relative to other countries, the improvements in U.S. capacity and quality

have been minimal and that in the future, it expects an obsolescence of coating lines capable of supplying

future grades for automotive applications. *** reported expecting increased galvannealed capacity.

Based on available information, U.S. producers are likely to respond to changes in demand with

small to moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of U.S.-produced corrosion-resistant steel to the

U.S. market. The main contributing factors to the low to moderate degree of responsiveness of supply are

moderate levels of capacity utilization, few export shipments, moderate levels of inventories, and few

production alternatives.

Industry capacity

U.S. producers reported some excess capacity throughout the period for which data were

collected in these reviews. U.S. producers’ capacity utilization for corrosion-resistant steel decreased

irregularly from 80.6 percent in 2000 to 79.5 percent in 2005 and was higher in January-June 2006, at

85.0 percent, than it was in January-June 2005 (see table CORE-III-2).

Alternative markets

U.S. producers’ export shipments, as a percent of total shipments, increased from 3.6 percent in

2000 to 4.1 percent in 2005 (see table CORE-III-5). This relatively low level of exports during the period

indicates that domestic producers may be somewhat constrained in their ability to shift shipments between

the United States and other markets in response to price changes. Indeed, all 16 of the responding

producers reported that they are unable or limited in their ability to shift sales of corrosion-resistant steel

between the U.S. market and alternative country markets. Some producers reported that transportation

costs and exchange rates make it difficult to shift sales to other markets, while others reported that export

packaging and customs documentation are deterrents to shifting sales.14 Five responding producers

reported that U.S. exports of corrosion-resistant steel are subject to tariff or non-tariff barriers in other

countries, including a goods-and-services import duty in Canada; unfavorable exchange rates; and foreign

government subsidies.

Inventory levels

U.S. producers’ inventories, as a share of total shipments, fell from 9.9 percent in 2000 to 8.1

percent in 2005 and were lower in January-June 2006 (at 6.6 percent of total shipments) than at any time

during the review period (see table CORE-III-6).
 15 According to domestic interested parties, the U.S. price of corrosion-resistant steel is higher than the prices of

both cold-rolled and hot-rolled steel, thus providing incentive to shift production to sell more corrosion-resistant

steel. Domestic producers’ response to the notice of institution, p. 33.

 16 Seven foreign producers reported producing alloys and micro-alloys using the same equipment as corrosionresistant steel, but only two reported that they were able to switch in response to a relative price change.

 17 BlueScope reported that ***. It also reported that ***.

 18 One Canadian producer reported that ***, while another reported that ***. Both reported that ***. Canadian

producers reported that ***.

CORE-II-7

Production alternatives

Only 4 of 21 responding producers reported that they produce other products, such as hot- and

cold-rolled sheet, aluminized stainless, and alloys, on the same equipment and machinery used in the

production of corrosion-resistant steel.15 No producer reported that it is able to switch production to other

products in response to relative price changes.16

Subject Imports

The sensitivity of supply of subject imported corrosion-resistant steel to changes in price depends

upon such factors as the existence of excess capacity, the levels of inventories, and the existence of export

markets. Relevant information for all six of the subject countries follows.

Australia

Based on available information, the Australian producer BlueScope is likely to respond to

changes in demand with small to moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of corrosion-resistant

steel to the U.S. market.17 The main contributing factors to the low to moderate degree of responsiveness

of supply are the existence of alternate markets, moderate levels of inventories, and high capacity

utilization. Australian export shipments, as a share of total shipments, decreased from *** percent in 2000

to *** percent in 2005 but were higher in January-June 2006 (*** percent) than during the same period in

2005 (*** percent) (see table CORE-IV-12). Australian inventories, as a share of total shipments,

increased irregularly from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005. The Australian producer’s

capacity utilization for corrosion-resistant steel decreased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in

2005 but was at its highest level during the review period in January to June 2006 at *** percent. 

BlueScope reported that ***.

Canada

Based on available information, Canadian producers are likely to respond to changes in demand

with small to moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of corrosion-resistant steel to the U.S.

market.18 The main contributing factors to the low to moderate degree of responsiveness of supply are the

existence of alternate markets, moderate levels of inventories, and high capacity utilization. Canadian

producers’ export shipments, as a share of total shipments, increased from *** percent in 2000 to ***

percent in 2005 (see table CORE-IV-20). Canadian producers’ inventories, as a share of total shipments,

decreased irregularly from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005. Canadian producers’ capacity

utilization for corrosion-resistant steel decreased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005. 

Reported capacity utilization was *** percent in January-June 2006, up from *** percent during the same

period in 2005. One Canadian producer reported that ***.
 19 French producers reported that ***.

 20 Duferco reported that inventory levels in the European market were lower in 2005 than in 2004 due to strong

demand. Duferco’s response to the notice of institution, p. 4.

 21 German producers reported that ***.

 22 Two Japanese producers reported that ***. Japanese producers reported that a number of factors have affected

supply, including the Japanese economic recovery, surging demand for corrosion-resistant steel in Asia, and

increased demand from auto and appliance manufacturers in Japan and other Asian countries. Only one Japanese

producer reported that ***.

CORE-II-8

France

Based on available information, French producers are likely to respond to changes in demand

with small to moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of corrosion-resistant steel to the U.S.

market.19 The main contributing factors to the small to moderate degree of responsiveness of supply are

the existence of alternate markets, low levels of inventories, and high capacity utilization. French

producers’ export shipments, as a share of total shipments, decreased from *** percent in 2000 to ***

percent in 2005 (see table CORE-IV-29). French producers’ inventories, as a share of total shipments,

were reported to be *** percent throughout the period.20 French producers’ capacity utilization for

corrosion-resistant steel decreased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005. Reported capacity

utilization was *** percent in January-June 2006, up from *** percent during the same period in 2005. 

French producers reported that ***.

Germany

Based on available information, German producers are likely to respond to changes in demand

with moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of corrosion-resistant steel to the U.S. market.21 The

main contributing factors to the moderate degree of responsiveness of supply are the existence of alternate

markets, moderate levels of inventories, and high capacity utilization. German producers’ export

shipments, as a share of total shipments, increased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005, with

most exports going to other national markets in the EU (see table CORE-IV-38). German producers’

inventories, as a share of total shipments, decreased irregularly from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent

in 2005. German producers’ capacity utilization for corrosion-resistant steel decreased from *** percent

in 2000 to *** percent in 2005. Reported capacity utilization was *** percent in January-June 2006, up

from *** percent during the same period in 2005. Two German producers reported that ***.

Japan

Based on available information, Japanese producers are likely to respond to changes in demand

with moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of corrosion-resistant steel to the U.S. market.22 The

main contributing factors to the moderate degree of responsiveness of supply are the existence of alternate

markets, low levels of inventories, few production alternatives, and high capacity utilization. Japanese

producers’ export shipments, as a share of total shipments, increased from *** percent in 2000 to ***

percent in 2005 (see table CORE-IV-47). Japanese producers’ inventories, as a share of total shipments,

decreased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005. Japanese producers’ capacity utilization for

corrosion-resistant steel increased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005. Reported capacity

utilization was *** percent in January-June 2006, down from *** percent during the same period in 2005. 

Japanese producers reported that ***.
 23 Three Korean producers reported that ***, and two Korean producers reported that ***. ***. Only one

Korean producer reported that ***. Four of the seven responding Korean producers reported that corrosion-resistant

steel is not interchangeable due to such factors as differences in width and thickness and tighter control of

specifications by some U.S. customers.

 24 There is some evidence that activity in the residential housing sector has slowed in 2006, which may affect

demand for appliances and HVAC products. “Housing construction plunges in October,” The Washington Post,

November 17, 2006, found at

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/17/AR2006111700396.html, retrieved November

20, 2006. The nonresidential construction market is expected to remain strong through the end of 2006 and into

2007. “Nonresidential Construction Market in 2007 to Match This Year’s Strong Performance,” Kermit Baker,

(continued...)

CORE-II-9

Korea

Based on available information, Korean producers are likely to respond to changes in demand

with moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of corrosion-resistant steel to the U.S. market.23 The

main contributing factors to the moderate degree of responsiveness of supply are the existence of alternate

markets, moderate levels of inventories, and some unused capacity. Korean producers’ export shipments,

as a share of total shipments, increased from 32.6 percent in 2000 to 33.6 percent in 2005 (see table

CORE-IV-56). Korean producers’ inventories, as a share of total shipments, increased from 3.3 percent

in 2000 to 4.6 percent in 2005. Korean producers’ capacity utilization for corrosion-resistant steel

decreased irregularly from 88.1 percent in 2000 to 87.0 percent in 2005. Reported capacity utilization

was 86.0 percent in January-June 2006, down from 87.6 percent during the same period in 2005. None of

the Korean producers reported that ***.

Nonsubject Imports

Imports from nonsubject countries increased from 2000 to 2005 (see table CORE-IV-1). Thirteen

of the 16 responding producers and 6 of the 23 responding importers reported that the availability of

nonsubject corrosion-resistant steel has changed since 2000. Most reported increased imports from

countries such as China, India, Brazil, and Taiwan. *** reported that other countries have switched to

lighter gauge galvanized products and increased volumes sold in the United States, *** reported that a

company in the United Kingdom ceased production in 2006, and *** reported that CSN in Brazil

significantly curtailed exports to the United States in the first half of 2006 due to a blast furnace outage.

U.S. Demand

Demand Characteristics

Apparent U.S. consumption of corrosion-resistant steel showed some fluctuations from 2000

through 2005, but was higher in 2005, at 22.7 million short tons, than in 2000, at 21.9 million short tons. 

Nine producers, 20 importers, and 26 purchasers reported that demand increased since 2000, while 3

producers, 3 importers, and 5 purchasers reported that demand has been unchanged. Of those reporting

that demand increased, factors cited included the improved economy, increased global consumption,

increased non-residential construction activities and auto production, rebuilding activities from the

hurricanes of 2005, changes in building codes, foreign auto companies opening plants in the United

States, and the housing boom.

Three producers and one purchaser reported that demand has fluctuated, with both increases and

decreases during the review period. When asked if they anticipate future changes in corrosion-resistant

steel demand in the United States and the rest of the world,24 12 producers,25 13 importers, and 16
 24 (...continued)

Chief Economist of the American Institute of Architects, found at

http://www.aia.org/aiaarchitect/thisweek06/0630/0630econ_consensus.cfm, retrieved October 30, 2006. North

American auto production is expected to rebound in 2007 after hitting a trough in the 4th quarter of 2006 but is

expected to be below historically high levels until the latter part of 2007. “Ward’s AutoForecasts Sees North

American Output Rebounding after Q4 Slide” in U.S. Steel’s prehearing brief, exhibit 37. Longer-term data from

the Automotive Market Research Council show that light vehicle production in North America is forecast to increase

at approximately 1.1 percent per year from 2005 to 2010. Japanese respondent interested parties’ prehearing brief,

2006 articles, exhibit 9, p. 6. In addition, U.S. light vehicle production data from CSM Worldwide show a decrease

from 2005 to 2006, an increase from 2006 to 2007, a decrease from 2007 to 2008, and increases in 2009 and 2010. 

Auto producers’ posthearing brief, exhibit 3. North American heavy truck production, however, is projected to

decline in 2007. Global Auto Report, Scotia Economics, October 30, 2006, found at

http://www.scotiacapital.com/English/bns_econ/bns_auto.pdf, retrieved November 20, 2006.

 25 U.S. mills expected demand for corrosion-resistant steel to remain strong through the end of 2006, but some

buyers questioned whether demand would be as strong as predicted. “Flat-rolled demand seen holding firm to yearend,” American Metal Market, July 4, 2006, found at http://amm.com/2006-07-03__17-44-39.html, retrieved

September 1, 2006.

 26 *** reported that forecasts for automobile production predict growth of 2 to 3 percent annually in the United

States and Germany between 2005 and 2010, with growth in developing regions at higher rates. *** producer

questionnaire, response to question III-22 and appendix III-21(b) and German respondent interested parties’

posthearing brief, responses to Commissioners’ questions, p. 20 and exhibit 10. *** reported that alkaline battery

production will increase the demand for corrosion-resistant steel by 3 to 6 percent annually and that auto production

(fuel lines) will increase the demand by 10 percent annually.

 27 *** reported that the corrosion-resistant steel market is due to slow in the near future, resulting from a

slowdown in new home construction and shifts from SUVs to smaller, more fuel-efficient cars. It also reported that

the growth of foreign automakers will continue to lead to reductions in domestic steel content in autos. *** producer

questionnaire, response to question IV-B-27. However, the automotive producers reported that they do not expect

the amount of corrosion-resistant steel consumed to produce the average vehicle in the United States to decrease. 

Auto producers’ posthearing brief, appendix, pp. 12 and 19-23.

 28 U.S. Department of Energy’s E85 Fleet Toolkit, found at http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/e85toolkit/,

retrieved August 22, 2006.

 29 Purchasers who distribute or resell corrosion-resistant steel listed stampers; fabricators; auto parts suppliers;

and manufacturers of cookware, HVAC parts, building panels, steel doors, batteries, and bearings as consumers of

their corrosion-resistant steel. Like other auto manufacturers, *** reported purchasing corrosion-resistant steel and

reselling it to independent stampers of body panels and steel components. It also reported that this practice absorbs

the price risk of purchasing corrosion-resistant steel and that it is considering restructuring this practice because of

(continued...)

CORE-II-10

purchasers responded yes, and many explained that China, India, and other developing countries will

continue to be a factor in demand growth as well as increased demand for vehicles and for longer-lasting

vehicles.26 Some producers reported expecting continued demand growth but at a slower rate.27 Two

purchasers reported that the E85 ethanol requirements (85 percent ethanol blended with 15 percent

gasoline designed for use in flexible-fuel vehicles)28 in the U.S. market will increase the demand for

corrosion-resistant steel for fuel lines. *** reported that automotive and other product sectors have cut

back in the fourth quarter of 2006 but that large inventories at service centers should carry over until

2007.

The overall demand for corrosion-resistant steel primarily depends upon the demand for a variety

of end-use applications (see table CORE-II-3). Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked to list

the end uses of corrosion-resistant steel. The most commonly reported uses were for motor vehicle parts

(body as well as fuel and brake lines), home appliances, HVAC components, metal decking, steel studs

and posts, battery cans and components, and parts of metal buildings.29
 29 (...continued)

increased steel costs.

 30 *** reported that since 2003, it has specified prephose steel for use in vehicles and explained that prephose is a

new type of corrosion-resistant steel that includes an oil coating for lubrication when making difficult-to-form

stamped parts.

CORE-II-11

Table CORE-II-3

Corrosion-resistant steel: Shipments by market, 20051

Market

Hot-dipped

galvanized

Electrogalvanized Combined

Share of quantity (percent)

Automotive 40.0 91.2 47.6

Steel service centers and distributors2 29.2 6.5 25.8

Construction 21.8 1.2 18.8

Appliance, utensils, and cutlery 4.2 -- 3.6

Agricultural and electrical equipment 1.7 -- 1.4

Steel for converting and processing 1.3 1.0 1.3

Containers, packaging, and shipping material 0.8 -- 0.7

Other domestic and commercial equipment 0.6 -- 0.5

Other 0.5 0.1 0.3

 1 Data are for calendar year 2005 and include only classified shipments as reported by AISI reporting companies. Data

include only hot-dipped galvanized and electrolytic galvanized steel.

 2

 Data are not available from AISI on the end-use markets of shipments from service centers and distributors.

Source: American Iron & Steel Institute, 16C Report, Shipments of Steel Products by Market Classification, Carbon Steel,

Report AIS 16C, 2005.

When asked if there had been any changes in the end uses of corrosion-resistant steel since 2000,

two importers and seven purchasers reported that corrosion-resistant steel is now used for such things as

steel studs and metal doors, as a replacement for cold-rolled steel, for automobile heat shields and roof

panels, and is increasingly used for exposed auto body parts.30 *** reported that there has been increased

use of corrosion-resistant steel as an alternative to higher priced alloys, and *** reported that there has

been a switch to plastic.

Seventeen of the 19 responding purchasers who are end users reported that the demand for their

firms’ final products that use corrosion-resistant steel changed since 2000, with most citing increases in

demand for these final products. In identifying the major factors that contributed to the demand changes,

purchasers reported that factors included a growing U.S. economy, increased housing starts, increased

auto production, the introduction of new products, and new facilities.

Twenty-three purchasers reported that the specifications of corrosion-resistant steel vary

depending on the end-use application, citing differences in coatings and coating weight, thickness, width,

forming capabilities, and chemical treatment. *** reported that some exposed and unexposed automotive

parts require an alloy steel; *** reported that some applications need a light-gauge material and that the

auto industry has strict gauge requirements; *** reported that some specifications are based on

formability and strength or dent resistance; and *** reported that U.S. producers cannot produce “440E”

grades.
 31 *** reported that availability of corrosion-resistant steel in the U.S. market did not meet its growing demand

and that the U.S. industry does not have the capacity to satisfy domestic consumption levels.

CORE-II-12

The majority of producers reported that the corrosion-resistant steel market is subject to business

cycles or conditions of competition distinctive to corrosion-resistant steel, but the majority of importers

reported that it is not subject to business cycles or distinct conditions of competition. Most producers and

some importers reported that the corrosion-resistant steel market follows conditions in the auto and

construction industries. One producer and five importers reported that the emergence of new markets has

affected the business cycle or conditions of competition distinctive to corrosion-resistant steel.

When asked if the corrosion-resistant steel market is subject to business cycles or conditions of

competition distinctive to corrosion-resistant steel, 20 of the 31 responding purchasers reported that it is

not. Of those who reported that the market is subject to business cycles or distinct conditions of

competition, most reported that demand fluctuates with demand in end-use markets and based on weather

conditions and raw material and energy pricing. Eleven purchasers reported that the emergence of new

markets for corrosion-resistant steel since 2000 has affected the business cycle or conditions of

competition distinctive to corrosion-resistant steel, with most citing growth in China, India, and other

emerging markets as well as new auto plants as causes.

Purchasers were asked whether their purchasing patterns for corrosion-resistant steel from

domestic, subject, and nonsubject sources had changed since the orders under review became effective. 

Eight purchasers reported that there has been little change in their purchasing patterns; one reported

increased U.S. purchases and one reported decreased U.S. purchases; one reported discontinuing its

purchases from Japan and one reported increased purchases from Japan due to a joint venture and

disruption in supply from U.S. sources; and two purchasers reported increased purchases from Germany. 

Twenty-one purchasers reported purchasing corrosion-resistant steel from one or more of the subject

countries before the orders became effective; seven reported that their pattern of purchasing is essentially

unchanged, seven reported that they reduced or discontinued their purchases from subject countries

because of the orders; and seven reported that they changed their pattern of purchasing for other reasons,

including price and availability. Fourteen purchasers reported that they did not purchase from nonsubject

sources before or after the order; 11 reported that their purchasing pattern from nonsubject sources was

essentially unchanged since the orders became effective; five increased their purchases from nonsubject

countries because of the orders; and three changed their purchasing pattern for reasons other than the

orders.31

Substitute Products

While there are reported substitutes for corrosion-resistant steel, the potential for substitution is

often limited by the end use, as well as factors such as formability, strength, and price. Plastics, wood,

aluminum, cement, stainless steel, cold-rolled steel, low-carbon steel, and composites were listed as

substitutes for corrosion-resistant steel in certain applications, and most purchasers reported that the

prices of these possible substitute products had either stayed the same or increased relative to the price of

corrosion-resistant steel. One producer, three importers, and seven purchasers reported that there are no

substitutes for corrosion-resistant steel. Two producers reported that there are now larger quantities of

substitute products available, and four importers reported that plastics and wood are now more acceptable

substitutes for corrosion-resistant steel. None of the responding purchasers reported that there have been

any changes in the number or type of products that can be substituted for corrosion-resistant steel. Two

producers and four importers reported that they expect changes in the substitutability of other products,

namely potential increased use of aluminum and plastic. Two purchasers reported that they expect

changes in the type of substitutes in the future, with one reporting that steel frame construction may lose

market share to concrete.
 32 The auto producers reported that there will be a significant increase in global vehicle production, according to

***, driven by developing countries such as China, India, and Brazil. Auto producers’ posthearing brief, appendix,

pp. 12-13 and exhibit 3. Dofasco reported that Canadian auto production will increase through 2008 and that its

shipments to the Canadian non-residential construction industry are expected to increase. Canadian respondent

interested parties’ posthearing brief, pp. 8-9 and prehearing brief, pp. 24-28.

 33 ***.

CORE-II-13

Cost Share

Corrosion-resistant steel often accounts for a relatively large percentage of the total cost of enduse products, although the cost share does vary widely, depending on the end use. Purchasers reported

that corrosion-resistant steel accounts for between less than 2 percent and 100 percent of the total cost of

the end products in which corrosion-resistant steel is used. In automobiles and light trucks, corrosionresistant steel reportedly represents 1.4 to 5 percent of the total cost of the end product, whereas in

individual vehicle parts, corrosion-resistant steel represents 50 to 85 percent. According to purchasers,

corrosion-resistant steel represents 100 percent of the total cost of metal studs, 80 percent of the total cost

of steel decks, 70 percent of the total cost of metal roof and wall cladding, 13 percent of the total cost of

industrial and commercial heating products, and 4 to 7 percent of the total cost of home appliances. 

Producers and importers reported that corrosion-resistant steel accounts for between 40 and 80 percent of

the cost of metal building components, 40 to 50 percent of the total cost of battery cans and components,

and 60 percent of the total cost of HVAC components.

Demand Outside the United States

Producers, importers, and purchasers also were asked how demand for corrosion-resistant steel

outside the United States has changed since 2000. Ten producers, 19 importers, and 24 purchasers

reported that demand outside the United States increased, citing factors such as rapidly increasing demand

in China and other industrializing countries in Asia, Latin America, and Eastern Europe; global economic

growth; and increased auto production and construction activity worldwide.32

Two producers, two importers, and four purchasers reported that demand outside the United

States was unchanged. One purchaser reported that demand outside the United States decreased, citing

that other countries have accepted lower corrosion standards.

SUBSTITUTABILITY ISSUES

The degree of substitution between domestic and imported products depends upon such factors as

relative prices, quality, and conditions of sale (e.g., price discounts/rebates, lead times between order and

delivery dates, payment terms, product services, etc.). Based on available data, staff believes that there

may be some differences between domestic and imported corrosion-resistant steel, but overall, there is a

moderate to high degree of substitution between corrosion-resistant steel produced in the United States

and the subject countries and other import sources.

This section is based primarily on the responses of 35 purchasers33 that accounted for

approximately 64.9 percent of total consumption in 2005. Fourteen purchasers described themselves as
 34 Purchasers who described themselves as distributors reported selling corrosion-resistant steel to metal building

manufacturers, OEMs, stampers and fabricators, and firms in the construction and automotive industries.

 35 Some of the auto companies also described themselves as resellers to their suppliers and stampers.

 36 Purchasers who described themselves as other end users reported that they use corrosion-resistant steel to

manufacture such items as steel buildings, steel decks, household appliances, sign posts, and industrial and

commercial HVAC parts.

 37 Dofasco reported that increased exports of corrosion-resistant steel to the United States are, in part, due to auto

companies moving the manufacturing of some vehicles from plants in Canada or Mexico to plants in the United

States. Hearing transcript, pp. 396-397 (Kenny) and Canadian respondent interested parties’ prehearing brief, pp. 5-

7.

 38 Seven purchasers, including five automotive end users, reported that prices are set using annual contracts but

that they take delivery on a daily basis.

CORE-II-14

distributors,34 13 as automotive end users,35 and 8 as other end users.36 These purchasers tended to

purchase primarily from U.S., Canadian,37 German, Korean, and nonsubject sources, with none reporting

purchases from Australia (see table CORE-II-4).

Table CORE-II-4

Corrosion-resistant steel: Purchased quantities in short tons, by country and by year, 2000-05 and JanuaryJune 2006

Country 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Jan.-June

2006

United States 7,467,655 7,552,907 8,174,447 8,604,537 9,059,330 13,770,041 6,363,431

Canada *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

France *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Germany *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Japan *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Korea *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Nonsubject 51,085 33,021 68,668 89,938 196,864 125,550 125,900

Note.--Not all purchasers reported data for each year.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Ten purchasers reported buying pre-painted corrosion-resistant steel, with three reporting that it

represented less than 5 percent of their total purchases of corrosion-resistant steel in 2005. Two

purchasers reported that pre-painted materials represented 13 to 25 percent of their total purchases, and

three firms reported that pre-painted materials represented 57 percent or more of their total purchases.

Two purchasers did not give an estimate of the percent of total purchases represented by pre-painted

materials.

When asked if imported and domestically produced corrosion-resistant steel are used in the same

applications, 29 purchasers reported that they are generally used in the same applications, as long as the

corrosion-resistant steel conforms to the purchaser’s specifications or if the supplier has been approved.

Purchasers of corrosion-resistant steel tend to buy frequently, and many have changed suppliers

since 2000. Nineteen of the 33 responding purchasers reported that they purchase daily38 or weekly, with

nine purchasing monthly and two on an as-needed basis. Two purchasers reported that they purchase

quarterly, and one reported purchasing annually. Only one purchaser reported that it expects this
 39 *** reported that 50 percent of its 2005 purchases of corrosion-resistant steel required some form of

certification or prequalification; *** reported that 40 percent of its 2005 purchases required certification; and ***

reported that 30 percent of its 2005 purchases required certification.

CORE-II-15

purchasing pattern to change in the next two years. Sixteen purchasers reported that the quantity of their

purchases is consistent throughout the year, and thirteen reported that their purchases are seasonal in

nature. Seventeen of the 34 responding purchasers reported changing suppliers since 2000; six of the

changes resulted from mergers, consolidations, and bankruptcies within the industry. Four purchasers

reported that their changes were a result of differences in pricing.

Factors Affecting Purchasing Decisions

Purchasers were asked to identify the three major factors considered by their firm in deciding

from whom to purchase corrosion-resistant steel (table CORE-II-5). Price and quality were the most

commonly cited factors overall. Thirteen of the 34 responding purchasers reported that price was the

most important factor, and 12 reported that quality was the most important factor. The next most

commonly cited factors were availability, delivery and service, and reliability.

Table CORE-II-5

Corrosion-resistant steel: Most important factors in selecting a supplier, as reported by purchasers

Factor First Second Third

Price 13 6 12

Quality 12 10 4

Availability 5 5 6

Reliability 1 2 1

Surface finish/appearance 1 1 0

Traditional supplier 1 0 1

Delivery/service 0 6 4

Consistency 0 2 0

Contracts 0 0 2

Product range 0 0 2

Other 1 2 1

Note.--Other category includes capability, long-term strategy, technical resources, and supply chain.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Purchasers were asked what factors determined the quality of corrosion-resistant steel. Factors

cited included surface appearance, yield strength, tensile strength, formability, flatness, uniformity of the

coating, metallurgical consistency, durability, weldability, and drawability. Eleven purchasers cited the

necessity of meeting the firm’s specifications or meeting ASTM or another of the various industry

standards. Twenty-seven of the 33 responding purchasers reported that they require suppliers to become

certified or prequalified and that these requirements apply to all, or nearly all, of their 2005 purchases.39 

Most of the requirements consist of standards set by independent organizations, such as the ASTM or

ISO. Other purchasers perform audits or require mill certificates or samples for testing.

Purchasers were asked if they always, usually, sometimes, or never purchased the lowest priced

corrosion-resistant steel. Thirteen purchasers reported always or usually purchasing the lowest priced
 40 *** reported that they source some products only from U.S. mills.

CORE-II-16

product and 17 sometimes purchased the lowest priced corrosion-resistant steel. Four purchasers, ***,

reported never purchasing the lowest priced corrosion-resistant steel. Of those who reported sometimes

or never purchasing the lowest priced product, availability, reliability, quality, contract commitments,

long-term relationship with the supplier, inventory control, management factors, and reputation were

factors cited as to why price is not a controlling factor.

Purchasers also were asked if they purchased corrosion-resistant steel from one country in

particular. Ten purchasers responded, reporting reasons why they purchased from one country in

particular. Reasons provided included domestic-only requirements or preferences, government work that

requires a domestic supplier, logistics, technical support, and loyalty. Eight purchasers reported that

certain grades, types, or sizes of corrosion-resistant steel are available only from a single source; with five

reporting that certain products are only available from suppliers outside the United States and two citing

AK Steel as the only U.S. source for aluminized steel.40

In rating the importance of 20 factors in their purchasing decisions (table CORE-II-6), 31 of the

34 responding purchasers rated availability and price as very important; 30 reported that product

consistency was very important; 28 reported that quality meeting industry standards and reliability were

very important; 27 reported that delivery time and finish/appearance were very important; and 23 reported

that delivery terms was very important.

Purchasers were asked for a country-by-country comparison of the same 20 factors (table COREII-7). One purchaser completed this comparison for the United States and Australia, eight for the United

States and Canada, seven for the United States and France, nine for the United States and Germany, eight

for the United States and Japan, and 13 for the United States and Korea. The majority of purchasers

reported that the domestic product was comparable or superior to the subject products in all categories.
CORE-II-17

Table CORE-II-6

Corrosion-resistant steel: Importance of purchase factors, as reported by purchasers

Factor

Very important Somewhat important Not important

Number of firms responding

Availability 31 3 0

Contract with supplier 21 7 6

Delivery terms 23 10 1

Delivery time 27 5 1

Discounts offered 9 16 8

Extension of credit 8 14 11

Finish/appearance 27 6 1

Minimum quantity requirements 6 22 6

Packaging 12 18 4

Price1

31 2 1

Product consistency 30 3 1

Product range 16 14 4

Proximity of supplier 9 18 7

Qualification for certain

applications 20 11 2

Quality meets industry standards 28 3 2

Quality exceeds industry

standards 12 14 7

Reliability of supply 28 5 1

Technical support/service 21 9 4

Traditional supplier 5 20 9

U.S. transportation costs 22 10 2

 1 *** reported that price was not an important factor in its purchasing decisions, yet it reported price as the second most

important factor in deciding from whom to purchase corrosion-resistant steel.

Note.--Not all purchasers responded for each factor.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
CORE-II-18

Table CORE-II-7

Corrosion-resistant steel: Comparisons of product by source country, as reported by purchasers1

Factor

U.S. vs Australia U.S. vs Canada U.S. vs France 

SC I SC I SC I

Number of firms responding 

Availability *** *** *** 3 5 0 3 4 0

Contract with supplier *** *** *** 2 6 0 3 4 0

Delivery terms *** *** *** 1 7 0 3 4 0

Delivery time *** *** *** 0 8 0 4 3 0

Discounts offered *** *** *** 1 7 0 1 5 0

Extension of credit *** *** *** 2 6 0 3 4 0

Finish/appearance *** *** *** 1 6 1 1 4 2

Minimum quantity

requirements *** *** *** 1 7 0 1 6 0

Packaging *** *** *** 0 8 0 1 6 0

Price2

*** *** *** 3 5 0 3 2 2

Product consistency *** *** *** 0 8 0 1 5 1

Product range *** *** *** 2 5 1 1 4 2

Proximity of supplier *** *** *** 5 3 0 6 1 0

Qualification for certain

applications *** *** *** 1 7 0 0 6 1

Quality meets industry

standards *** *** *** 0 8 0 0 6 1

Quality exceeds industry

standards *** *** *** 0 8 0 1 5 1

Reliability of supply *** *** *** 2 6 0 3 4 0

Technical support/service *** *** *** 170331

Traditional supplier *** *** *** 170250

U.S. transportation costs2

*** *** *** 4 4 0 511

Table continued on next page.
CORE-II-19

Table CORE-II-7--Continued

Corrosion-resistant steel: Comparisons of product by source country, as reported by purchasers1

Factor

U.S. vs Germany U.S. vs Japan U.S. vs Korea

SC I SC I SC I

Number of firms responding 

Availability 360530472

Contract with supplier 3 6 0 4 4 0 6 6 1

Delivery terms 3 6 0 1 7 0 5 7 1

Delivery time 5 4 0 5 3 0 8 4 1

Discounts offered 1 7 0 0 7 0 0 10 2

Extension of credit 3 6 0 1 7 0 2 9 2

Finish/appearance 153053382

Minimum quantity

requirements 2 7 0 1 7 0 1 11 1

Packaging 1 7 1 0 7 1 0 10 3

Price2

342440184

Product consistency 162053193

Product range 1 4 4 0 4 4 2 10 1

Proximity of supplier 8 1 0 7 1 0 11 2 0

Qualification for certain

applications 0 7 2 0 5 3 0 11 2

Quality meets industry

standards 0 9 0 0 8 0 1 10 2

Quality exceeds industry

standards 162053382

Reliability of supply 270350481

Technical support/service 351251561

Traditional supplier 270350661

U.S. transportation costs2 62143175 1

 1 Twelve purchasers completed the comparison for the United States and nonsubject countries or “all foreign countries” (see

appendix K).

 2 A rating of “S” on price and U.S. transportation costs indicates that this country has lower prices/costs than the other country.

Note.--S=first-listed country’s product is superior; C=both countries’ products are comparable; I=first-listed country’s product is

inferior.

Note.--Not all purchasers responded for every factor.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 41 General Motors reported that it takes “a fair amount of time” to be sure a supplier can make the qualities and

structural requirements that it needs but that it can overcome those constraints given some time. Hearing transcript,

p. 455 (Cover).

CORE-II-20

Twenty-nine purchasers reported factors they considered in qualifying a new supplier. Factors

considered included quality, price, availability, reliability, service, delivery, consistency, product range,

lead times, and ability to meet specifications or industry standards. The time required to qualify a new

supplier was reported by 18 purchasers and ranged from one week to two years.41

Purchasers were asked if any suppliers had failed to qualify their product or lost their approved

status. Two purchasers reported that Nucor failed to qualify its products, with one reporting that it failed

for the inability to meet weldability requirements and one reporting that its pre-painted material for a

laundry application failed a life test. Two purchasers reported that ThyssenKrupp failed to qualify its

products, with one reporting that its *** product failed and one reporting that its product failed in ***. 

Two purchasers reported that nonsubject Indian material failed for quality and flatness problems, one

purchaser reported that Mittal had failed, and one reported that Worthington had failed. Another

purchaser reported that some firms fail on the first time through the process but eventually resolve

whatever problems were found and become qualified. Purchasers were asked how often they and their

customers make purchasing decisions involving corrosion-resistant steel based on the producer of the

product they purchase and based on the country of origin of the corrosion-resistant steel they purchase. 

Their responses are summarized in the following tabulation:

Factor Always Usually Sometimes

Rarely or

never

Firm purchases based on producer? 15 5 8 6

Customers purchase based on producer? 2 3 7 19

Firm purchases based on country of origin? 4 4 10 16

Customers purchase based on country of origin? 1 2 6 24

When asked how the firm or its customers determine the source, some purchasers reported that

they buy direct from the mill, require suppliers to go through a lengthy approval or qualification process,

or rely on the supplier’s reputation. When asked why the information is important, purchasers reported

that such things as quality, availability, delivery, service, and price may vary by supplier. Some

purchasers reported that they try to buy from U.S. sources for logistical reasons and because they or their

customers may have preferences or requirements for U.S. products. *** reported that it has an overall

company direction to localize corrosion-resistant steel sourcing; *** reported that it purchases from one

supplier in order to increase its purchasing leverage with that supplier; *** reported that vehicle makers

do not have a rigorous approval process but that validation and quality assessments do occur; and ***

reported that it makes firm-specific, not country-specific supplier selections but that in some cases, it must

evaluate the total U.S. or North American content of its products to qualify them for trade preference

programs such as NAFTA or the U.S.-Australian Free Trade Agreement.

Purchasers were asked if buying a product that is produced in the United States is an important

factor in their purchases of corrosion-resistant steel. Twenty-one of the 34 responding purchasers

reported that it was not an important factor. Of the 13 purchasers that reported buying a U.S.-produced

product is important, most reported that their preferences are determined for other reasons, including

availability, quality, price, inventory, localization of supply, and proximity of suppliers. Four purchasers

reported that their purchases of domestic corrosion-resistant steel are required by law or regulation, and
 42 *** reported lead times of 10 weeks for goods produced to order and goods sold from inventory.

CORE-II-21

one reported that domestic purchases are required by its customers and this generally involved a range

from 10 to 50 percent of their purchases of corrosion-resistant steel.

Purchasers also were asked how often domestically produced, subject imports, and nonsubject

imports of corrosion-resistant steel meet minimum quality specifications. Their responses are

summarized in the following tabulation:

Source Always Usually Sometimes Never

Domestically produced 12 17 1 0

Subject imports 14 12 0 1

Nonsubject imports - China 4 3 0 1

Nonsubject imports - Taiwan 2 1 0 0

Nonsubject imports - India 1 1 1 0

Nonsubject imports - Brazil 1 1 0 0

Of the 16 purchasers who reported being aware of new suppliers in the market since 2000, six

cited domestic mills having entered the market or being new as a result of consolidation; six cited entries

from China; and others reported entries from India, Mexico, and Korea. Twelve of those 16 purchasers

reported purchasing from one or more of the new suppliers. Nineteen purchasers expect new corrosionresistant steel suppliers to enter the market in the future, with most reporting that SeverCorr will begin

production in 2007 and that Nucor’s expansion will begin production in 2007-08. Other purchasers

reported that they expect to see additional entries from China and India.

Lead Times

Twelve of the 17 responding producers reported selling at least 95 percent of their corrosionresistant steel produced to order, with lead times ranging from 4 to 12 weeks. Four producers reported

selling at least 50 percent of their corrosion-resistant steel from inventory, with lead times from one or

two days to two weeks.42

Eighteen of the 20 responding importers reported selling at least 75 percent of their corrosionresistant steel produced to order, with lead times ranging from one to six months. Two importers reported

selling 100 percent of their corrosion-resistant steel from inventory, with lead times ranging from one

week to four months.

Fifteen producers reported offering just-in-time or similar inventory services for corrosionresistant steel customers in the United States. Six producers reported offering consignment agreements,

and five reported offering just-in-time services. Eight of the 24 responding importers reported offering

these types of services.

Comparisons of Domestic Products, Subject Imports, and Nonsubject Imports

Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked to assess how interchangeable corrosionresistant steel from the United States is with corrosion-resistant steel from both subject and nonsubject

countries. Their answers are summarized in table CORE-II-8. 
CORE-II-22

Table CORE-II-8

Corrosion-resistant steel: U.S. producers’, importers’, and purchasers’ perceived degree of

interchangeability of products produced in the United States and in other countries1

Country comparison

U.S. producers U.S. importers U.S. purchasers

AFSN0AFSN0AFSN0

U.S. vs. Australia 9 0 2 0 4 1 2 0 1 18 4 2 1 0 16

U.S. vs. Canada 11 2 0 0 2 4 4 1 1 12 10 5 0 0 10

U.S. vs. France 10 2 0 0 3 3 3 1 1 14 11 5 1 0 10

U.S. vs. Germany 12 2 1 0 0 2 6 1 1 12 9 5 3 0 8

U.S. vs. Japan 13 1 1 0 0 5 4 1 1 11 10 7 2 0 8

U.S. vs. Korea 11 2 0 0 2 4 4 0 1 15 12 6 2 0 8

U.S. vs. other countries 6 3 0 0 4 1 4 3 1 11 6 4 1 0 9

Australia vs. Canada 8 0 1 0 5 0 0 1 1 19 4 2 0 0 17

Australia vs. France 8 1 0 0 5 0 1 0 1 19 4 2 0 0 17

Australia vs. Germany 8 1 0 0 5 0 1 0 1 19 4 2 0 0 17

Australia vs. Japan 9 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 1 20 4 2 1 0 17

Australia vs. Korea 8 1 0 0 5 0 0 0 1 21 5 3 0 0 16

Australia vs. other countries 5 1 0 0 7 0 0 0 1 19 2 1 0 0 14

Canada vs. France 9 1 0 0 4 1 3 1 1 15 7 5 0 0 13

Canada vs. Germany 11 0 0 0 3 0 3 2 1 15 7 5 0 0 12

Canada vs. Japan 11 1 0 0 2 0 2 1 1 17 7 5 1 0 12

Canada vs. Korea 9 1 0 0 4 0 2 1 1 18 7 4 0 0 14

Canada vs. other countries 5 2 0 0 6 0 1 1 1 17 3 2 1 0 12

France vs. Germany 10 0 0 0 4 1 2 0 1 17 8 5 0 0 12

France vs. Japan 9 2 0 0 3 0 3 0 1 17 7 6 1 0 12

France vs. Korea 8 1 0 0 5 0 2 0 1 19 8 5 0 0 13

France vs. other countries 5 2 0 0 6 0 1 2 1 16 2 3 1 0 12

Germany vs. Japan 10 2 0 0 2 1 3 0 1 16 8 6 1 0 11

Germany vs. Korea 8 2 0 0 4 0 2 0 1 19 8 5 0 0 13

Germany vs. other countries 5 2 0 0 6 0 1 2 1 16 2 3 1 0 12

Japan vs. Korea 9 1 0 0 4 1 3 0 1 17 10 4 0 0 12

Japan vs. other countries 5 2 0 0 6 0 2 0 1 17 3 3 1 0 11

Korea vs. other countries 5 1 0 0 7 1 2 0 1 16 3 4 1 0 10

 1

 Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked if corrosion-resistant steel produced in the United States and in other

countries is used interchangeably.

Note.--“A” = Always, “F” = Frequently, “S” = Sometimes, “N” = Never, and “0” = No familiarity.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 43 A large number of importers and, to a lesser extent, purchasers reported being unfamiliar with products from all

of the specified country pairs.

CORE-II-23

Generally, producers, importers, and purchasers reported that corrosion-resistant steel from the

United States and from other countries are always or frequently interchangeable. For those firms that

reported that corrosion-resistant steel is sometimes or never used interchangeably, they were asked to

explain the factors that preclude or limit interchangeable use. *** reported that there may be some strict

auto applications for which producers from some countries would have trouble meeting the specifications. 

*** reported that China and India offer large quantities at low prices.

Reported factors cited by importers included differences in quality, thickness, width, and

strength; the limited capabilities of some mills; limited technical support; and the inability to upgrade

outdated equipment.43 *** reported that customers in different countries demand different specifications,

and thus corrosion-resistant steel is never used interchangeably. *** reported that corrosion-resistant

steel from the various countries is only sometimes interchangeable for the construction market. ***

reported that some material grades or finishes are not produced in the United States or Canada.

Reported factors cited by purchasers included different levels of quality, performance, and

chemistry. *** reported that it was unable to achieve the required formability from German bakehardenable steel; *** reported that U.S. mills cannot produce certain types of high-strength steel; ***

reported that interchangeability is limited by production to end-use specifications and product

qualification standards; and *** reported that capability is dependent on the supplier, not the country of

origin.

Producers and importers were asked to assess how often differences other than price were

significant in sales of corrosion-resistant steel from the United States, subject countries, and nonsubject

countries (table CORE-II-9). Generally, producers and importers reported that differences other than

price were sometimes or never significant. For those firms that reported that factors other than price are

always or frequently a significant factor in their sales of corrosion-resistant steel, they were asked to

explain the advantages or disadvantages imparted by such factors. *** reported that quality, lead times,

and transportation are significant non-price factors, and *** reported that a large part of its corrosionresistant steel sales is used for federal and state transportation projects that are subject to “Buy American”

provisions.

Importers cited factors such as availability, technical capability, logistics, formability, product

ranges, and technical support as significant non-price factors. *** reported that some customers have the

perception that foreign corrosion-resistant steel is of lower quality. *** reported that it has the only

coating line in *** approved for ***. *** reported that *** and is able to provide prompt delivery and

technical support. *** reported that some products are not produced or only produced in a limited scope.
CORE-II-24

Table CORE-II-9

Corrosion-resistant steel: U.S. producers’ and importers’ perceived importance of factors other than price in

sales of product produced in the United States and in other countries1

Country comparison

U.S. producers U.S. importers

AFSN0AFSN0

U.S. vs. Australia 1 2 1 7 4 1 0 2 0 18

U.S. vs. Canada 1 3 2 7 2 1 1 5 3 11

U.S. vs. France 2 2 1 7 3 1 1 5 2 12

U.S. vs. Germany 2 4 2 7 0 2 0 7 1 11

U.S. vs. Japan 2 4 1 8 0 2 1 5 2 11

U.S. vs. Korea 1 3 1 8 2 1 0 3 4 15

U.S. vs. other countries 1 2 1 5 3 1 2 6 0 12

Australia vs. Canada 0 1 1 7 5 1 1 2 0 17

Australia vs. France 0 1 1 7 5 1 0 2 0 18

Australia vs. Germany 0 1 1 7 5 1 0 2 0 18

Australia vs. Japan 1 1 1 7 4 1 0 2 0 18

Australia vs. Korea 0 1 1 7 5 1 0 2 0 19

Australia vs. other countries 0 1 1 4 6 1 0 2 0 18

Canada vs. France 0 1 1 7 5 1 1 3 2 14

Canada vs. Germany 0 2 1 7 4 2 1 3 1 14

Canada vs. Japan 1 2 1 7 3 1 1 2 1 16

Canada vs. Korea 0 2 1 7 4 1 1 2 2 15

Canada vs. other countries 0 1 1 4 6 1 1 2 1 16

France vs. Germany 0 1 1 7 5 1 0 2 2 16

France vs. Japan 1 1 1 7 4 1 0 3 1 16

France vs. Korea 0 1 1 7 5 1 0 3 1 17

France vs. other countries 0 1 1 4 6 1 1 4 0 15

Germany vs. Japan 1 2 1 7 3 1 0 3 1 16

Germany vs. Korea 0 2 1 7 4 1 0 3 1 17

Germany vs. other countries 0 1 1 4 6 1 0 4 0 16

Japan vs. Korea 0 2 1 7 4 1 0 3 2 16

Japan vs. other countries 0 1 1 4 6 1 0 4 0 16

Korea vs. other countries 0 1 1 4 6 1 0 4 0 16

 1 Producers and importers were asked if differences other than price between corrosion-resistant steel produced in the United

States and in other countries are a significant factor in their sales of the products.

Note.--“A” = Always, “F” = Frequently, “S” = Sometimes, “N” = Never, and “0” = No familiarity.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 44 Joint respondent interested parties reported that the domestic supply elasticity should be nearer to 0 and not

more than 1, despite the reported domestic capacity utilization data. Joint respondent interested parties’ prehearing

brief, p. 21.

 45 The substitution elasticity measures the responsiveness of the relative U.S. consumption levels of the subject

imports and the domestic like products to changes in their relative prices. This reflects how easily purchasers switch

from the U.S. product to the subject products (or vice versa) when prices change.

 46 Canadian producers suggested a range of 1 to 2 for the elasticity of substitution for Canada because the

Canadian industry is almost solely focused on the automotive end use segment. Canadian respondent interested

parties’ prehearing brief, p. 20. Although Canada’s export shipments to the U.S. market are *** to the automotive

end use segment, *** of Canadian producers’ total shipments of corrosion-resistant steel is for non-automotive

applications (see table CORE-IV-21).

CORE-II-25

ELASTICITY ESTIMATES

U.S. Supply Elasticity

The domestic supply elasticity for corrosion-resistant steel measures the sensitivity of the

quantity supplied by U.S. producers to changes in the U.S. market price of corrosion-resistant steel. The

elasticity of domestic supply depends on several factors including the level of excess capacity, the ease

with which producers can alter capacity, producers’ ability to shift to and from production of other

products, the existence of inventories, and the availability of alternate markets for U.S.-produced

corrosion-resistant steel. Earlier analysis of these factors indicates that the U.S. industry has a small to

moderate ability to increase or decrease shipments to the U.S. market; an estimate in the range of 1 to 3 is

suggested.44

U.S. Demand Elasticity

The U.S. demand elasticity for corrosion-resistant steel measures the sensitivity of the overall

quantity demanded to a change in the U.S. market price of corrosion-resistant steel. This estimate

depends on factors discussed earlier such as the existence, availability, and commercial viability of

substitute products, as well as the component share of corrosion-resistant steel in the production of any

downstream products. Based on the available information, the aggregate demand elasticity for corrosionresistant steel is likely to be in a range of -0.3 to -0.7.

Substitution Elasticity

The elasticity of substitution depends upon the extent of product differentiation between the

domestic and imported products.45 Product differentiation, in turn, depends upon such factors as quality

and conditions of sale. Based on available information concerning product range, quality, availability,

and degree of substitution, the elasticity of substitution between domestic and subject corrosion-resistant

steel is likely to be in the range of 3 to 5 for all six subject countries.46

 1

 Data in this section of the report include operations by several joint-venture toll producers as reported by their

parent companies. ***.

 2

 Three U.S. producers provided business plans and four provided internal documents that describe, discuss, or

analyze future market conditions or market conditions if the subject orders were revoked.

CORE-III-1

PART CORE-III: CONDITION OF THE U.S. INDUSTRY

The information in this section of the report was compiled from responses to the Commission’s

questionnaires. Twenty-three firms, which, as noted in Part CORE-I, accounted for the vast majority of

U.S. production of corrosion-resistant steel during the period for which data were collected, supplied

information on their operations.1 2

 Table CORE-III-1 summarizes important industry events that have

taken place since January 2000.

Table CORE-III-1

Corrosion-resistant steel: Important industry events, January 2000 - June 2006

Year Company 

Description of event

(merger, shutdown, bankruptcy, change in capacity) 

2000 

Gulf States Steel 

Closure: While in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings, mill closes and

company is liquidated. The new owner subsequently announces plans

to develop the property into an industrial park and sell the equipment to

companies in China. 

Columbus Coatings

Start-up: Columbus Coatings, a joint venture of Bethlehem Steel and

LTV Steel, was previously a joint venture of LTV and Sumitomo

producing electrogalvanized steel. It had been shut down, was

converted to produce hot-dip galvanized and galvannealed steel, and

was restarted.

LTV Bankruptcy: Files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. 

2001 

Bethlehem Steel Bankruptcy: Files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. 

Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Bankruptcy: Files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. 

Double Eagle Steel Coating

Company

Disruption due to fire: Operations were suspended in December due

to a fire. Double Eagle, a joint venture of U.S. Steel and Rouge Steel,

was the largest electrogalvanizing operation in the United States.

GalvPro

Shut down: Operations are suspended at this hot-dip galvanizing firm,

a joint venture of Weirton Steel and CORUS (Netherlands).

2002 

AK-ISG Steel Coating

Company

Ownership Change: AK Steel acquired a 60 percent interest (40

percent from Sumitomo and 20 percent from ISG; ISG retains 40

percent ownership) in this electrogalvanizing operation.

CSN Start-up: CSN started production.

Double Eagle Steel Coating

Company

Operations resumed: Repairs to the facility were completed and

operations resumed in September, after a nine month shutdown.

LTV Bought out: ISG purchases assets of LTV.

National Steel Bankruptcy: Files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. 

2003 

Bethlehem Bought out: ISG purchases assets of Bethlehem Steel.

Weirton Steel Bankruptcy: Files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. 

Rouge Steel Bankruptcy: Files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. 

Steel Dynamics

Restart: Purchases and restarts operations of GalvPro, a hot-dip

galvanized plant.

U.S. Steel 

Bought out: Acquires the integrated steelmaking assets of National

Steel.

WCI Bankruptcy: Enters Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. 

Pinole Point Steel Company

Shut down: Materials Science Corp. sold this California operation to

Imsa Acero (Mexico), which shut down the hot-dip galvanizing line.

Table continued on next page.
 3

 None of the U.S. producers reported the ability to switch production between corrosion-resistant steel and other

products in response to a relative change in the price of corrosion-resistant steel vis-a-vis the price of other products,

using the same equipment and labor.

 4

 Firms generally reported capacity as based on 168 hours per week and 50-52 weeks per year. ***.

CORE-III-2

Table CORE-III-1--Continued

Corrosion-resistant steel: Important industry events, January 2000 - June 2006

Year Company 

Description of event

(merger, shutdown, bankruptcy, change in capacity) 

2004

Weirton Steel Bought out: ISG purchases assets of Weirton Steel.

Rouge Steel

Bought out: Severstal North America purchases the assets of Rouge

Steel.

2005

ISG

Bought out: Mittal Steel USA acquires ISG. Mittal’s corrosionresistant steel properties in the United States now include those

previously owned by LTV Steel, Bethlehem Steel, Weirton Steel, and

Ispat-Inland.

Winner Steel 

New line started: Winner Steel started up a new line to produce

600,000 - 700,000 tons per year of hot-dip galvanized and

galvannealed steel.

SeverCorr

New company started: Newly-formed steel company, SeverCorr,

began construction of a new, $880 million steel mill in Columbus, MS. 

The new mill is expected to start up in 2007 and reach full capacity in

2008 of 1.5 million tons of steel products, of which 400,000 tons will be

hot-dip galvanized and galvannealed steel.

2006

Mittal Steel USA

Merger: Mittal Steel USA, parent company, Mittal Steel, NV, the

largest steel company in the world, merged with Arcelor, the secondlargest, forming an alliance with corrosion-resistant steel operations in

12 countries.

AK-ISG Steel Coating

Company

Shut down: AK Steel, the majority owner announced the indefinite

idling of this producer of electrogalvanized steel.

Steelscape

New line started: Hot-dip galvanizing line being relocated from CA to

Shreveport, LA. Forecast to be completed in first quarter 2007.

Mittal

New line added: Starting up new line in Cleveland, OH, with 700,000

tons of hot-dip galvanizing capacity at Cleveland hot-dip galvanized

coating line. Line will be able to produce at full capacity by the end of

the first quarter in 2007.

Nucor

New line added: Announced a new hot-dip galvanizing line to be

installed at Nucor Steel Decatur. Annual capacity will be 500,000 tons

and the facility will have the ability to produce a 72-inch wide sheet.

Source: AMM, Steel News, company websites and annual reports, and other press articles.

U.S. PRODUCERS’ CAPACITY, PRODUCTION, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION

Table CORE-III-2 presents data concerning capacity, production, and capacity utilization for

domestic producers of corrosion-resistant steel,3

 while table CORE-III-3 details U.S. producers’ capacity,

production, and capacity utilization for hot-dip galvanizing, electrogalvanizing, and other coating

operations. Overall capacity fluctuated during the period for which data were collected, reflecting mill

openings and closures.4

 Declining capacity and production from 2000 to 2001 reflects consolidations at

***, ***, Double Eagle’s disruption due to fire, and GalvPro’s closure. The increase in capacity in

January-June 2006 reflects ***. Declining production in 2005 and the subsequent increase in JanuaryJune 2006 was an industry-wide trend. The main reported constraint on production capacity is the

capacity of the production equipment.
CORE-III-3

Table CORE-III-2

Corrosion-resistant steel: U.S. capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 2000-05, January-June 2005,

and January-June 2006

Item

Calendar year January-June

2000 2001 2002 20031 2004 2005 2005 2006

Capacity 

(short tons) 26,321,105 25,698,401 26,161,576 25,663,099 26,283,125 26,280,223 13,109,626 13,615,055

Production 

(short tons) 21,213,322 19,537,128 21,289,304 20,455,321 22,392,513 20,889,145 10,373,291 11,573,948

Capacity utilization

(percent) 80.6 76.0 81.4 79.7 85.2 79.5 79.1 85.0

 1

 ***.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Table CORE-III-3

Corrosion-resistant steel: U.S. capacity, production, and capacity utilization, by type, 2000-05, January-June

2005, and January-June 2006

Item

Calendar year January-June

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006

Hot-dip galvanized corrosion-resistant steel

Capacity

(short tons) 19,130,611 19,512,257 20,539,014 19,689,006 19,915,088 20,141,700 10,087,953 10,446,834

Production 

(short tons) 15,502,716 15,051,728 16,826,975 15,701,535 17,183,467 16,162,452 7,995,476 9,076,421

Capacity utilization 

(percent) 81.0 77.1 81.9 79.7 86.3 80.2 79.3 86.9

Electrolytic galvanized corrosion-resistant steel

Capacity 

(short tons) 4,374,194 3,432,685 2,799,122 3,337,607 3,399,513 3,438,700 1,718,600 1,781,000

Production 

(short tons) 3,405,509 2,564,631 1,991,769 2,697,326 2,622,153 2,573,642 1,345,587 1,306,639

Capacity utilization

(percent) 77.9 74.7 71.2 80.8 77.1 74.8 78.3 73.4

Other corrosion-resistant steel1

Capacity 

(short tons) 2,882,300 2,786,459 2,823,440 2,636,486 2,968,524 2,699,823 1,303,073 1,387,221

Production 

(short tons) 2,368,789 1,941,950 2,471,560 2,057,460 2,586,893 2,153,051 1,032,228 1,191,793

Capacity utilization

(percent) 82.2 69.7 87.5 78.0 87.1 79.7 79.2 85.9

Total corrosion-resistant steel

Capacity 

(short tons) 26,387,105 25,731,401 26,161,576 25,663,099 26,283,125 26,280,223 13,109,626 13,615,055

Production 

(short tons) 21,277,014 19,558,309 21,290,304 20,456,321 22,392,513 20,889,145 10,373,291 11,574,853

Capacity utilization

(percent) 80.6 76.0 81.4 79.7 85.2 79.5 79.1 85.0

 1

 Includes aluminum, zinc-aluminum, nickel, and copper.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to posthearing questions from the Commission.
 5

 Several firms reported no changes to their operations: ***.

 6

 International Herald Tribune, “Arcelor Mittal To Make ‘Best Efforts’ To Wrap Up Merger By June 2007,”

retrieved at http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/11/14/business/EU_FIN_Luxembourg_Arcelor_Mittal.php, on

November 15, 2006.

 7

 This line was closed in 2005.

 8

 SeverCorr web site, http://severcorr.com/products/lines/default.asp, retrieved September 12, 2006.

 9 http://www.globalprincipal.com/projectfinance.htm, retrieved September 12, 2006.

 10 American Metal Market, “Nucor targets transplants with new galvanizing line,” June 15, 2006.

CORE-III-4

Several responding firms reported changes to their operations relating to the production of

corrosion-resistant steel since 2000.5

 In April 2002, ISG acquired all of LTV Steel’s assets out of

bankruptcy and restarted the idled Indiana Harbor and Hennepin facilities. In July 2002, CSN started

production of corrosion-resistant steel. In May 2003, ISG acquired the assets of Bethlehem Steel, as well

as some equity interests in certain joint ventures. In May 2003, ISG acquired out of bankruptcy all of the

assets of Weirton Steel. In December 2004, Ispat International completed its acquisition of LNM

Holdings and changed its name to Mittal Steel. Ispat Inland became a wholly owned subsidiary of Mittal. 

In April 2005, ISG merged with Park Acquisition, a wholly owned subsidiary of Mittal. This transaction

resulted in a name change and change in ownership; however, each of ISG’s steelmaking facilities

continued to produce. In December 2005, Ispat Inland merged with and into Mittal. In June 2006, Mittal

announced that it reached an agreement with Arcelor to combine the two companies. The merger is

undergoing review, and they hope to complete it by June 2007.6

 

In 2001, USS-POSCO experienced a fire in its cold reduction mill, which affected its production

of corrosion-resistant steel. ***. In December 2001, the Rouge and U.S. Steel joint venture, Double

Eagle, experienced a fire which shut it down until September 2002. In 2002, AK and ISG (now Mittal)

formed the joint venture LSE, now named AK-ISG. This electrogalvanizing facility is currently idled. In

2003, U.S. Steel purchased the assets of National Steel. Steelscape acquired MSC’s Pinole Point

paintline in Richmond, CA, in 20047

 and acquired the Polymer paintline located in Fairfield, AL, in 2004. 

In 2003, Rouge filed for bankruptcy and its assets were acquired by Severstal in January 2004. Pro-Tec

reported that during the period of review, it ***. Through the development and commercialization of

***.

In October 2005, a newly-formed steel company, SeverCorr, began construction of a new, $880

million steel mill in Columbus, MS. The new mill is expected to start up in 2007 and reach full capacity

in 2008 of 1.5 million tons of steel products, of which 400,000 tons will be hot-dip galvanized and

galvannealed steel.8

 Russian steelmaker OAO Severstal Group is the main equity investor in the project. 

Financing for the project comprises $220 million in equity, $36.5 million in government grants, and $625

million in debt, including a $60 million loan from the State of Mississippi.9

Anticipated Changes in Existing Operations

In addition to the previously noted construction already underway by SeverCorr, in June 2006,

Nucor announced that it would spend about $150 million to construct a new galvanizing facility to

produce about 500,000 tons per year of hot-dip galvanized steel at its plant in Decatur, AL.10 In 2006,

Mittal began bringing on line *** tons of hot-dip galvanizing capability at its Cleveland hot-dip

galvanized coating line. The line will be able to produce at full capacity ***. In addition, by the end of

2006 Mittal will shut down ***, will shut down ***, and will convert ***. In August 2005, as part of an
 11 American Metal Market, “After a rough ride, galvanized is ready to roll on West Coast,” August 22, 2005.

 12 http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0611100224nov10,0,7996264.story?coll=chi-business-hed,

retrieved November 13, 2006.

 13 Testimony of Lou Schorsch, Chief Executive Officer of Flat Products Americas for Arcelor Mittal, hearing

transcript, p. 128. See also American Metal Market, “AK Steel sets 100,000T steel output cut as demand wanes,”

October 24, 2006, and “USS idling up to 4 furnaces to year-end,” November 1, 2006.

 14 Testimony of Douglas Gant, Vice President, Sales and Customer Service, AK, hearing transcript, p. 152.

 15 ThyssenKrupp Steel’s importer questionnaire, appendix I-5; hearing transcript, pp. 521-522 (Gruenbage).

 16 American Metal Market, “A $2.9B surprise announcement sets off sirens across the heartland,” August 11,

2006, found at http://amm.com/2006-08-11__21-18-50.html, retrieved on November 15, 2006. See also American

Metal Market, “ThyssenKrupp mulling Mobile as plant locale,” November 9, 2006, found at

http://amm.com/2006-11-09__19-09-49.html, retrieved on November 15, 2006. American Metal Market noted the

availability of Gulf Opportunity Zone financing available for a ThyssenKrupp plant in Alabama. Ibid.

 17 ***. 

 18 ***.

CORE-III-5

expansion backed by its Mexican parent company, IMSA Acero, Steelscape announced that it would

move its idled Richmond, CA, to a new site in Shreveport, LA.11 

More recently, the directors of WPS have backed a friendly purchase offer from CSN, however

steel service center Esmark has offered a competing proposal that is backed by the USWA.12 WPS’s

annual shareholder meeting was held on November 17, 2006. Esmark’s slate of directors was voted in at

the shareholder meeting; they will likely vote in favor of Esmark’s offer.

Mittal reported that it has idled two of its ten blast furnaces, one of which is its Weirton facility,

with additional output cuts reported by AK Steel and U.S. Steel.13 AK and Mittal have indefinitely idled

their jointly-owned electrogalvanized facility in Cleveland.14

Finally, Thyssen is considering a “Greenfield-Option” (construction of new downstream facilities

such as rolling and coating lines in the United States) or a “Brownfield-Option” (joint-venture/acquisition

of downstream facilities from traditional U.S. producers).15 Reportedly, Alabama, Arkansas, and

Louisiana are being considered for a hot-strip mill, cold-rolling facilities, and hot-dip galvanizing

operations, in addition to a proposed stainless steel mill. Of the three locations, Alabama (specifically

Mobile) is believed to be a strong contender.16

Alternative Products

A majority of responding firms reported that they do not produce alternative products on the same

equipment or using the same employees.17 *** reported that it produces hot-rolled sheet and cold-rolled

sheet on the same equipment. *** reported that it produces nonsubject alloy and stainless corrosionresistant steel on the same equipment. *** reported that it produces aluminized stainless and TZ

aluminized on the same equipment. 

As shown in table CORE-III-4, the majority of corrosion-resistant steel production by U.S. mills

is subject merchandise, primarily hot-dip galvanized steel. Production of hot-dip galvanized steel was

sharply higher in January-June 2006 compared to January-June 2005, while production of

electrogalvanized steel was lower. The U.S. mills reported very minor production of micro-alloy steel,

and to a slightly greater extent other forms of nonsubject merchandise on the same equipment used to

produce subject corrosion-resistant steel.18 Further data including production of micro-alloy corrosionresistant steel are presented in appendix C.
 19 Additional details regarding U.S. shipments of corrosion-resistant steel appear in Part CORE-IV.

CORE-III-6

Table CORE-III-4

Corrosion-resistant steel: U.S. capacity, production, and capacity utilization for subject and nonsubject

corrosion-resistant steel, 2005, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

Item

Calendar

year 2005 Jan.-June 2005 Jan.-June 2006

Average production capacity for all subject and

nonsubject corrosion-resistant steel (short tons) 26,396,301 13,174,515 13,662,015

 Production of subject electrolytic

 galvanized corrosion-resistant steel

 (short tons)1 2,573,642 1,345,587 1,305,639

 Production of subject hot-dip

 galvanized corrosion-resistant steel

 (short tons)2 16,162,107 7,995,005 9,076,144

 Production of other subject corrosion-

 resistant steel (short tons)3 2,153,051 1,032,228 1,191,793

 Production of specifically excluded

 corrosion-resistant steel (short tons) *** *** ***

 Production of micro-alloy corrosion-

 resistant steel (short tons) *** *** ***

 Production of other nonsubject alloy

 and stainless steel corrosion-resistant

 steel (short tons)4 *** *** ***

Total production of corrosion-resistant steel 20,888,800 10,372,820 11,573,576

Capacity utilization 79.5 79.0 84.9

 1

 Includes AK, Arrow, Canfield, Mittal, Severstal, U.S. Steel. 

 2

 Includes AK, CSI, CSN, Gregory, Mittal, Nucor, Pro-Tec, Severstal, SDI, Steelscape, the Techs, U.S. Steel, USS-POSCO,

WCI, Wheeling-Nisshin, Wheeling-Pittsburgh, Winner, Worthington.

 3

 Includes AK, Apollo, Mittal, Steelscape, Thomas, U.S. Steel, Wheeling-Nisshin.

 4 Includes aluminum, zinc-aluminum, nickel, and copper.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. PRODUCERS’ DOMESTIC SHIPMENTS, COMPANY TRANSFERS,

AND EXPORT SHIPMENTS

Data on domestic producers’ shipments of corrosion-resistant steel are presented in table COREIII-5. Over the period for which data were collected, the quantity and value of U.S. producers’ U.S.

shipments fluctuated, reflecting industry-wide trends. However, after decreasing in 2001, U.S. shipment

average unit values increased steadily through 2005. A majority of U.S. shipments was of galvanized,

unpainted, corrosion-resistant steel for the non-automotive market.19 *** accounted for the majority of

internal consumption/transfers to related companies.
CORE-III-7

Table CORE-III-5

Corrosion-resistant steel: U.S. producers’ shipments, by type, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and JanuaryJune 2006

Item

Calendar year January-June

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006

Quantity (short tons)

Commercial

shipments 19,916,350 18,450,288 19,904,725 19,353,863 21,010,427 19,172,077 9,545,833 10,665,457

Internal

consumption *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related

firms *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 U.S. shipments 19,916,350 18,450,288 19,904,725 19,353,863 21,010,427 19,172,077 9,545,833 10,665,457

Export shipments 768,345 773,824 773,777 743,837 732,528 868,101 417,280 564,989

 Total 20,684,695 19,224,112 20,678,502 20,097,700 21,742,955 20,040,178 9,963,113 11,230,446

Value (1,000 dollars)

Commercial

shipments 10,873,648 9,140,980 10,386,228 10,489,221 14,423,947 13,730,784 7,053,762 7,796,700

Internal

consumption *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related

firms *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 U.S. shipments 10,873,648 9,140,980 10,386,228 10,489,221 14,423,947 13,730,784 7,053,762 7,796,700

Export shipments 493,852 484,797 480,139 470,735 490,781 592,133 291,424 390,806

 Total 11,367,500 9,625,777 10,866,367 10,959,956 14,914,728 14,322,917 7,345,186 8,187,506

Unit value (per short ton)

Commercial

shipments $546 $495 $522 $542 $687 $716 $739 $731

Internal

consumption *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related

firms *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 U.S. shipments 547 496 522 542 687 716 739 731

Export shipments 643 626 621 633 670 682 698 692

 Average 551 501 525 545 686 715 737 729

Table continued on next page.
 20 The following firms reported exports: ***.

 21 *** reported that if imported material is less costly, customers will consider less costly comparable materials. 

*** reported that it competes against NAFTA countries producing corrosion-resistant flat steel and exporting it to

the United States. *** reported that free trade agreements impact market conditions. 

 22 To provide public data, this tabulation is based on official export statistics of Commerce for the following HTS

statistical reporting numbers: 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090,

7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.90.5000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.0000, and 7212.50.0000. While these data are

not an exact match with domestic producers’ reported exports, Staff believes that they accurately reflect the

magnitude and trend in exports to primary markets.

 23 In 2004, Canada rescinded antidumping orders on corrosion-resistant steel from Australia, Brazil, France,

Germany, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Shipments of

corrosion-resistant steel to Canadian auto plants were excluded from the orders in the first sunset review. Canadian

interested parties’ brief, exhibit 2, pp. 23-30. 

CORE-III-8

Table CORE-III-5--Continued

Corrosion-resistant steel: U.S. producers’ shipments, by type, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and JanuaryJune 2006

Item

Calendar year January-June

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006

Share of quantity (percent)

Commercial

shipments 94.5 93.6 93.5 93.2 93.2 91.6 91.6 91.0

Internal

consumption *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related

firms *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 U.S. shipments 96.4 96.1 96.4 96.4 96.8 95.9 96.0 95.2

Export shipments 3.6 3.9 3.6 3.6 3.2 4.1 4.0 4.8

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of value (percent)

Commercial

shipments 93.7 92.6 92.8 92.7 93.3 91.7 91.8 91.2

Internal

consumption *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related

firms *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 U.S. shipments 95.7 95.1 95.7 95.8 96.8 96.0 96.2 95.4

Export shipments 4.3 4.9 4.3 4.2 3.2 4.0 3.8 4.6

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

*** account for the majority of U.S. exports.20 Exports as a share of total shipments ranged

between 3.2 and 4.1 percent, based on quantity. Most U.S. producers reported that free trade agreements,

such as NAFTA, do not affect the character of their operations.21 Nonetheless, as the following tabulation

demonstrates, exports to Canada and Mexico ranged from between 88 and 98 percent of U.S. exports of

corrosion-resistant steel.22 23
CORE-III-9

Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

JanuaryJune

2005

JanuaryJune

2006

Quantity (short tons)

Canada 362,134 294,762 282,061 269,550 382,305 592,578 291,004 306,696

Mexico 329,700 348,474 312,799 223,188 227,155 276,911 119,861 214,396

All others 38,645 27,396 18,958 67,691 20,800 40,981 25,826 12,450

 Total 730,479 670,632 613,818 560,429 630,260 910,470 436,691 533,542

U.S. PRODUCERS’ INVENTORIES

Table CORE-III-6 presents data on U.S. producers’ inventories of corrosion-resistant steel. U.S.

producers maintained inventories equivalent to 7.7 to 9.9 percent of their total shipments over the period

2000-05, and 6.6 percent in January-June 2006. *** accounted for the majority of the decline in

inventories from 2000 to 2005, and *** accounted for the majority of the decline in June 2006.

Table CORE-III-6

Corrosion-resistant steel: U.S. producers’ inventories, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

Item

Calendar year January-June

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006

Quantity (short tons)

Inventories 2,086,296 1,900,994 1,939,320 1,855,669 1,745,399 1,701,618 1,682,752 1,543,810

Ratio (percent)

Ratio to

production 9.8 9.7 9.1 9.1 7.8 8.1 8.1 6.7

Ratio to U.S.

shipments 10.3 10.0 9.5 9.3 8.0 8.5 8.4 6.9

Ratio to total

shipments 9.9 9.6 9.1 8.9 7.7 8.1 8.1 6.6

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Figure CORE-III-1 also provides information on steel sheet inventories held by U.S. service

centers, by months. These data, however, are for all steel sheet and are not limited to corrosion-resistant

steel.
 24 ***.

CORE-III-10

Figure CORE-III-1

Carbon steel sheet: Inventories held by U.S. service centers, by months, January 2000-October 20061

 1 SSCI data include all sheet, not just corrosion-resistant steel. Also, these inventories include sheet from both domestic and

foreign sources.

Source: Business conditions, Steel Service Center Institute (Cleveland, OH), October 2006.

U.S. PRODUCERS’ IMPORTS AND PURCHASES

One U.S. producer of corrosion-resistant steel, ***, reported purchases of imported corrosionresistant steel from subject sources. Two U.S. producers, ***, reported imports from subject sources.24

Overall, U.S. producers’ purchases and/or imports were equivalent to *** percent or less of their

production in a given year. Table CORE-III-7 presents data on U.S. producers’ purchases and/or imports

of corrosion-resistant steel. 

Table CORE-III-7

Corrosion-resistant steel: U.S. producers’ purchases and imports, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and JanuaryJune 2006

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCERS’ EMPLOYMENT, WAGES, AND PRODUCTIVITY

Table CORE-III-8 presents data on U.S. producers’ employment, wages, and productivity. Over

the period for which data were collected, employment measured by PRWs dropped steadily from 2001 to

2005. *** accounted for a majority of the decline in employment in 2002, *** accounted for a majority

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

01-Jan-00

01-Apr-00

01-Jul-00

01-Oct-0001-Jan-01

01-Apr-01

01-Jul-01

01-Oct-0101-Jan-02

01-Apr-02

01-Jul-02

01-Oct-0201-Jan-03

01-Apr-03

01-Jul-03

01-Oct-0301-Jan-04

01-Apr-04

01-Jul-04

01-Oct-0401-Jan-05

01-Apr-05

01-Jul-05

01-Oct-0501-Jan-06

01-Apr-06

01-Jul-06

01-Oct-06

Month/Year

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

Inventories (thousand tons) Shipments on Hand (number of months)
 25 Employment data were substantially lower in 2003. This stems from the manner in which *** reported its data. 

The data *** reported for 2000-02, and the initial portion of 2003 are ***. As a result, the *** cannot reconcile.

 26 USW’s response to Commission questions, p. 1.

 27 See, e.g., AK Steel Holding Corporation, Form 10-Q, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006; American

Metal Market, “AK Steel, union negotiators going back to bargaining table next week,” November 6, 2006, found at

http://amm.com/2006-11-06__15-03-17.html, retrieved on November 7, 2006.

 28 The firms (and their fiscal year ends if other than December 31) are: AK, Apollo, Canfield, CSI, Mittal,

Nucor, Pro-Tec, SDI, Severstal, Steelscape, The Techs, Thomas, U.S. Steel, USS-POSCO, WCI, Wheeling-Nisshin,

WPS, Winner, and Worthington (May 31). Commission staff verified the U.S. producers’ questionnaire response of

***, and the results of the verification are incorporated in this report.

 29 ***, ***, and *** did not provide financial data. If these firms were included in the data, they would account

for less than 2.0 percent of total net sales (quantity and value) in 2005.

CORE-III-11

Table CORE-III-8

Corrosion-resistant steel: U.S. producers’ employment, wages, and productivity, 2000-05, January-June

2005, and January-June 2006

Item

Calendar year January-June

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006

Production and

related workers

(number) 24,546 24,568 20,868 15,211 13,999 13,348 13,248 12,765

Hours worked

(1,000) 50,757 44,888 41,018 32,512 31,531 29,927 15,071 15,368

Wages paid

($1,000) 1,351,324 1,239,246 1,169,095 953,944 1,006,506 960,111 496,212 482,091

Hourly wages $26.50 $27.43 $28.27 $29.06 $31.56 $31.70 $32.54 $30.99

Productivity 

(short tons per

1,000 hours) 410.1 424.8 506.3 613.4 692.7 681.0 670.2 730.6

Unit labor costs 

(per short ton) $63.83 $63.55 $55.01 $46.72 $45.03 $46.06 $47.96 $41.74

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

of the decline in 2003, and *** accounted for a majority of the decrease in 2005.25 Productivity increased

from 2000 to 2004, leveled off in 2005, and increased again in January-June 2006. Unit labor costs

decreased from 2000 to 2004, leveled off in 2005, and decreased again in January-June 2006. 

***.26 The collective bargaining agreement between AK and its union expired on March 1, 2006. 

On that day AK locked out its union workers and began operating its Middletown Works using salaried

and replacement workers. Negotiations are continuing at this time.27

FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE OF THE U.S. PRODUCERS

Background

Nineteen U.S. producers provided usable financial data on their operations on corrosion-resistant

steel.28 29 These data are believed to account for the majority of U.S. production of corrosion-resistant

steel in 2005. While some firms reported internal consumption and/or transfers, the quantity and value of

these affiliated party transactions were small, accounting for less than 4.0 percent of total sales (quantity

and value) in 2005. Accordingly, these data are not presented separately in this section of the report. In

addition, some firms reported tolling operations; however, the quantity and value of such operations were
 30 ***, reported only tolling operations. Data for ***, are included in appendix C, tables C-9 and C-10. 

CORE-III-12

small, accounting for less than 2.0 percent of total net sales (quantity and value) in 2005, and generally

were reported inconsistently. These data also are not presented separately in this section of the report.30

Operations on Corrosion-Resistant Steel

Income-and-loss data for U.S. producers on their operations on corrosion-resistant steel are

presented in table CORE-III-9. Selected financial data, by firm, are presented in table CORE-III-10. The

domestic industry experienced negative operating income in 2001 and 2002 before returning to

profitability in 2003. Operating profits improved sharply in 2004, then declined in 2005 and were lower

in January-June 2006 than in January-June 2005; however, reported operating income for 2005 was still

higher than that reported in 2000-03. Net sales quantities declined from 2000 to 2003 by 3.0 percent,

increased from 2003 to 2005 by 5.8 percent, and were 12.2 percent higher in January-June 2006 than in

January-June 2005. Net sales values declined from 2000 to 2003 by 5.6 percent, increased from 2003 to

2005 by 40.5 percent, and were 10.8 percent higher in January-June 2006 than in January-June 2005. Ten

of the 18 producers operating continuously from 2000 to 2003 reported improved operating profitability

while the other eight producers reported diminished operating profitability. As discussed in table COREIII-10, data for 2003 are impacted by limited available information to *** regarding ***.

Table CORE-III-9

Corrosion-resistant steel: Results of operations of U.S. producers, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and

January-June 2006

Item

Fiscal year January-June

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006

Quantity (short tons)

Total net sales 20,141,105 19,629,769 20,954,676 19,537,241 22,276,759 20,679,606 10,283,775 11,534,931

Value ($1,000)

Total net sales 11,091,856 9,797,243 10,989,071 10,474,476 15,186,936 14,712,596 7,577,331 8,392,791

COGS 10,514,307 9,868,736 10,726,907 9,911,144 13,047,722 13,466,769 6,734,611 7,706,522

Gross profit (loss) 577,549 (71,493) 262,164 563,332 2,139,214 1,245,827 842,720 686,269

SG&A expenses 425,968 413,626 435,988 489,043 494,894 528,038 263,114 253,582

Operating income (loss) 151,581 (485,119) (173,824) 74,289 1,644,320 717,789 579,606 432,687

Interest expense 270,739 281,791 219,480 197,228 206,004 179,832 81,830 103,018

CDSOA income 0 8,240 5,125 14,416 17,235 6,593 0 0

Other income/(expense) 50,357 6,953 29,850 (23,794) (65,032) (102,396) (46,757) (48,824)

Net income (loss) (68,801) (751,717) (358,329) (132,317) 1,390,519 442,154 451,019 280,845

Depreciation 629,990 633,098 557,124 441,823 421,944 404,494 208,758 218,493

Cash flow 561,189 (118,619) 198,795 309,506 1,812,463 846,648 659,777 499,338

Table continued on next page.
CORE-III-13

Table CORE-III-9--Continued

Corrosion-resistant steel: Results of operations of U.S. producers, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and

January-June 2006

Item

Fiscal year January-June

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006

Ratio to net sales (percent)

 COGS:

 Raw materials 42.1 45.3 44.4 49.8 51.7 55.6 54.8 58.3

 Direct labor 11.3 11.5 9.3 9.8 7.9 7.9 7.7 7.7

 Other factory costs 41.4 43.9 43.9 35.0 26.3 28.0 26.4 25.8

 Total COGS 94.8 100.7 97.6 94.7 85.9 91.5 88.9 91.8

Gross profit (loss) 5.2 (0.7) 2.4 5.3 14.1 8.5 11.1 8.2

SG&A expenses 3.8 4.2 4.0 4.7 3.3 3.6 3.5 3.0

Operating income (loss) 1.4 (5.0) (1.6) 0.7 10.8 4.9 7.6 5.2

Net income (loss) (0.6) (7.7) (3.3) (1.3) 9.2 3.0 6.0 3.3

Unit value (per short ton)

Total net sales $551 $499 $524 $536 $682 $711 $737 $728

 COGS:

 Raw materials 232 226 233 267 352 396 404 424

 Direct labor 62 57 49 52 54 56 57 56

 Other factory costs 228 219 230 188 179 200 194 188

 Total COGS 522 503 512 507 586 651 655 668

Gross profit (loss) 29 (4) 13 29 96 60 82 59

SG&A expenses 21 21 21 25 22 26 26 22

Operating income (loss) 8 (25) (8) 4 74 35 56 38

Net income (loss) (3) (38) (17) (7) 62 21 44 24

Number of firms reporting

Operating losses 5 10 7 6 1 5 2 6

Data 18 19 19 19 19 19 19 19

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

The industry-wide financial results improved sharply from 2003 to 2004. Per-unit operating

income substantially improved as the increase in per-unit net sales values ($146 per short ton) was greater

than the combined effects of an increase in unit cost of goods sold (“COGS”) ($78 per short ton) and a

decline in selling, general, and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses ($3 per short ton). The 2003 to 2004

improvement in operating income was reflected in 18 of 19 reporting firms’ financial data.

The domestic industry’s total and per-unit operating income declined from 2004 to 2005 and was

lower in January-June 2006 than in January-June 2005; however, 2005 operating income was still higher

than in 2000-03. In 2005, the increase in per-unit net sales values ($30 per short ton) was smaller than the

increase in COGS ($66 per short ton) and SG&A expenses ($3 per short ton). The overall decline from

2004 to 2005 was experienced by the majority (17 of 19 producers) of the industry.
 31 Integrated producers of corrosion-resistant steel and any related joint ventures that provided financial data

were asked to confirm that inputs from related firms were appropriately accounted for in their reported cost data. All

companies except *** confirmed that such costs were accounted for in the manner requested by the Commission.

***. ***. *** accounted for approximately *** percent of total sales during the period of review. 

CORE-III-14

Per-unit net sales values were lower ($9 per short ton) while per-unit costs and expenses were

higher ($10 per short ton) in January-June 2006 as compared to January-June 2005. The overall decline

in operating income for January-June 2006 as compared to January-June 2005 was reflected in about half

(10 of 19 producers) of reporting firms’ financial data. From 2003 to 2005, the increase in COGS is due

primarily to the increase in raw material costs. During this time, per-unit raw material costs increased by

48 percent, while per-unit direct labor and other factory costs combined increased by 6 percent.31

Table CORE-III-10

Corrosion-resistant steel: Results of operations of U.S. producers, by firm, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and

January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

A variance analysis for corrosion-resistant steel is presented in table CORE-III-11. The

information for this variance analysis is derived from table CORE-III-9. The variance analysis provides

an assessment of changes in profitability as it relates to changes in pricing, cost, and volume. The

analysis shows that the improvement in operating income from 2000 to 2005 is primarily attributable to

the higher favorable price variance despite an increased unfavorable net cost/expense variance (prices

rose higher than costs and expenses). The lower operating income in January-June 2006 as compared to

January-June 2005 is attributable to an unfavorable net cost/expense variance coupled with an

unfavorable price variance (prices declined and costs/expenses increased) despite a favorable volume

variance.
CORE-III-15

Table CORE-III-11

Corrosion-resistant steel: Variance analysis on operations of U.S. producers, 2000-05, and January-June

2005-06

Item

Between fiscal years JanuaryJune

2000-051 2000-011 2001-02 2002-031 2003-041 2004-05 2005-06

Value ($1,000)

 Total net sales:

 Price variance 3,324,184 (1,013,016) 530,565 228,738 3,243,726 614,502 (106,422)

 Volume variance 296,556 (281,597) 661,263 (743,333) 1,468,734 (1,088,842) 921,882

 Total net sales variance 3,620,740 (1,294,613) 1,191,828 (514,595) 4,712,460 (474,340) 815,460

Cost of sales:

 Cost variance (2,671,347) 378,637 (192,083) 90,164 (1,746,834) (1,354,516) (152,557)

 Volume variance (281,115) 266,934 (666,088) 725,599 (1,389,744) 935,469 (819,354)

 Total cost variance (2,952,462) 645,571 (858,171) 815,763 (3,136,578) (419,047) (971,911)

Gross profit variance 668,278 (649,042) 333,657 301,168 1,575,882 (893,387) (156,451)

SG&A expenses:

 Expense variance (90,681) 1,528 5,556 (82,546) 62,723 (68,626) 41,543

 Volume variance (11,389) 10,814 (27,918) 29,491 (68,574) 35,482 (32,011)

 Total SG&A variance (102,070) 12,342 (22,362) (53,055) (5,851) (33,144) 9,532

Operating income variance 566,208 (636,700) 311,295 248,113 1,570,031 (926,531) (146,919)

Summarized as:

 Price variance 3,324,184 (1,013,016) 530,565 228,738 3,243,726 614,502 (106,422)

 Net cost/expense variance (2,762,028) 380,165 (186,527) 7,617 (1,684,112) (1,423,141) (111,014)

 Net volume variance 4,053 (3,848) (32,743) 11,758 10,417 (117,891) 70,517

 1

 ***.

Note.-- Unfavorable variances are shown in parentheses; all others are favorable.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Capital Expenditures and Research and Development Expenses

The responding firms’ aggregate data on capital expenditures and research and development

(“R&D”) expenses are shown in table CORE-III-12. Aggregate capital expenditures and aggregate R&D

expenses irregularly increased from 2000 to 2005 but were lower in January-June 2006 than in JanuaryJune 2005. No specific firms accounted for the vast majority of reported capital expenditures during the

review period; however, *** and *** accounted for the majority of reported R&D expenses during the

entire review period. In total, 19 firms reported capital expenditures and seven firms reported R&D

expenses. 

Table CORE-III-12

Corrosion-resistant steel: Capital expenditures and research and development expenses of U.S. producers,

2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

Item

Fiscal year January-June

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006

Value ($1,000)

Capital expenditures 295,331 147,966 123,107 256,994 243,622 428,147 175,737 153,316

R&D expenses 15,950 18,603 73,025 27,885 32,190 34,022 16,557 15,957

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
CORE-III-16

Assets and Return on Investment

The Commission’s questionnaire requested data on assets used in the production, warehousing,

and sale of corrosion-resistant steel to compute return on investment (“ROI”). Although ROI can be

computed in many different ways, a commonly used method is income divided by total assets. Therefore,

ROI is calculated as operating income divided by total assets used in the production, warehousing, and

sale of corrosion-resistant steel.

Data on the U.S. corrosion-resistant producers’ total assets and their ROI are presented in table

CORE-III-13. The total assets utilized in the production, warehousing, and sale of corrosion-resistant

steel increased from $7.8 billion in 2000 to $10.3 billion in 2005, with the increase in current assets from

2003 to 2004 due mostly to the increases in the prices and costs for corrosion-resistant steel. The ROI

was negative in 2001 and 2002, and 2.0 percent or less in 2000 and 2003. The ROI improved to

16.6 percent in 2004, but then decreased to 7.0 percent in 2005. 

Table CORE-III-13

Corrosion-resistant steel: Value of assets and return on investment of U.S. producers, 2000-05

Item

Fiscal year

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Value of assets: Value ($1,000)

Current assets:

 Cash and equivalents 124,297 177,744 249,393 177,238 513,659 744,524

 Accounts receivable, net 825,578 793,277 852,422 1,068,696 1,388,324 1,287,543

 Inventories 1,310,230 1,285,895 1,321,680 1,738,231 2,003,360 2,172,794

 Other 230,382 204,319 182,237 184,548 341,481 343,691

 Total current assets 2,490,487 2,461,235 2,605,732 3,168,713 4,246,824 4,548,552

Property, plant and equipment:

Original cost 7,385,041 8,093,523 8,347,262 8,905,087 8,786,635 9,336,873

Less: accumulated depreciation 3,234,953 3,708,503 4,105,185 4,234,788 4,449,989 4,658,686

Equals: book value 4,150,088 4,385,020 4,242,077 4,670,299 4,336,646 4,678,187

Other non-current assets 1,159,795 1,202,419 1,185,199 1,098,834 1,317,525 1,067,123

 Total assets 7,800,370 8,048,674 8,033,008 8,937,846 9,900,995 10,293,862

Operating income or (loss)1 153,790 (473,279) (172,333) 87,700 1,638,839 718,025

Share (percent)

Return on investment1 2.0 (5.9) (2.1) 1.0 16.6 7.0

 1 ***. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 1

 Ten firms indicated that they were not importing corrosion-resistant steel.

 2

 Consistent with data presented in the first reviews, data for corrosion-resistant steel are compiled from HTS

statistical reporting numbers 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090,

7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000,

7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, and 7212.50.0000.

 3

 India, Taiwan, and Mexico were the largest sources for U.S. imports from nonsubject countries. 

 4

 Corrosion-resistant steel from Russia was subject to U.S. import restrictions (initially set at 55,000 metric tons)

from July 1999 through July 2004. Presidential Proclamation 7210 of July 22, 1999, 64 FR 40723, July 27, 1999.

CORE-IV-1

PART CORE-IV: U.S. IMPORTS AND THE FOREIGN INDUSTRIES

U.S. IMPORTS

Import data in this report are from official Commerce statistics for corrosion-resistant steel. The

Commission sent importers’ questionnaires to all U.S. producers as well as to 42 firms believed to have

imported corrosion-resistant steel between 2000 and 2005, and received usable data from 27 of the firms.1

Based on official Commerce statistics for imports of corrosion-resistant steel, firms providing usable

responses accounted for 82 percent of subject imports from all sources in 2005. The Commission

received responses from firms accounting for a substantial share of imports of corrosion-resistant steel

from Canada, Germany, and Korea; partial responses with respect to imports from France and Japan; and

no responses with respect to imports from Australia.

Table CORE-IV-1 presents information on subject imports of corrosion-resistant steel from each

of the subject countries and from all nonsubject countries for the period January 2000 to June 2006.2

Combined imports of corrosion-resistant steel from the subject countries fluctuated but increased overall

during the period for which data were collected. The United States also imported corrosion-resistant steel

from other countries (table CORE-IV-2). Nonsubject countries accounted for 63 percent of the quantity

and value of U.S. imports of corrosion-resistant steel in 2005.3 4

The quantity of corrosion-resistant imports from all sources fluctuated but increased overall from

2000 to 2005. As a share of total imports, subject imports decreased from 44 percent in 2000 to 37

percent in 2005. The average unit values of subject imports of corrosion-resistant steel fell between 2000

and 2001, then increased through 2005, but were lower in January-June 2006 than in January-June 2005.
CORE-IV-2

Table CORE-IV-1

Corrosion-resistant steel: U.S. Imports, by source, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

Source

Calendar year January-June

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006

Quantity (short tons)

Australia 220 176 275 297 119 16 16 3

Canada 380,490 331,774 530,248 552,434 524,711 547,326 281,944 291,356

France 3,608 9,302 15,753 6,530 4,613 1,778 1,728 190

Germany 46,453 23,557 53,479 34,530 31,191 75,941 48,977 20,939

Japan 27,543 17,338 24,304 18,570 19,628 16,762 8,693 11,012

Korea 253,528 235,041 212,413 113,810 201,002 330,858 181,205 272,592

 Subtotal, subject 711,842 617,188 836,473 726,171 781,264 972,681 522,563 596,092

All other sources 919,625 933,033 1,325,751 936,741 2,424,153 1,647,998 932,153 1,372,961

 Total 1,631,467 1,550,221 2,162,224 1,662,911 3,205,416 2,620,679 1,454,716 1,969,053

Value (1,000 dollars)

1

Australia 216 228 260 262 123 22 22 4

Canada 208,645 173,957 292,684 331,067 341,546 398,538 207,943 221,845

France 1,543 3,944 8,601 3,848 3,268 1,949 1,745 379

Germany 28,221 13,955 30,585 20,312 17,999 48,634 31,540 14,718

Japan 23,072 15,273 30,092 20,206 19,464 19,054 9,959 13,684

Korea 140,605 123,305 122,919 77,195 156,934 285,156 157,308 206,273

 Subtotal, subject 402,301 330,662 485,142 452,890 539,333 753,352 408,519 456,903

All other sources 481,017 420,783 647,862 515,137 1,808,700 1,286,429 763,351 926,215

 Total 883,318 751,445 1,133,004 968,027 2,348,033 2,039,782 1,171,870 1,383,118

Unit value (per short ton)

Australia $981 $1,292 $945 $883 $1,039 $1,348 $1,348 $1,596

Canada 548 524 552 599 651 728 738 761

France 428 424 546 589 708 1,096 1,010 1,996

Germany 608 592 572 588 577 640 644 703

Japan 838 881 1,238 1,088 992 1,137 1,146 1,243

Korea 555 525 579 678 781 862 868 757

 Subaverage, subject 565 536 580 624 690 775 782 766

All other sources 523 451 489 550 746 781 819 675

 Average 541 485 524 582 733 778 806 702

Table continued on next page. 
CORE-IV-3

Table CORE-IV-1--Continued

Corrosion-resistant steel: U.S. Imports, by source, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

Source

Calendar year January-June

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006

Share of quantity (percent)

Australia (2

) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

Canada 23.3 21.4 24.5 33.2 16.4 20.9 19.4 14.8

France 0.2 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 (2

)

Germany 2.8 1.5 2.5 2.1 1.0 2.9 3.4 1.1

Japan 1.7 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

Korea 15.5 15.2 9.8 6.8 6.3 12.6 12.5 13.8

 Subtotal, subject 43.6 39.8 38.7 43.7 24.4 37.1 35.9 30.3

All other sources 56.4 60.2 61.3 56.3 75.6 62.9 64.1 69.7

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of value (percent)

Australia (2

) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

Canada 23.6 23.1 25.8 34.2 14.5 19.5 17.7 16.0

France 0.2 0.5 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 (2

)

Germany 3.2 1.9 2.7 2.1 0.8 2.4 2.7 1.1

Japan 2.6 2.0 2.7 2.1 0.8 0.9 0.8 1.0

Korea 15.9 16.4 10.8 8.0 6.7 14.0 13.4 14.9

 Subtotal, subject 45.5 44.0 42.8 46.8 23.0 36.9 34.9 33.0

All other sources 54.5 56.0 57.2 53.2 77.0 63.1 65.1 67.0

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Ratio of import quantity to U.S. production (percent)

Australia (2

) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

Canada 1.8 1.7 2.5 2.9 2.4 2.7 2.8 2.6

France (2

) (2) 0.1 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

Germany 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.2

Japan 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Korea 1.2 1.2 1.0 0.6 0.9 1.6 1.8 2.4

 Subtotal, subject 3.4 3.2 4.0 3.8 3.6 4.8 5.2 5.3

All other sources 4.4 4.8 6.4 4.9 11.1 8.1 9.2 12.2

 Total 7.7 8.0 10.4 8.6 14.7 12.8 14.4 17.4

 1

 Landed, duty paid.

 2

 Less than 0.05 percent.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of Commerce.
 5

 Dofasco’s posthearing brief, response to Commission questions, pp. 21-22.

CORE-IV-4

U.S. imports from Canada under HTS statistical reporting number 7210.70.6090 reportedly

include imports of nonsubject lacquered tinplate.5

 The following tabulation presents the quantity and

value of imports from Canada of corrosion-resistant steel other than entries under this statistical reporting

number.

Source

Calendar year January-June

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006

Quantity (short tons)

Canada 320,658 280,905 453,871 455,775 424,776 464,303 232,960 259,622

Value ($1,000)

Canada 155,625 127,199 224,428 248,948 260,249 305,620 153,466 185,635

Table CORE-IV-2

Corrosion-resistant steel: U.S. imports from nonsubject countries, by source, 2000-05, January-June 2005,

and January-June 2006

Source

Calendar year January-June

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006

Quantity (short tons)

Argentina1 81,866 72,516 61,662 56,255 66,542 52,958 28,588 5,220

Brazil 22,105 21,375 79,935 49,355 243,659 181,539 115,995 136,867

China 17,280 50,899 15,262 134 175,860 147,794 102,280 292,426

India1 25,976 53,163 406,550 207,935 716,065 401,048 218,160 397,435

Mexico2 282,730 204,257 307,760 294,052 337,012 265,330 142,081 95,041

South Africa1 48,774 33,323 49,052 39,450 77,564 67,221 27,663 56,716

Taiwan 194,139 232,929 151,446 67,282 406,394 341,598 209,529 282,815

All others 246,755 264,571 254,085 222,277 401,056 190,510 87,857 106,441

 Total 919,625 933,033 1,325,751 936,741 2,424,153 1,647,998 932,153 1,372,961

 1 Country not subject to safeguard measures.

 2

 Member of free trade agreement; safeguard measures not applied.

Note.--Highlighted years indicate the period of time during which increased tariffs were in effect pursuant to the U.S. safeguard

measure on steel.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of Commerce.

Importers from Canada, Germany, Japan, and Korea reported arrangements for the importation of

corrosion-resistant steel for delivery after June 30, 2006. These data are presented in table CORE-IV-3.

Table CORE-IV-3

Corrosion-resistant steel: Arrangements for importation after June 30, 2006

* * * * * * *

CUMULATION CONSIDERATIONS

In assessing whether subject imports are likely to compete with each other and with the domestic

like product with respect to cumulation, the Commission generally has considered the following four

factors: (1) fungibility, (2) presence of sales or offers to sell in the same geographic markets, (3) common
CORE-IV-5

or similar channels of distribution, and (4) simultaneous presence in the market. Fungibility

considerations and channels of distribution are discussed in Parts CORE-I and CORE-II of this report;

additional information regarding fungibility, geographic markets, and presence in the market is discussed

below.

Fungibility

Tables CORE-IV-4, CORE-IV-5, and CORE-IV-6 examine U.S. shipments of domestically

produced and imported corrosion-resistant steel. The tables present data regarding the intended

application, nature of the coating, and paint status of the corrosion-resistant steel, by source.

CORE-IV-4

Corrosion-resistant steel: U.S. producers’ and U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments, by application, 2005, JanuaryJune 2005, and January-June 2006

Item 2005 January-June 2005 January-June 2006

Quantity (short tons)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments:

 Exposed (automotive) 2,904,896 1,503,425 1,519,830

 Unexposed (automotive) 4,329,212 2,224,560 2,270,820

 Other 12,831,555 6,271,278 7,368,930

 Total 20,065,663 9,999,263 11,159,580

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments:

* * * * * * *

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

CORE-IV-5

Corrosion-resistant steel: U.S. producers’ and U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments, by form, 2005, January-June

2005, and January-June 2006

Item 2005 January-June 2005 January-June 2006

Quantity (short tons)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments:

 Galvanized 14,258,622 7,054,651 8,005,746

 Galvannealed 3,239,494 1,668,632 1,725,247

 Other 2,567,637 1,272,341 1,428,586

 Total 20,065,753 9,995,624 11,159,579

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments:

* * * * * * *

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 6

 Official Commerce statistics measure imports at the port of entry; material imported into one district, however,

may be shipped to another geographic region.

CORE-IV-6

CORE-IV-6

Corrosion-resistant steel: U.S. producers’ and U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments, by paint status, 2005,

January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

Item 2005 January-June 2005 January-June 2006

Quantity (short tons)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments:

 Prepainted 564,225 258,916 305,500

 Toll-painted 395,029 181,357 215,393

 Sold unpainted1 19,106,410 9,559,172 10,638,686

 Total1 20,065,664 9,999,445 11,159,579

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments:

* * * * * * *

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Geographic Markets

As noted previously, corrosion-resistant steel production occurs throughout the United States, and

corrosion-resistant steel is shipped nationwide. Information summarizing national and regional markets

and the shipment of corrosion-resistant steel is presented in Part CORE-II. Of the corrosion-resistant steel

imported into the United States from the subject countries from January 2000 to June 2006, the top ten

Customs districts accounted for nearly all entries. As illustrated in table CORE-IV-7, the Detroit, MI,

Customs district accounted for nearly one-half of subject imports.6
CORE-IV-7

Table CORE-IV-7

Corrosion-resistant steel: U.S. imports from subject countries, by Customs district, January 2000-June 2006

Customs district Australia1 Canada France Germany Japan2 Korea Total

Share

of total

Quantity (short tons)

Detroit, MI 18 2,227,333 15,955 134,137 2,907 4,198 2,384,547 45.5

Buffalo, NY 0 907,663 16,212 150 20 106 924,150 17.6

HoustonGalveston, TX 65 14 1,923 3,251 2,688 306,684 314,625 6.0

Los Angeles, CA 52 0 185 601 25,292 271,229 297,360 5.7

New Orleans, LA 0 14 11 7 9,561 284,872 294,465 5.6

Philadelphia, PA 0 0 4,389 53,772 10,190 122,165 190,516 3.6

Mobile, AL 0 190 0 22,294 0 165,756 188,240 3.6

Savannah, GA 40 0 493 52,276 26,357 90,812 169,979 3.2

Charlotte, NC 0 0 2 2,051 1,087 102,368 105,508 2.0

ColumbiaSnake, OR 0 0 6 0 214 91,549 91,768 1.8

 All others 930 23,125 2,600 17,551 56,841 179,506 280,553 5.4

Total 1,106 3,158,339 41,774 286,090 135,157 1,619,244 5,241,710 100.0

 1

 The primary “other” ports of entry for corrosion-resistant steel from Australia were Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, and the U.S. Virgin

Islands.

 2

 The primary "other" ports of entry for corrosion-resistant steel from Japan were Cleveland, OH, and San Francisco, CA.

Source: Compiled from official statistics from Commerce.

Presence in the Market

Table CORE-IV-8 presents information on the monthly presence of subject imports. 

Table CORE-IV-8

Corrosion-resistant steel: U.S. imports, monthly entries into the United States, by source, 2000-05 and

January-June 2006

Quantity (short tons)

Source

Month

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total 

2000

Australia 3 0 0 0 0 9 0 36 0 170 2 0 220

Canada 31,793 32,820 37,015 34,912 41,673 34,810 27,124 30,538 25,398 30,957 30,085 23,365 380,490

France 90 33 19 150 85 328 397 301 433 644 172 958 3,608

Germany 5,098 4,422 3,305 6,842 2,907 3,722 1,589 5,607 2,330 5,435 2,494 2,703 46,453

Japan 3,562 1,811 1,064 3,112 2,822 4,081 2,192 1,182 3,697 2,171 1,171 680 27,543

Korea 30,790 20,132 21,856 26,714 15,393 19,618 17,169 18,174 22,341 19,978 18,824 22,539 253,528

2001

Australia 61 14 0 8 4 0 7 0 0 10 73 0 176

Canada 30,134 25,760 25,285 24,163 25,482 24,589 32,787 28,009 27,304 32,743 33,066 22,452 331,774

France 694 606 1,310 189 1,287 1,022 871 696 734 727 390 775 9,302

Germany 619 1,263 1,693 4,198 3,644 510 2,880 961 2,030 2,787 2,772 198 23,557

Japan 2,140 1,209 1,636 1,994 280 2,540 425 1,188 1,189 2,151 1,078 1,508 17,338

Korea 16,995 15,603 21,332 24,917 12,362 16,948 32,131 12,738 24,754 8,798 24,480 23,984 235,041

Table continued on next page. 
CORE-IV-8

Table CORE-IV-8--Continued

Corrosion-resistant steel: U.S. imports, monthly entries into the United States, by source, 2000-05 and

January-June 2006

Quantity (short tons)

Source

Month

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total 

2002

Australia 2 0 0 0 0 272 1 0 0 0 0 0 275

Canada 36,848 31,132 38,390 41,441 41,069 44,348 46,724 51,938 53,976 52,979 47,404 44,000 530,248

France 332 1,485 1,941 747 823 856 2,446 2,519 1,129 1,147 841 1,488 15,753

Germany 6,414 3,330 1,814 2,745 138 4,814 3,057 3,570 9,205 4,936 7,892 5,565 53,479

Japan 1,058 859 1,386 1,243 1,235 1,457 4,255 6,384 1,067 2,107 1,254 2,000 24,304

Korea 36,057 39,152 6,121 3,337 7,682 6,230 14,794 20,293 19,848 18,846 18,124 21,930 212,413

2003

Australia 0 46 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 179 56 8 297

Canada 60,578 54,213 49,413 52,888 45,942 40,359 41,099 37,879 51,533 48,077 36,431 34,022 552,434

France 1,284 771 1,362 1,378 1,227 286 141 62 0 11 8 0 6,530

Germany 381 2,084 615 10,049 2,867 4,426 1,822 5,653 2,823 1,310 1,813 687 34,530

Japan 1,422 2,293 2,306 3,864 933 1,343 1,954 1,448 731 665 808 801 18,570

Korea 6,736 14,328 10,863 11,748 16,635 4,219 20,178 5,261 9,649 363 9,772 4,059 113,810

2004

Australia 0 0 15 0 14 15 0 0 27 0 47 0 119

Canada 38,323 43,805 50,978 50,256 44,843 45,899 42,070 44,858 44,472 37,207 40,618 41,383 524,711

France 871 51 23 10 249 371 2,977 20 0 22 8 11 4,613

Germany 848 2,658 2,007 878 2,423 2,400 2,406 3,858 4,602 1,209 3,520 4,382 31,191

Japan 1,206 1,333 999 1,565 705 4,313 798 1,349 306 2,720 2,738 1,598 19,628

Korea 882 2,513 4,026 6,130 7,460 20,138 19,552 18,153 30,408 22,050 26,514 43,175 201,002

2005

Australia 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16

Canada 45,730 45,629 49,010 47,159 46,713 47,703 37,711 51,243 44,766 45,922 48,056 37,684 547,326

France 3 1,231 476 6 8 4 18 17 0 4 7 4 1,778

Germany 3,936 6,096 6,487 8,240 7,367 16,852 3,153 6,177 9,303 4,087 901 3,343 75,941

Japan 2,751 1,129 1,087 1,216 1,609 901 915 1,646 344 2,720 684 1,760 16,762

Korea 27,901 33,061 21,420 52,716 18,569 27,538 17,419 19,589 22,119 36,275 33,791 20,460 330,858

2006

Australia 0 0 0 0 3 0 (1

) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) 3

Canada 49,648 44,659 49,953 44,852 51,078 51,165 (1

) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) 291,356

France 73 15 9 60 28 5 (1

) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) 190

Germany 2,042 7,687 3,772 2,787 3,740 911 (1

) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) 20,939

Japan 1,261 2,286 2,628 1,911 1,450 1,478 (1

) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) 11,012

Korea 44,686 46,143 44,677 35,138 32,080 69,868 (1

) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) 272,592

 1

 Data not presented for July-September and not available for October-December.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of Commerce.

U.S. IMPORTERS’ INVENTORIES

 Table CORE-IV-9 presents information on U.S. importers’ inventories. Imports from Germany

and Korea accounted for the largest share of subject imports. There were no reported inventories of

corrosion-resistant steel from Australia or France.
 7

 USITC Publication 2664, p. I-96; USITC Publication 3364, p. CORROSION-IV-1.

 8

 ***. BlueScope’s posthearing brief, pp. 11-12.

 9

 Found at bluescopesteel.com, retrieved on September 1, 2006.

 10 BlueScope’s prehearing brief, p. 1. BlueScope further reported that to the best of its knowledge, Palmer Tube

never produced subject corrosion-resistant steel. Likewise, *** identifies BlueScope as the sole producer in

Australia. ***.

 11 BlueScope’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-10.

 12 BlueScope’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-1.

 13 BlueScope’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-2.

 14 BlueScope’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-15 and II-16. BlueScope ***.

CORE-IV-9

Table CORE-IV-9

Corrosion-resistant steel: U.S. importers’ inventories, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

THE INDUSTRY IN AUSTRALIA

Overview

The Commission identified one Australian producer of corrosion-resistant steel - BHP - in the

original investigations and two such producers - BHP and Palmer Tube Mills (a subsidiary of Smorgon

Steel Group) - in the first reviews.7

 In the current second reviews, the Commission issued questionnaires

to two Australian firms believed to be producers of corrosion-resistant steel and received data from one -

BlueScope Steel.8

 In March 2001, BHP announced that BlueScope was to be spun out as a separate

Australian publicly listed company.9

 In July 2002, BlueScope was listed on the Australian Stock

Exchange. BlueScope reported that it is the only producer of corrosion-resistant steel in Australia.10 In

the most recent fiscal year, sales of corrosion-resistant steel represented *** percent of BlueScope’s total

sales.11 Table CORE-IV-10 presents comparative information available from the original investigations,

the first reviews, and these second reviews.

Table CORE-IV-10

Corrosion-resistant steel: Comparison of select Australian industry data, 1992, 1999, and 2005

* * * * * * *

As noted above, the Australian industry producing corrosion-resistant steel continues to consist of

a single dominant producer. BlueScope reported *** operational or organizational changes since January

1, 2000,12 and reported ***.13

Corrosion-Resistant Steel Operations

Table CORE-IV-11 presents the BlueScope’s capacity, production, and capacity utilization, by

type, since 2000. BlueScope reported production of hot-dip galvanized corrosion-resistant steel only. 

Table CORE-IV-12 presents BlueScope’s capacity, production, shipments, and inventories of corrosionresistant steel for 2000-05 as well as interim (January-June) 2005 and 2006. BlueScope reported that the

outstanding orders ***.14 While the specific data are confidential, in general Australian capacity was

stable and production declined irregularly during 2000-05, but both were higher in January-June 2006

than in January-June 2005. Capacity utilization fluctuated over the period for which data were collected,
 15 BlueScope reported that ***.

 16 BlueScope’s posthearing brief, p. 5.

 17 BlueScope’s operations include ***. 

 18 BlueScope’s posthearing brief, p. 3.

 19 BlueScope reported that ***. BlueScope’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-11.

 20 BlueScope ***. BlueScope’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-12.

 21 As a result of the subject orders, BlueScope ***. BlueScope’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-14.

 22 BlueScope’s posthearing brief, p. 7. 

 23 In April 2004, BlueScope acquired Butler Manufacturing Company. Butler is the market leader in both the

United States and China for pre-engineered steel building systems. BlueScope’s posthearing brief, attachments 1

and 3.

 24 BlueScope’s posthearing brief, p. 9.

 25 BlueScope’s foreign producer questionnaire, section I-7.

 26 ***.

CORE-IV-10

but was highest in January-June 2006.15 ***.16 17 BlueScope reported that its production was adversely

affected by a strike in 2002, an industrial dispute at its Westernport facility in late 2004 and early 2005,

and a fire at Westernport in 2005 which resulted in a 12-week repair.18 As discussed in greater detail

below, BlueScope reportedly ***.19

Table CORE-IV-11

Corrosion-resistant steel: Australia’s capacity, production, and capacity utilization, by type, 2000-05,

January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

Table CORE-IV-12

Corrosion-resistant steel: Australia’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2000-05, JanuaryJune 2005, and January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

In general, BlueScope’s shipments of corrosion-resistant steel decreased in 2001, then increased

from 2002 to 2004, before declining in 2005. January-June 2006 shipments were greater than those in

January-June 2005. BlueScope’s inventories generally increased over the period.20 The majority of

BlueScope’s shipments were home market sales, but a *** minority were exports.21 BlueScope reported

that it largely produces premium building construction materials.22 23 Reported exports to the United

States were ***; export markets other than the United States include ***. Australian exports of

corrosion-resistant steel are subject to a 79 percent tariff in South Africa, and a 70 percent tariff in

Argentina. The South African order is only on painted corrosion-resistant steel.24 Free trade agreements

reportedly ***.25

Presented in the tabulation below are BlueScope’s exports of corrosion-resistant steel to

Canada.26 Canada’s dumping order on corrosion-resistant steel from Australia was lifted in 2004.

* * * * * * *

As shown in table CORE-IV-13, a *** majority of BlueScope’s shipments of corrosion-resistant

steel is sold for non-automotive applications. In addition, as shown in table CORE-IV-14, a majority of

BlueScope’s shipments of corrosion-resistant steel is neither galvanized nor galvannealed, although a ***
 27 USITC Publication 2664, p. I-106; USITC Publication 3364, p. CORROSION-IV-5.

CORE-IV-11

minority is galvanized. Finally, as shown in table CORE-IV-15, a majority of BlueScope’s shipments of

corrosion-resistant steel is sold unpainted, with a minority sold pre-painted but with *** reported sales of

toll-painted corrosion-resistant steel. 

CORE-IV-13

Corrosion-resistant steel: Australian producer’s total shipments, by application, 2005, January-June 2005,

and January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

CORE-IV-14

Corrosion-resistant steel: Australian producer’s total shipments, by form, 2005, January-June 2005, and

January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

CORE-IV-15

Corrosion-resistant steel: Australian producer’s total shipments, by paint status, 2005, January-June 2005,

and January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

Alternative Products

As shown in table CORE-IV-16, all of the corrosion-resistant steel production by BlueScope is

subject merchandise. As noted previously, BlueScope produces only hot-dip galvanized steel.

Table CORE-IV-16

Corrosion-resistant steel: Australian producer’s overall capacity and production, by type of steel, 2005,

January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

THE INDUSTRY IN CANADA

Overview

The Commission identified two Canadian producers of corrosion-resistant steel - Dofasco and

Stelco - in the original investigations, and three such producers - Dofasco (including its joint-venture

DNN), Sorevco, and Stelco - in the first reviews.27 In the current second reviews, the Commission issued

questionnaires to four Canadian firms believed to be producers of corrosion-resistant steel and received
 28 Arcelor purchased 100 percent of Dofasco on March 1, 2006. On July 26, 2006, Mittal announced that 92

percent of Arcelor’s shareholders had accepted Mittal’s offer to purchase Arcelor’s shares. Previously, Mittal had

offered Dofasco to ThyssenKrupp if Mittal purchased Arcelor, but it is unknown at this time whether Dofasco will

be sold or remain part of the Mittal group. The U.S. Department of Justice has required, as part of its antitrust

review, that Arcelor-Mittal divest itself of Dofasco, or some other specified Mittal facility. Canadian interested

parties’ prehearing brief, p. 44. Dofasco imports subject corrosion-resistant steel into the United States, and Arcelor

has a subsidiary that imports subject corrosion-resistant steel into the United States.

 29 ***.

 30 Sorevco began production of corrosion-resistant steel in 1991. Sorevco is a joint venture between Dofasco and

Mittal.

 31 Stelco’s questionnaire covers Stelco, Hamilton Steel, and Baycoat. Stelco imports subject corrosion-resistant

steel into the United States.

 32 ***. The remaining capacity is electrogalvanizing capacity operated by Metal Koting CCC, Ltd. Ibid.

 33 Canadian foreign producer questionnaires, section II-1.

 34 Canadian foreign producer questionnaires, section II-2.

CORE-IV-12

data from three: Dofasco,28 29 Sorevco,30 and Stelco.31 According to ***, responding Canadian producers

represent *** percent of the corrosion-resistant steel capacity in Canada.32 The responding firm’s share of

2005 Canadian production of corrosion-resistant steel and the share of their most recent fiscal year sales

represented by corrosion-resistant steel are presented in table CORE-17. Table CORE-IV-18 presents

comparative information available from the original investigations, the first reviews, and these second

reviews.

Table CORE-IV-17

Corrosion-resistant steel: Canadian producers’ share of 2005 production and share of firms’ most recent

fiscal year sales represented by corrosion-resistant steel.

* * * * * * *

Table CORE-IV-18

Corrosion-resistant steel: Comparison of select Canadian industry data: 1992, 1999, and 2005

* * * * * * *

As noted above, the composition of the Canadian industry producing corrosion-resistant steel has

changed over time. In addition, two producers reported several operational or organizational changes

since January 1, 2000,33 but reported anticipating no operational or organizational changes in the future.34

Stelco was reorganized in March 2006. Dofasco ***, at its new joint venture DoSol Galva. This line was

*** percent owned by Dofasco and *** percent by Arcelor. The line ***.

Corrosion-Resistant Steel Operations

Table CORE-IV-19 presents the Canadian industry’s capacity, production, and capacity

utilization, by type, since 2000. The majority of Canadian producers’ capacity is hot-dip galvanized, with

a small minority of “other” corrosion-resistant steel capacity. Table CORE-IV-20 presents the Canadian

industry’s capacity, production, shipments, and inventories of corrosion-resistant steel for 2000-05 as
 35 The Canadian producers’ data for 2000-03 do not include National’s 50-percent share of the DNN/DJG line. 

Dofasco believes National’s share of the capacity was *** short tons. Canadian respondent interested parties’

posthearing brief, Answer to Commissioners’ Questions, p. 36, fn. 62.

 36 Canadian respondent interested parties’ posthearing brief, p. 28.

 37 ***. Canadian respondent interested parties’ prehearing brief, p. 5.

 38 Canadian interested parties’ prehearing brief, p. 19.

 39 Canadian interested parties’ prehearing brief, p. 19-20

 40 Canadian respondent interested parties’ posthearing brief, p. 9.

 41 Sorevco and Stelco did not report having a business plan or any internal documents that describe, discuss, or

analyze future market conditions or market conditions if the subject orders were revoked. Dofasco provided a 

business plan for 2006-07.

 42 Dofasco’s capacity constraint is ***. Sorevco’s capacity constraints are ***.

 43 In some limited applications, ***. For prepainted applications, ***. Stelco’s constraints are ***.

 44 Dofasco produces micro-alloy corrosion-resistant steel.

 45 *** maintained inventories of corrosion-resistant steel in the United States. Canadian foreign producer

questionnaires, section II-12.

CORE-IV-13

Table CORE-IV-19

Corrosion-resistant steel: Canada’s capacity, production, and capacity utilization, by type, 2000-05, JanuaryJune 2005, and January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

Table CORE-IV-20

Corrosion-resistant steel: Canada’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2000-05, January-June

2005, and January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

well as interim (January-June) 2005 and 2006.35 Dofasco is the major exporter of Canadian corrosionresistant steel to the United States, and approximately *** of its U.S. exports are to the automotive

sector.36 Dofasco reported that ***.37 38 39 ***. However, because Toyota is opening a new factory in

Ontario, near Dofasco’s mill, Dofasco’s business plan calls for a ***.40

*** of the Canadian producers reported that the outstanding orders had any significant impact on

its capacity, production, shipments, export markets, or inventories, *** expect that the character of its

operations would change if the orders were revoked.41 In general Canadian capacity and production

fluctuated during the period for which data were collected but increased overall, while capacity utilization

ranged from *** percent to *** percent. Dofasco reported that its capacity is determined at the start of

each year and is based on ***.42 Stelco’s corrosion-resistant steel is made on ***. The major production

input is ***.43 As discussed in greater detail below, only Dofasco reported producing other products on

the same equipment, or using the same production and related workers, used to produce corrosionresistant steel.44

 In general, the Canadian mills’ shipments of corrosion-resistant steel increased during the period

for which data were collected; total inventories also increased but declined as a share of total shipments.45

The majority of the Canadian mills’ shipments were home market sales, but a small minority were
 46 *** reported developing or increasing sales to non-U.S. export markets as a result of the subject orders.

Canadian foreign producer questionnaires, section II-14.

 47 ***.

 48 Canadian foreign producer questionnaires, section I-13.

 49 Duferco and Stelco’s foreign producer questionnaires, section I-7.

 50 Canadian respondent interested parties’ posthearing brief, pp. 55-59.

CORE-IV-14

exports, primarily to the United States46 and secondarily to Mexico. Presented in the tabulation below are

*** exports of corrosion-resistant steel to Mexico.47

* * * * * * *

Canadian exports of corrosion-resistant steel are not subject to any tariff or nontariff barriers in

any countries, nor are they subject to current investigations.48 Dofasco and Stelco reported that NAFTA

had a “***” impact on their operations.49 The deep integration of the North American auto companies has

significantly integrated the U.S.-Canada steel market.50

The majority of Canadian mills’ shipments of corrosion-resistant steel is sold for non-automotive

applications. As shown in table CORE-IV-21, automotive sales are predominantly for unexposed

automobile parts. In addition, as shown in table CORE-IV-22, a *** majority of the Canadian mills’

shipments of corrosion-resistant steel are galvanized, rather than galvannealed or otherwise coated. 

Finally, as shown in table CORE-IV-23, a *** majority of Canadian mills’ shipments of corrosionresistant steel is sold unpainted, with a minority sold pre-painted but with minimal reported sales of tollpainted corrosion-resistant steel. 

CORE-IV-21

Corrosion-resistant steel: Canadian producers’ total shipments, by application, 2005, January-June 2005,

and January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

CORE-IV-22

Corrosion-resistant steel: Canadian producers’ total shipments, by form, 2005, January-June 2005, and

January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

CORE-IV-23

Corrosion-resistant steel: Canadian producers’ total shipments, by paint status, 2005, January-June 2005,

and January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

Alternative Products

As shown in table CORE-IV-24, the majority of corrosion-resistant steel production by Canadian

mills is subject merchandise, primarily hot-dip galvanized steel. Nonetheless, Dofasco reported

production of micro-alloy steel and, to a lesser extent, other forms of nonsubject merchandise on the same

equipment used to produce subject corrosion-resistant steel. With respect to micro-alloy corrosionresistant steel, table CORE-IV-25 presents the Canadian industry’s capacity, production, shipments, and

inventories of such corrosion-resistant steel for 2000-05 as well as interim (January-June) 2005 and 2006. 

Except during 2001, total shipments remained relatively stable, as declining home market shipments were

largely offset by exports to the United States.
 51 USITC Publication 2664, p. I-106; USITC Publication 3364, p. CORROSION-IV-5.

 52 Plants include Sollac Atlantique and Sollac Lorraine. Arcelor (France) has related firms that produce

corrosion-resistant steel in Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Spain, and Turkey. 

Arcelor (France) has a related firm, Arcelor International America, which imports subject product into the United

States.

 53 Plants include Duferco Coating and Duferco Sorral. Duferco has a related company, Duferco Steel Processing,

located in South Africa, which produces corrosion-resistant steel. Duferco has a related company Duferco Steel,

located in New Jersey, which ***. 

 54 ***.

 55 Arcelor’s and Duferco’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-1.

 56 Arcelor’s and Duferco’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-2.

CORE-IV-15

Table CORE-IV-24

Corrosion-resistant steel: Canadian producers’ overall capacity and production, by type of steel, 2005,

January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

Table CORE-IV-25

Corrosion-resistant micro-alloy steel: Canada’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2000-05

January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

THE INDUSTRY IN FRANCE

Overview

The Commission identified two French producers of corrosion-resistant steel - Paturle Aciers and

Usinor Sacilor - in the original investigations, and four such producers - Atlantique, Beautor, Haironville,

and Lorraine - in the first reviews.51 In the current second reviews, the Commission issued questionnaires

to two French firms believed to be producers of corrosion-resistant steel and received data from both,

Arcelor (France)52 and Duferco.53 According to ***, responding French producers represent all of the

corrosion-resistant steel capacity in France.54 The responding firms’ shares of 2005 French production of

corrosion-resistant steel and the shares of their most recent fiscal year sales represented by corrosionresistant steel are presented in table CORE-IV-26. Table CORE-IV-27 presents comparative information

available from the original investigations, the first reviews, and these second reviews.

Table CORE-IV-26

Corrosion-resistant steel: French producers’ shares of 2005 production and shares of firms’ most recent

fiscal year sales represented by corrosion-resistant steel

* * * * * * *

Table CORE-IV-27

Corrosion-resistant steel: Comparison of select French industry data, 1992, 1999, and 2005

* * * * * * *

As noted above, the composition of the French industry producing corrosion-resistant steel has

changed over time. In addition, as described below, French producers reported several operational or

organizational changes since January 1, 2000,55 but reported anticipating no such changes in the future.56 

Arcelor was created in February 2002 as a merger of three companies, formerly known as Arbed,
 57 Neither firm reported having a business plan or any internal documents that describe, discuss, or analyze future

market conditions or market conditions if the subject orders were revoked. 

 58 Arcelor reported that its production capacity ***.

 59 Most of Arcelor’s organic-coated products ***.

 60 Duferco reported ***.

 61 Duferco Coating has production facilities ***. Duferco Sorral has production facilities ***. Production inputs

***.

 62 The firms reported ***. Arcelor’s and Duferco’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-11.

 63 *** maintained inventories of corrosion-resistant steel in the United States. Arcelor’s and Duferco’s foreign

producer questionnaires, section II-12.

CORE-IV-16

Aceralia, and Usinor. Usinor owned the French producers Atlantique, Beautor, Haironville, and Lorraine. 

As a result of the merger and guidelines set forth by the European Commission, Beautor and Strasbourg

(owned by Lorraine) were sold. On April 9, 2003, Duferco Belgium, acting on behalf of Duferco

Coating, purchased Beautor and Strasbourg (now Duferco Coating and Duferco Sorral). Since then,

Oannaing, an organic coating facility, was closed in 2005. In February 2006, Arcelor acquired Dofasco. 

Finally, in June 2006, Arcelor announced a merger with Mittal Steel. 

Corrosion-Resistant Steel Operations

Table CORE-IV-28 presents the French industry’s capacity, production, and capacity utilization,

by type, since 2005. A majority of the French producers’ corrosion-resistant capacity is hot-dip

galvanized, with a minority of electrogalvanized and “other” corrosion-resistant steel.

Table CORE-IV-28

Corrosion-resistant steel: France’s capacity, production, and capacity utilization, by type, 2000-05, JanuaryJune 2005, and January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

Table CORE-IV-29 presents the French industry’s capacity, production, shipments, and

inventories of corrosion-resistant steel for 2000-05 as well as interim (January-June) 2005 and 2006.

Table CORE-IV-29

Corrosion-resistant steel: France’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2000-05, January-June

2005, and January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

*** reported that the outstanding orders had any significant impact on its capacity, production,

shipments, export markets, or inventories, *** expect that the character of its operations would change if

the orders were revoked.57 While the specific data are confidential, in general French capacity fluctuated

modestly and production fluctuated and capacity utilization generally decreased between 2000 and 2005. 

Arcelor (France) reported ***.58 59 Duferco Sorral reported ***. Duferco reported that ***.60 61 As

discussed in greater detail below, Arcelor (France) reportedly produces micro-alloy products on the same

equipment, or using the same production and related workers, used to produce corrosion-resistant steel.62

 In general the French mills’ shipments of corrosion-resistant steel decreased during the period

for which data were collected, while their inventories increased, but remained below *** percent of total

shipments.63 The majority of such shipments were home market sales, transfers, or internal consumption,
 64 *** reported developing or increasing sales to non-U.S. export markets as a result of the subject orders. 

Arcelor’s and Duferco’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-14.

 65 The “all other” markets are ***. Arecelor’s prehearing brief, p. 6, fn. 13.

 66 Arcelor’s and Duferco’s foreign producer questionnaires, section I-13.

 67 Arcelor’s and Duferco’s foreign producer questionnaires, section I-7.

 68 Duferco’s response to the notice of institution, p. 3.

 69 ***.

CORE-IV-17

but a substantial minority were exports, primarily to other EU markets.64 65 Duferco’s primary customers

are European automakers. Reported exports to the United States were ***; export markets other than the

United States include ***. French exports of corrosion-resistant steel are not subject to any tariff or

nontariff barriers in any countries, nor subject to current investigations.66 While free trade agreements

***,67 the development of the European Union - in particular its expansion in 2004, as well as reportedly

favorable pricing trends, delivery times, and reaction to customer demand - is a consideration.68

Presented in the tabulation below are *** exports of corrosion-resistant steel to Canada and

Mexico.69

* * * * * * *

The majority of French mills’ shipments of corrosion-resistant steel is sold for automotive

applications. As shown in table CORE-IV-30, such sales are predominantly for unexposed automobile

parts. In addition, as shown in table CORE-IV-31, a *** majority of French mills’ shipments of

corrosion-resistant steel is galvanized, rather than galvannealed or otherwise coated. Finally, as shown in

table CORE-IV-32, a *** majority of French mills’ shipments of corrosion-resistant steel is sold

unpainted, with a minority of sales toll-painted or mill-painted corrosion-resistant steel. 

CORE-IV-30

Corrosion-resistant steel: French producers’ total shipments, by application, 2005, January-June 2005, and

January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

CORE-IV-31

Corrosion-resistant steel: French producers’ total shipments, by form, 2005, January-June 2005, and

January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

CORE-IV-32

Corrosion-resistant steel: French producers’ total shipments, by paint status, 2005, January-June 2005, and

January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

Alternative Products

As shown in table CORE-IV-33, the majority of corrosion-resistant steel production by French

mills is subject merchandise, primarily hot-dip galvanized steel. Nonetheless, French mills reported

production of micro-alloy steel and, ***, other forms of nonsubject merchandise on the same equipment

used to produce subject corrosion-resistant steel. With respect to micro-alloy corrosion-resistant steel,

table CORE-IV-34 presents the French industry’s capacity, production, shipments, and inventories of

such corrosion-resistant steel for 2000-05 as well as interim (January-June) 2005 and 2006. 
 70 USITC Publication 2664, p. I-106; USITC Publication 3364, p. CORROSION-IV-5.

 71 Plants include Stahlwerke Bremen and EKO. Arcelor (Germany) has related firms that produce corrosionresistant steel in Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Spain, and Turkey. Arcelor

(Germany) has a related firm, Arcelor International America, which imports subject product into the United States.

 72 Corus’ German plants include Hille & Mueller and Trierer Walzwerk. 

 73 Wupperman’s data were included in the prehearing report but have been removed from the final report because

it does not produce corrosion-resistant steel in Germany. Instead, Wupperman Stahl GmbH (Germany) is the sales

organization for corrosion-resistant steel produced by the Wupperman Group in Austria and the Netherlands. 

Freidrick Gustav Theis responded that it does not produce corrosion-resistant steel.

 74 ***.

CORE-IV-18

Table CORE-IV-33

Corrosion-resistant steel: French producers’ overall capacity and production, by type of steel, 2005,

January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

Table CORE-IV-34

Corrosion-resistant micro-alloy steel: France’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2000-05,

January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

THE INDUSTRY IN GERMANY

Overview

The Commission identified four German producers of corrosion-resistant steel - Hoesch, Krupp,

Preussag, and Thyssen - in the original investigations, and four such producers - Bremen, EKO,

Salzgitter, and Thyssen - in the first reviews.70 In the current second reviews, the Commission issued

questionnaires to six German firms believed to be producers of corrosion-resistant steel and received data 

from Arcelor (Germany),71 Corus,72 Salzgitter, and Thyssen.73 Hoesch and Krupp merged in 1993 to form

Krupp Hoesch Stahl, which then merged with Thyssen in 1997, to form ThyssenKrupp. In 1998, Preussag

was renamed Salzgitter. Corus was created in October 1999, as a merger of Hoogovens and British Steel. 

Hoogovens owned the Hille & Muller group (including Trierer Walzwerk). Arcelor was created in

February 2002 as a merger of three companies, Arbed, Aceralia, and Usinor. Bremen was owned by

Arbed, and EKO was owned by Usinor. In June 2006, Arcelor announced a merger with Mittal. 

According to ***, responding German producers represent all of the corrosion-resistant steel capacity in

Germany.74 The responding firms’ share of 2005 German production of corrosion-resistant steel and the

share of their most recent fiscal year sales represented by corrosion-resistant steel are presented in table

CORE-IV-35. Table CORE-IV-36 presents comparative information available from the original

investigations, the first reviews, and these second reviews.

Table CORE-IV-35

Corrosion-resistant steel: German producers’ share of 2005 production and share of firms’ most recent

fiscal year sales represented by corrosion-resistant steel

* * * * * * *
 75 Arcelor (Germany), Salzgitter, and Thyssen’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-1.

 76 No firm reported having a business plan or any internal documents that describe, discuss, or analyze future

market conditions or market conditions if the subject orders were revoked. 

 77 Arcelor (Germany), Salzgitter, and Thyssen’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-13.

 78 Arcelor (Germany), Salzgitter, and Thyssen’s foreign producer questionnaires, section I-7.

 79 Salzgitter reported that limits to mill capacity were set by ***. Salzgitter’s foreign producer questionnaire,

section II-9. 

 80 Arcelor (Germany) reported that ***. Thyssen’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-9.

 81 Salzgitter’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-1.

CORE-IV-19

Table CORE-IV-36

Corrosion-resistant steel: Comparison of select German industry data, 1992, 1999, and 2005

* * * * * * *

As noted above, the composition of the German industry producing corrosion-resistant steel has

changed over time. In addition, as presented below, German producers reported several operational or

organizational changes since January 1, 2000.75

* * * * * * *

Corrosion-Resistant Steel Operations

Table CORE-IV-37 presents the German industry’s capacity, production, and capacity utilization,

by type, since 2000. A majority of the German producers’ capacity is hot-dip galvanized, with a

substantial minority of electrolytic and “other” corrosion-resistant steel.

Table CORE-IV-38 presents the German industry’s capacity, production, shipments, and

inventories of corrosion-resistant steel for 2000-05 as well as interim (January-June) 2005 and 2006. 

Table CORE-IV-37

Corrosion-resistant steel: Germany’s capacity, production, and capacity utilization, by type, 2000-05, JanuaryJune 2005, and January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

Table CORE-IV-38

Corrosion-resistant steel: Germany’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2000-05, JanuaryJune 2005, and January-June 2006 

* * * * * * *

*** German producer reported that the outstanding orders had any significant impact on its

capacity, production, shipments, export markets, or inventories, *** expect that the character of its

operations would change if the orders were revoked.76 No German firm reported being subject to tariff or

non-tariff barriers to trade, nor being subject to any current investigations.77 Additionally, no free trade

agreements such as NAFTA affected the character of the German firms’ operations.78

German capacity and production increased between 2000 and 2005, while capacity utilization

remained relatively stable. *** was responsible for *** in Germany.79 *** reported *** in production

and capacity.80 Salzgitter reported targeting the *** industry with its ***, which resulted from ***.81 As

discussed in greater detail below, *** reportedly produce other products on the same equipment, using the

same production and related workers, used to produce corrosion-resistant steel, while *** reported that it 
 82 Arcelor (Germany), Salzgitter, and Thyssen’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-13.

 83 Salzgitter and Thyssen reported that ***. Arcelor (Germany), Salzgitter, and Thyssen’s foreign producer

questionnaires, section II-11.

 84 *** maintained inventories of corrosion-resistant steel in the United States. Arcelor (Germany), Salzgitter, and

Thyssen’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-12.

 85 Thyssen reported that ***. Thyssen’s foreign producer questionnaire, Appendix II-18a.

 86 Thyssen reported that ***. Thyssen’s prehearing brief, p. 6, fn. 10.

 87 Thyssen’s posthearing brief, p. 4. These shipments **. Thyssen’s prehearing brief, p. 23.

 88 Thyssen’s prehearing brief, p. 37.

 89 Thyssen’s posthearing brief, p. 8, fn. 32.

 90 ***. Thyssen’s posthearing brief, pp. 8-9.

 91 *** reported developing or increasing sales to non-U.S. export markets as a result of the subject orders. 

Arcelor (Germany), Salzgitter, and Thyssen’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-14.

CORE-IV-20

did not.82 Additionally, *** reported being able to switch production between corrosion-resistant steel

and other products in response to a relative price change.83

 In general, the German mills’ shipments of corrosion-resistant steel increased during the period

for which data were collected, while their inventories declined irregularly.84 The majority of shipments

were home market sales, but exports grew more rapidly, approaching home market sales in quantity. The

largest share of exports was to the European Union, increasing noticeably over the period for which data

were collected, despite decreasing from 2004 to 2005.85 Thyssen and Corus both reported exports to the

United States, which peaked in ***.86 Thyssen is the main exporter of German subject product to the

United States, and the majority of its shipments consist of ***.87 Thyssen supplies the U.S. market from

inventories maintained at warehouses located in Detroit, MI; Richburg, SC; and Southfield, MI, in order

to deliver steel on a just in time basis.88 Thyssen’s facility in Detroit is also a processing center,89 and its

facility in Richburg, SC, is a service center focused on the sale of flat rolled steel products, of which

approximately ***.90 Other export markets include ***.91

Presented in the tabulation below are German exports of corrosion-resistant steel to Canada and

Mexico. 

* * * * * * *

The majority of German producers’ shipments of corrosion-resistant steel is for non-automotive

applications. As shown in table CORE-IV-39, sales for automotive applications are predominantly for

unexposed automobile parts. In addition, as shown in table CORE-IV-40, a majority of German mills’

shipments of corrosion-resistant steel are galvanized, rather than galvannealed or otherwise coated. 

Finally, as shown in table CORE-IV-41, a large majority of German mills’ shipments of corrosionresistant steel is sold unpainted, with a minority prepainted but with no reported sales of toll-painted

corrosion-resistant steel. 

CORE-IV-39

Corrosion-resistant steel: German producers’ total shipments, by application, 2005, January-June 2005, and

January-June 2006

* * * * * * *
 92 ***. Corus’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-7.

 93 Salzgitter and Thyssen’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-6.

 94 ***. 

 95 USITC Publication 2664, p. I-106; USITC Publication 3364, p. CORROSION-IV-5.

 96 JFE resulted from the merger of NKK and Kawasaki and is related to the U.S. corrosion-resistant producer CSI,

and to corrosion-resistant producers in Canada, China, and Thailand. 

 97 Kobe is related to the U.S. corrosion-resistant steel producer Pro-Tec.

 98 As of December 31, 2005, Nippon owns *** percent of the U.S. joint venture I/N Kote, a U.S. producer of

corrosion-resistant steel. As of March 31, 2006, Nippon wholly owns the Japanese corrosion-resistant producers

(continued...)

CORE-IV-21

CORE-IV-40

Corrosion-resistant steel: German producers’ total shipments, by form, 2005, January-June 2005, and

January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

CORE-IV-41

Corrosion-resistant steel: German producers’ total shipments, by paint status, 2005, January-June 2005, and

January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

Alternative Products

As shown in table CORE-IV-42, the majority of corrosion-resistant steel production by German

mills is subject merchandise, primarily hot-dip galvanized steel. Nonetheless, German mills reported

production of micro-alloy steel and, to a lesser extent, other forms of nonsubject merchandise on the same

equipment used to produce subject corrosion-resistant steel.92 *** reported producing alloy steel as well

as corrosion-resistant steel with dimensions and qualities that are not subject to the orders on the same

equipment, and *** reported producing micro-alloy and alloy corrosion-resistant steel on the same

equipment.93 With respect to micro-alloy corrosion-resistant steel, table CORE-IV-43 presents the

German industry’s capacity, production, shipments, and inventories of such corrosion-resistant steel for

2000-05 as well as interim (January-June) 2005 and 2006. 94

Table CORE-IV-42

Corrosion-resistant steel: German producers’ overall capacity and production, by type of steel, 2005,

January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

Table CORE-IV-43

Corrosion-resistant micro-alloy steel: Germany’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2000-05,

January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

THE INDUSTRY IN JAPAN

Overview

The Commission identified six Japanese producers of corrosion-resistant steel - Kawasaki,

Sumitomo, NKK, Nippon, Nisshin, and Kobe - in the original investigations and in the first reviews.95 In

the current second reviews, the Commission issued questionnaires to nine Japanese firms believed to be

producers of corrosion-resistant steel and received data from JFE,96 JFE Kouhan, Kobe,97 Nippon,98
 98 (...continued)

Nittetsu, Nippon Steel Metal, and Tokai Color; and *** percent of Hokkai Koki.

 99 Nisshin owns *** percent of the U.S. corrosion-resistant producer Wheeling-Nisshin.

 100 Plants include the Kashima Steel Works and the Wakayama Steel Works.

 101 ***. The remaining capacity is operated by seven smaller producers, the largest of which is Yodogawa Steel

Works. Ibid.

 102 Japanese foreign producer questionnaires, section II-1.

 103 Japanese foreign producer questionnaires, section II-2.

CORE-IV-22

Nisshin,99 Nittetsu, and Sumitomo.100 In April 2003, Kawasaki and NKK merged to form JFE. JFE

Kouhan was established in April 2004 by consolidation of the operations of NKK Kouhan and Kawatetsu

Kouhan, and Nittetsu was formed from the merger of Taiyo Steel and Daido Steel in 2002. According to

***, responding Japanese producers represent *** percent of the corrosion-resistant steel capacity in

Japan.101 The responding firms’ shares of 2005 Japanese production of corrosion-resistant steel and the

shares of their most recent fiscal year sales represented by corrosion-resistant steel are presented in table

CORE-IV-44. Table CORE-IV-45 presents comparative information available from the original

investigations, the first reviews, and these second reviews.

Table CORE-IV-44

Corrosion-resistant steel: Japanese producers’ shares of 2005 production and shares of firms’ most recent

fiscal year sales represented by corrosion-resistant steel

* * * * * * *

Table CORE-IV-45

Corrosion-resistant steel: Comparison of select Japanese industry data, 1992, 1999, and 2005

Item 1992 1999 2005

Capacity (1,000 short tons) 12,037 *** ***

Production (1,000 short tons) 10,335 *** ***

Capacity utilization (percent) 85.9 *** ***

Exports/shipments (percent) 23.2 *** ***

Inventories/shipments (percent) 6.3 *** ***

Note.--Data for 1992 and 1999 were provided by Kawasaki, Kobe, Nippon Steel, Nisshin, NKK, and Sumitomo. Data for 2005

were provided by JFE, JFE Kouhan, Kobe, Nippon, Nisshin, Nittetsu, and Sumitomo.

Source: USITC Publication 2664, table 76; Confidential first review report (INV-X-221, October 18, 2000), table

CORROSION-IV-6; and 2006 questionnaire responses identified above.

As noted above, the composition of the Japanese industry producing corrosion-resistant steel has

changed over time. In addition, as described below, Japanese producers reported several operational or

organizational changes since January 1, 2000,102 and reported anticipating several such changes in the

future.103

* * * * * * *
 104 None of the firms reported having a business plan or any internal documents that describe, discuss, or analyze

future market conditions or market conditions if the subject orders were revoked. Sumitomo provided a medium

term business plan for 2006-08.

 105 *** plans to start up *** to meet the demand of ***. 

 106 The Japanese producers collectively listed the following constraints to capacity: hot-rolling process, capacity

of continuous casting line, annealing line, blast furnace and steel making plant, galvanizing, and cold-rolling lines.

 107 The Japanese producers reported that the production technology is hot-dip galvanizing and electrolytic

galvanizing and that the corrosion-resistant steel inputs are hot-rolled and cold-rolled steel flat products and zinc.

 108 However, *** reported that they are unable to switch production if a change in related price should occur. 

Japanese foreign producer questionnaires, section II-11.

 109 *** maintained inventories of corrosion-resistant steel in the United States. Japanese foreign producer

questionnaires, section II-12.

 110 *** reported developing or increasing sales to non-U.S. export markets as a result of the subject orders. 

Japanese foreign producer questionnaires, section II-14.

 111 Japanese respondent interested parties reported a corrosion-resistant supply shortage in their home market in

late 2004 and early 2005, forcing Japanese automakers to suspend production and/or seek alternative sources. 

Japanese respondent interested parties’ prehearing brief, pp. 29-32.

CORE-IV-23

Corrosion-Resistant Steel Operations

Table CORE-IV-46 presents the Japanese industry’s capacity, production, and capacity

utilization, by type, since 2000. A majority of the Japanese producers’ corrosion-resistant capacity is

hot-dip galvanized, followed by substantial minorities of electrogalvanized and “other.” Table COREIV-47 presents the Japanese industry’s capacity, production, shipments, and inventories of corrosionresistant steel for 2000-05 as well as interim (January-June) 2005 and 2006. 

Table CORE-IV-46

Corrosion-resistant steel: Japan’s capacity, production, and capacity utilization, by type, 2000-05, January-June

2005, and January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

Table CORE-IV-47

Corrosion-resistant steel: Japan’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2000-05, January-June

2005, and January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

*** of the Japanese producers reported that the outstanding orders had any significant impact on

its capacity, production, shipments, export markets, or inventories, *** of the Japanese producers expect

that the character of their operations would change if the orders were revoked.104 While company-specific

data are confidential, in general Japanese capacity and production increased during the period for which

data were collected, as did capacity utilization. *** to report plans to expand capacity.105 106 The

Japanese producers reported no major production technology changes since 2000.107 As discussed in

greater detail below, the mills reported the ability to produce other products on the same equipment, or

using the same production and related workers, used to produce corrosion-resistant steel.108

 In general the Japanese mills’ shipments of corrosion-resistant steel increased during the period

for which data were collected, while their inventories decreased.109 The majority of such shipments were

home market sales, but a substantial minority were exports, primarily to other Asian markets.110 111

Japanese producers of corrosion-resistant steel have had a long-term technical collaboration with the
 112 Japanese respondent interested parties’ prehearing brief, p. 36.

 113 Japanese respondent interested parties’ prehearing brief, p. 4.

 114 Japanese respondent interested parties’ prehearing brief, p. 49-50.

 115 Hearing transcript (Miki), pp. 414-415.

 116 Japanese respondent interested parties’ posthearing brief, Attachment K. ***. Japanese respondent interested

parties’ posthearing brief, Attachment I.

 117 Japanese foreign producer questionnaires, section II-13.

 118 Japanese foreign producer questionnaires, section I-7.

 119 *** reported that these agreements make it more attractive for *** to export corrosion-resistant steel to those

countries.

 120 ***. Japanese respondent interested parties’ posthearing brief, Attachment E.

CORE-IV-24

Japanese automotive and electronics manufacturers that have established themselves in China and Asia.112

Japanese producers reported that they have adopted a strategy that emphasized production of high valueadded corrosion-resistant products that are differentiated from corrosion-resistant steel available from

low-cost Asian producers.113 More than 70 percent of Japan’s exports of corrosion-resistant steel to China

in 2004 were electrogalvanized for the production of electronic appliances.114 Reported exports to the

United States were limited, and consist largely of specialty high-strength automotive grades, such as 780

MPa and 980 MPa.115 ***.116 ***. Export markets other than the United States include ***. Japanese

exports of corrosion-resistant steel are not subject to any tariff or nontariff barriers in any countries, nor

subject to current investigations.117 While free trade agreements reportedly do not affect the Japanese

mills’ operations,118 Japan has entered into free trade agreements with Singapore (November 2002),

Mexico (April 2005), and Malaysia (July 2006).119

Presented in the tabulation below are the Japanese industry’s exports of corrosion-resistant steel

to Canada.120 Canada’s dumping order on corrosion-resistant steel from Japan was lifted in 2004.

* * * * * * *

Slightly less than one-half of the Japanese mills’ shipments of corrosion-resistant steel is sold for

automotive applications. As shown in table CORE-IV-48, such sales are predominantly for unexposed

automobile parts. In addition, as shown in table CORE-IV-49, a substantial majority of Japanese mills’

shipments of corrosion-resistant steel are galvannealed, rather than galvanized or otherwise coated. 

Finally, as shown in table CORE-IV-50, a large majority of Japanese mills’ shipments of corrosionresistant steel is sold unpainted, with a minority toll-painted or mill-painted. 

CORE-IV-48

Corrosion-resistant steel: Japanese producers’ total shipments, by application, 2005, January-June 2005,

and January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

CORE-IV-49

Corrosion-resistant steel: Japanese producers’ total shipments, by form, 2005, January-June 2005, and

January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

CORE-IV-50

Corrosion-resistant steel: Japanese producers’ total shipments, by paint status, 2005, January-June 2005,

and January-June 2006

* * * * * * *
 121 The Japanese firms were unable to provide separate data for alloy and micro-alloy steel.

 122 Counsel reported data on corrosion-resistant products for two companies related to POSCO: Pohang Steel

Industries and Pohang Coated Steel, USITC Publication 2664, p. I-120.

 123 USITC Publication 2664, p. I-121; USITC Publication 3364, p. CORROSION-IV-7.

 124 Young Heung Iron and Steel Co. responded that it does not produce corrosion-resistant steel.

 125 Dongbu is related to a U.S. importer of corrosion-resistant steel, Dongbu USA.

 126 Hyundai is related to a U.S. importer of corrosion-resistant steel, Hyundai Hysco.

 127 POCOS is related to two producers of corrosion-resistant steel, USS-POSCO (U.S.) and POSCO (Korea), and

to U.S. importer POSCO America.

 128 POSCO is related to two producers of corrosion-resistant steel, USS-POSCO (U.S.) and POCOS (Korea). 

POSCO has a related U.S. importer of corrosion-resistant steel, POSCO America.

 129 TCC is related to Dong Yang, a U.S. importer of corrosion-resistant steel.

 130 Union is related to Dongkuk, a U.S. importer of corrosion-resistant steel. 

 131 ***. The remaining capacity is operated by Jinbang Steel and by Seil. Ibid.

CORE-IV-25

Alternative Products

As shown in table CORE-IV-51, the majority of corrosion-resistant steel production by Japanese 

mills is subject merchandise, primarily hot-dip galvanized steel. Nonetheless, Japanese mills reported

production of alloy and micro-alloy steel and, to a lesser extent, other forms of nonsubject merchandise

on the same equipment used to produce subject corrosion-resistant steel. With respect to alloy and microalloy corrosion-resistant steel, table CORE-IV-52 presents the Japanese industry’s capacity, production,

shipments, and inventories of such corrosion-resistant steel for 2000-05 as well as interim (January-June)

2005 and 2006.121

Table CORE-IV-51

Corrosion-resistant steel: Japanese producers’ overall capacity and production, by type of steel, 2005,

January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

Table CORE-IV-52

Corrosion-resistant alloy and micro-alloy steel: Japan’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments,

2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

* * * * * * *

THE INDUSTRY IN KOREA

Overview

The Commission identified five Korean producers of corrosion-resistant steel122 - Dongbu,

POCOS, POSCO, PSI, and Union - in the original investigations, and six such producers - Dongbu,

Hyundai, Pohang (PSI), POCOS, POSCO, and Union Steel - in the first reviews.123 In the current second

reviews, the Commission issued questionnaires to eight Korean firms124 believed to be producers of

corrosion-resistant steel and received data from Dongbu,125 Hyundai,126 POCOS,127 POSCO,128 SeAH,

TCC,129 and Union.130 Hyundai began production of corrosion-resistant steel in 1999, Pohang (PSI) and

POCOS merged in March 1999, SeAH began production of corrosion-resistant steel in 1999, and TCC

began production of non-diffusion annealed nickel-plated corrosion-resistant steel in 2001 and diffusionannealed nickel-plated corrosion-resistant steel in 2005. According to ***, responding Korean producers

represent *** percent of the corrosion-resistant steel capacity in Korea.131 The responding firms’ shares

of 2005 Korean production of corrosion-resistant steel and the shares of their most recent fiscal year sales
 132 Korean foreign producer questionnaires, section II-1.

 133 Korean foreign producer questionnaires, section II-2.

 134 Korean respondent interested parties’ brief, exhibit 12.

CORE-IV-26

represented by corrosion-resistant steel are presented in table CORE-53. Table CORE-IV-54 presents

comparative information available from the original investigations, the first reviews, and these second

reviews.

Table CORE-IV-53

Corrosion-resistant steel: Korean producers’ shares of 2005 production and shares of firms’ most recent

fiscal year sales represented by corrosion-resistant steel

* * * * * * *

Table CORE-IV-54

Corrosion-resistant steel: Comparison of select Korean industry data, 1992, 1999, and 2005

Item 1992 1999 2005

Capacity (1,000 short tons) 3,139 *** 8,441

Production (1,000 short tons) 2,944 *** 7,344

Capacity utilization (percent) 93.8 *** 87.0

Exports/shipments (percent) 46 *** 33.6

Inventories/shipments (percent) 5.2 *** 4.6

Note.--Data for 1992 were provided by Dongbu and Union, as well as POSCO and its related companies POCOS and PSI. Data

for 1999 were provided by Dongbu, Hyundai, Pohang, Pohang-Coated, and Union Steel. Data for 2005 were provided by

Dongbu, Hyundai, POCOS, POSCO, SeAH, TCC, and Union.

Source: USITC Publication 2664, table 80; Confidential first review report (INV-X-221, October 18, 2000), table

CORROSION-IV-7, as revised by memorandum INV-X-232 (November 1, 2000); and 2006 questionnaire responses identified

above.

As noted above, the composition of the Korean industry producing corrosion-resistant steel has

changed over time. In addition, as described below, Korean producers reported several operational or

organizational changes since January 1, 2000,132 but reported anticipating no such changes in the future.133

*** has signed a memorandum of understanding to build a galvanized steel plant in Mexico with a

capacity of *** tons.134 Construction of the $*** plant will begin in early 2008 and the production is

scheduled to begin in 2009.

* * * * * * *

Corrosion-Resistant Steel Operations

Table CORE-IV-55 presents the Korean industry’s capacity, production, and capacity utilization,

by type, since 2000. A majority of the Korean producer’s corrosion-resistant capacity is hot-dip

galavanized, followed by substantial minorities of electrogalvanized and “other.” Table CORE-IV-56

presents the Korean industry’s capacity, production, shipments, and inventories of corrosion-resistant

steel for 2000-05 as well as interim (January-June) 2005 and 2006.

Table CORE-IV-55

Corrosion-resistant steel: Korea’s capacity, production, and capacity utilization, by type, 2000-05, January-June

2005, and January-June 2006

* * * * * * *
CORE-IV-27

Table CORE-IV-56

Corrosion-resistant steel: Korea’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2000-05, January-June

2005, and January-June 2006

Item

Calendar year January-June

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006

Quantity (short tons)

Capacity 6,565,324 7,064,324 7,261,324 7,371,324 7,607,324 8,441,110 4,178,852 4,652,582

Production 5,781,692 5,924,794 6,262,403 6,693,087 6,906,075 7,344,345 3,661,775 4,002,240

End-of-period inventories 187,319 208,288 181,272 182,642 217,115 334,202 260,765 216,489

Shipments:

 Internal consumption /

 transfers *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Home market *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Exports to--

 United States 246,701 265,418 178,173 93,131 249,169 345,455 162,820 266,329

 European Union 338,100 213,909 139,461 129,097 119,923 109,541 62,326 127,462

 China 360,658 579,223 543,049 778,709 624,743 678,421 315,769 403,742

 Other Asia 604,136 604,238 657,792 674,406 702,376 853,387 431,836 405,152

 All other markets 318,502 302,189 317,640 338,729 433,267 444,319 201,641 327,582

 Total exports 1,868,097 1,964,977 1,836,115 2,014,072 2,129,478 2,431,123 1,174,392 1,530,267

 Total

 shipments 1,868,097 1,964,977 1,836,115 2,014,072 2,129,478 2,431,123 1,174,392 1,530,267

Ratios and shares (percent)

Capacity utilization 88.1 83.9 86.2 90.8 90.8 87.0 87.6 86.0

Inventories/production 3.2 3.5 2.9 2.7 3.1 4.6 3.6 2.7

Inventories/shipments 3.3 3.5 2.9 2.7 3.2 4.6 3.6 2.6

Share of total shipment

quantity:

 Internal consumption /

 transfers *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Home market *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Exports to--

 United States 4.3 4.5 2.8 1.4 3.6 4.8 4.5 6.5

 European Union 5.9 3.6 2.2 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.7 3.1

 China 6.3 9.8 8.6 11.6 9.1 9.4 8.7 9.8

 Other Asia 10.6 10.2 10.5 10.1 10.2 11.8 11.9 9.8

 All other markets 5.6 5.1 5.1 5.1 6.3 6.1 5.6 8.0

 Total exports 32.6 33.3 29.2 30.1 31.0 33.6 32.5 37.2

Table continued on next page. 
 135 Union was excluded from the CVD order. None of the firms reported having a business plan or any internal

documents that describe, discuss, or analyze future market conditions or market conditions if the subject orders were

revoked. 

CORE-IV-28

Table CORE-IV-56--Continued

Corrosion-resistant steel: Korea’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2000-05, January-June

2005, and January-June 2006

Item

Calendar year January-June

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006

Value (1,000 dollars)

Commercial shipments:

 Home market *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Exports to--

 United States 138,213 138,009 86,492 51,752 199,011 303,009 147,765 208,426

 European Union 161,621 90,878 59,586 79,813 94,011 96,738 61,185 92,340

 China 189,975 255,658 257,600 437,942 420,776 541,091 267,183 269,171

 Other Asia 297,133 246,165 273,973 360,569 468,426 668,941 351,712 334,562

 All other markets 171,277 142,095 143,032 193,329 309,175 364,214 176,085 231,417

 Total exports 958,219 872,805 820,683 1,123,405 1,491,399 1,973,993 1,003,930 1,135,916

Total commercial

shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value (per short ton)

Commercial shipments:

 Home market $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

 Exports to--

 United States 560 520 485 556 799 877 908 783

 European Union 478 425 427 618 784 883 982 724

 China 527 441 474 562 674 798 846 667

 Other Asia 492 407 417 535 667 784 814 826

 All other markets 538 470 450 571 714 820 873 706

 Total exports 513 444 447 558 700 812 855 742

Total commercial

shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

*** of the Korean producers reported that the outstanding orders had any significant impact on its

capacity, production, shipments, export markets, or inventories, *** Korean producer expects that the

character of its operations would change if the orders were revoked.135 Korean capacity and production
 136 The Korean producers collectively reported the following constraints to capacity: breakdown or repairs,

shortage of raw materials or order receipts, capacity of production equipment and size of workforce, and the market

situation.

 137 The Korean producers reported no significant changes to production technology since 2000. The production

inputs are cold-reducing raw materials (hot coils), galvanizing, and painting. 

 138 *** of the firms maintained inventories of corrosion-resistant steel in the United States. Korean foreign

producer questionnaires, section II-12.

 139 *** of the firms reported developing or increasing sales to non-U.S. export markets as a result of the subject

orders. Korean foreign producer questionnaires, section II-14.

 140 Korean respondent interested parties’ posthearing brief, p. 7. 

 141 TCC exports largely diffusion-annealed nickel-plated steel product for the production of alkaline batteries.

TCC reported there are no Chinese producers of such product. TCC’s posthearing brief, pp. 2-3.

 142 Korean respondent interested parties’ posthearing brief, pp. 7-9. 

 143 Korean respondent interested parties’ prehearing brief, p. 9.

 144 Korean foreign producer questionnaires, section II-13.

 145 Korean foreign producer questionnaires, section I-7.

 146 Korean respondent interested parties’ posthearing brief, Responses to Questions from the Commission, p. 2.

CORE-IV-29

increased during the period for which data were collected, while capacity utilization decreased.136 137 As

discussed in greater detail below, the mills reportedly produce other products on the same equipment, and

using the same production and related workers, used to produce corrosion-resistant steel.

In general the Korean mills’ shipments of corrosion-resistant steel steadily increased during the

period for which data were collected, while their inventories fluctuated in a generally upward trend.138

The majority of such shipments were home market sales, but a substantial minority were exports,

primarily to China and other Asian markets.139 Korean respondent interested parties reported that their

exports are primarily electrogalvanized steel for electronic appliance production and high grade hot-dip

for automotive production to Korean and Japanese transplants manufacturing in China.140 141 Two of

POSCO’s largest non-automotive clients are ***.142 HYSCO’s exports to China are primarily to auto

manufacuters. Dongbu’s exports to China are for construction and electronic appliances. Union sells ***

to the personal computer, LCD, and PDP market segment. 

Reported exports to the United States fluctuated, and were noticeably lower in 2002-03. Korean

respondent interested parties reported that imports from Korea to the United States increased in 2005 and

the first half of 2006 because ***.143 ***. *** accounted for a majority of Korean imports during 2000-

05, which supplied the construction sector of the market. Export markets other than the United States

include ***. Korean producers’ exports of corrosion-resistant steel are not subject to any tariff or

nontariff barriers in any countries, nor subject to current investigations.144 Free trade agreements

reportedly do not affect the Korean mills’ operations.145

Presented in the tabulation below are the Korean industry’s exports of corrosion-resistant steel to

Canada and Mexico. Canada’s dumping order on corrosion-resistant steel from Korea was lifted in 2004

and did not include galvalume or prepainted products. ***.146 ***.

* * * * * * *

The majority of Korean mills’ shipments of corrosion-resistant steel is sold for nonautomotive

applications. As shown in table CORE-IV-57, sales of corrosion-resistant steel for automotive

applications are predominantly for unexposed automobile parts. In addition, as shown in table CORE-IV58, a substantial majority of Korean mills’ shipments of corrosion-resistant steel is not galvanized or

galvannealed. Finally, as shown in table CORE-IV-59, a large majority of Korean mills’ shipments of
CORE-IV-30

corrosion-resistant steel is sold unpainted, with a minority prepainted but with no reported sales of tollpainted corrosion-resistant steel. 

CORE-IV-57

Corrosion-resistant steel: Korean producers’ total shipments, by application, 2005, January-June 2005, and

January-June 2006

Item 2005 January-June 2005 January-June 2006

Quantity (short tons)

Exposed (automotive) *** *** ***

Unexposed (automotive) *** *** ***

Other 5,743,242 2,887,923 3,246,568

 Total 7,227,132 3,616,757 4,117,946

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

CORE-IV-58

Corrosion-resistant steel: Korean producers’ total shipments, by form, 2005, January-June 2005, and

January-June 2006

Item 2005 January-June 2005 January-June 2006

Quantity (short tons)

Galvanized 1,983,638 981,483 1,199,927

Galvannealed 1,290,641 619,074 756,962

Other 3,952,853 2,016,198 2,161,056

 Total 7,227,132 3,616,755 4,117,945

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

CORE-IV-59

Corrosion-resistant steel: Korean producers’ total shipments, by paint status, 2005, January-June 2005, and

January-June 2006

Item 2005 January-June 2005 January-June 2006

Quantity (short tons)

Prepainted 1,437,869 739,998 838,978

Toll-painted 0 0 0

Sold unpainted 5,789,263 2,876,759 3,278,968

 Total 7,227,132 3,616,757 4,117,946

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Alternative Products

As shown in table CORE-IV-60, the majority of corrosion-resistant steel production by Korean

mills is subject merchandise, the largest share of which is hot-dip galvanized steel. Nonetheless, Korean

mills reported production of micro-alloy steel and, to a lesser extent, other forms of nonsubject
 147 *** was the only Korean producer to report production of micro-alloy. The company did not provide capacity

data.

CORE-IV-31

merchandise on the same equipment used to produce subject corrosion-resistant steel. With respect to

micro-alloy corrosion-resistant steel, table CORE-IV-61 presents the Korean industry’s capacity,

production, shipments, and inventories of such corrosion-resistant steel for 2000-05 as well as interim

(January-June) 2005 and 2006.147

Table CORE-IV-60

Corrosion-resistant steel: Korean producers’ overall capacity and production, by type of steel, 2005,

January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

Item 2005 Jan.-June 2005 Jan.-June 2006

Average production capacity for all subject

and nonsubject corrosion-resistant steel

(short tons) 8,922,997 4,352,174 5,040,824

 Production of subject electrolytic

 galvanized corrosion-resistant steel

 (short tons) 1,585,867 795,567 844,321

 Production of subject hot-dip

 galvanized corrosion-resistant steel

 (short tons) 4,966,135 2,457,359 2,771,482

 Production of other subject corrosion-

 resistant steel (short tons) 792,343 408,855 385,745

 Production of specifically excluded

 corrosion-resistant steel (short tons) 000

 Production of micro-alloy corrosion

 resistant steel (short tons) *** *** ***

 Production of other nonsubject alloy

 and stainless steel corrosion-resistant

 steel (short tons) *** *** ***

Total production of corrosion-resistant steel

(short tons) 7,344,345 3,661,781 4,001,548

Capacity utilization (percent) 89.7 92.2 86.4

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Table CORE-IV-61

Corrosion-resistant micro-alloy steel: Korea’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2000-05,

January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

* * * * * * *
 148 ***.

 149 Production data compiled by *** are for all coated steel sheet. *** data do not distinguish between carbon and

non-carbon steel; accordingly, the production totals reported for coated steel sheet are somewhat overstated.

 150 Consumption data compiled by *** are for all coated steel sheet. *** data do not distinguish between carbon

and non-carbon steel; accordingly, the consumption totals reported for coated steel sheet are somewhat overstated.

 151 See Part CORE-II of this report for the individual perspectives of U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers on

demand in the United States and in other markets. 

CORE-IV-32

GLOBAL MARKET

Production

Global production of coated steel sheet products has grown considerably in recent years. 

According to one published source,148 global production of coated steel sheet increased by *** percent

between 1994 and 1999, and by *** percent between 2000 and 2005. In terms of sheer volume, growth

was relatively evenly distributed between North America, Europe, and East and Southeast Asia during

1994-99, but was most pronounced in the latter region during 2000-05. East and Southeast Asia is

forecasted to lead global production in the coming years as well. Data compiled by *** on historical,

current, and projected global production of coated steel sheet are presented in tables CORE-IV-62

through CORE-IV-64.149

Table CORE-IV-62

Coated steel sheet: Global and regional production of coated steel sheet, 1994-99

* * * * * * *

Table CORE-IV-63

Coated steel sheet: Global and regional production of coated steel sheet, 2000-05

* * * * * * *

Table CORE-IV-64

Coated steel sheet: Forecast of global and regional production of coated steel sheet, 2005-10

* * * * * * *

Consumption

Data compiled by *** on historical, current, and forecasted global consumption of coated steel

sheet are presented in tables CORE-IV-65 through CORE-IV-67.150 Worldwide consumption of coated

steel sheet increased by *** percent between 1994 and 1999, despite much lower growth in East and

Southeast Asia, reflecting reduced levels of consumption in that region in 1998 and 1999 relative to 1997. 

Worldwide consumption increased by *** percent between 2000 and 2005, paced by substantial growth

in consumption in East and Southeast Asia and despite much more modest growth in Europe and,

especially, North America. Global consumption of coated steel sheet is forecasted to continue to grow in

the coming years, with the growth relatively evenly distributed in all major markets.151

Table CORE-IV-65

Coated steel sheet: Global and regional consumption of coated steel sheet, 1994-99

* * * * * * *
 152 ***. Domestic producers’ response to the notice of institution, exhibit 26.

 153 *** reported that prices are not directly comparable but that its data show that for both hot-dip and electrogalvanized corrosion-resistant steel, ***.

 154 MEPS prices are an arithmetic average of the low transaction values identified in the EU, Asia, and North

America, converted into U.S. dollars.

 155 Original data are published in metric tons, and were converted to short tons using the following conversion

factor: 1 metric ton = 1.102311 short tons. MEPS, World Carbon Steel Product Prices, found at

http://www.meps.co.uk, retrieved September 6, 2006 and updated on November 8, 2006 and December 1, 2006. 

(continued...)

CORE-IV-33

Table CORE-IV-66

Coated steel sheet: Global and regional consumption of coated steel sheet, 2000-05

* * * * * * *

Table CORE-IV-67

Coated steel sheet: Forecast of global and regional consumption of coated steel sheet, 2005-10

* * * * * * *

Prices

The Commission asked producers, importers, and purchasers to compare market prices of

corrosion-resistant steel in U.S. and non-U.S. markets. Five producers reported that U.S. prices are

generally higher than prices in other markets.152 *** reported that U.S. prices are higher than prices in

Europe but about the same as prices in China. Three importers reported that U.S. prices are generally the

same as prices in other markets. *** reported that U.S. prices are *** per ton higher than prices in other

markets. *** reported that U.S. prices used to be higher than prices in other markets but that the gap has

narrowed almost completely recently. *** reported that U.S. prices are lower than prices in Europe and

Japan but higher than prices in Korea. *** reported that June 2006 spot market prices were relatively the

same in the United States, Canada, and Europe but that prices in Asia were lower.

Most purchasers were unable to compare prices, but three purchasers reported that U.S. prices are

comparable to prices in other markets. Five purchasers reported that U.S. prices tend to be higher than

prices in other markets, and one purchaser reported that U.S. prices tend to be lower than prices in other

markets.153 *** reported that prices in the United States and Western Europe were similar until late 2003,

when U.S. prices increased relative to prices in Western Europe. *** reported that in 2004 and late 2005

to the present, imports were priced lower than U.S.-produced corrosion-resistant steel, but that in the first

half of 2005, imports were higher priced.

Published price data are available from several reputable sources, although often such data are

available by subscription only and cannot be reproduced without consent of their publisher. These data,

however, are collected based on different product categories, timing, and commercial considerations, and

so may not be directly comparable with each other. Moreover, such data are distinct from the pricing data

presented in Part CORE-V of this report, which are collected directly from U.S. producers and U.S.

importers according to precise product definitions. 

As reported by MEPS, world prices for hot-dip galvanized corrosion-resistant steel declined

irregularly between January 2000 and January 2002, decreasing from $432 per short ton to $312 per short

ton during that time.154 Thereafter, prices recovered, slowly at first, then more rapidly, surpassing $400

per short ton in July 2002, $500 per short ton in February 2004, $600 per short ton in April 2004, and

$700 per short ton in September 2004. World prices declined from $753 per short ton in December 2004

to $611 per short ton in July 2005, but have since recovered, reaching $789 per short ton in August 2006

before decreasing in September 2006.155
 155 (...continued)

This pricing series is available to the public and its use is unrestricted.

 156 Ibid.

 157 MEPS, International Steel Review, January 2005 - November 2006.

CORE-IV-34

Similarly, world prices for electro-zinc corrosion-resistant steel declined irregularly between

January 2000 and March 2002, decreasing from $456 per short ton to $358 per short ton during that time. 

Thereafter, prices recovered, slowly at first, then more rapidly, surpassing $400 per short ton in October

2003, $500 per short ton in March 2004, $600 per short ton in May 2004, and $700 per short ton in

October 2004. World prices declined from a peak of $757 per short ton in March 2005 to $628 per short

ton in February 2006, but have since recovered, reaching $733 per short ton in August 2006, before

decreasing in September 2006.156

Country-specific monthly transaction prices for certain galvanized steel sheets are also compiled

by MEPS,157 and show monthly price fluctuations across major producing countries. Table CORE-IV-68

presents negotiated transaction prices for HDG corrosion-resistant steel (“hot-dip galvanized coils”) in

select subject markets. According to data compiled by MEPS for January 2005 through November 2006,

negotiated transaction prices fell beginning in January 2005, and, except for the United States and Canada

(where prices began rising in the third quarter of 2005), did not begin to recover until March and April of

2006. By the summer or early fall of 2006, prices in the United States, the EU, Canada, and France had

reached period highs, and Germany reached its period high price in November. In October 2006,

however, prices in both the United States and in Canada dropped noticeably, a shift that continued in the

United States in November. In the first and second quarters of 2005, U.S. prices were either lower than

the prices in other countries, or decreasing relative to those prices. In 2006, prices in the United States

decreased relative to European prices and began to fall below European prices but were consistently

higher than prices in Japan and Korea. The United States began 2006 with prices lower than those in

Canada, but by the summer U.S. prices were higher than Canadian prices.

Table CORE-IV-69 presents negotiated transaction prices for corrosion-resistant steel (“electrozinc coated coils”) in select subject markets. According to data compiled by MEPS for January 2005

through November 2006, negotiated transaction prices in the United States and the EU generally fell from

January 2005 through the second half of 2005, at which point they stabilized, and then generally began

increasing in the second and third quarters of 2006, though never reaching their initial levels. In October

2006, prices in both the United States and in the EU dropped noticeably, then stabilized in November. 

Prices in Japan and Korea rose in the first quarter of 2005. They trended downward from the third quarter

of 2005 through the first quarter of 2006, before rising again in the second and third quarters of 2006. 

Even by the fall of 2006, however, none of the countries’ prices had regained the highest price levels they

had achieved in 2005.

Table CORE-IV-68

Hot-dip galvanized (HD Galv) coils: Negotiated transaction prices (ex mill) for prime hot-dip galvanized steel,

by subject country and by month, January 2005-October 2006

* * * * * * *

Table CORE-IV-69

Electro-zinc coated coils (E Zinc): Negotiated transaction prices (ex mill) for prime electro-galvanized steel,

by subject country and by month, January 2005-October 2006

* * * * * * *

In addition, *** compiles country- and region-specific monthly prices for galvanized steel, as

presented in table CORE-IV-70. According to these data, U.S. prices were generally stable in the first
 158 Compiled from data published in ***.

 159 Ibid.

 160 Information presented in this section is primarily derived from the following sources: MEPS International

Steel Review, June-November 2006; ***; ***; and American Metal Market, “China’s Wuhan beginning trial run at

first of 3 new galvanizing lines,” August 23, 2006; American Metal Market, “U.S. flat-roll import tags fall; downturn

seen short-lived,” November 2, 2006; American Metal Market, “Duration of correction tied to imports, but execs say

it’s likely short-lived,” October 20, 2006; and American Metal Market, “Arcelor Mittal to cut output of flat-rolled

steel in Europe,” October 31, 2006.

 161 ***.

CORE-IV-35

half of 2000, before declining in the second half and throughout 2001. Reported U.S. prices recovered

through much of 2002, but then decreased during much of 2003. Reported U.S. prices rose sharply over

the course of 2004, retrenched in 2005, but then strengthened noticeably from late 2005 through mid2006, before decreasing moderately in the summer and early fall. German, UK, EU export, Japan export,

and Far East prices exhibited similar trends during 2000-01, although Japan export prices did not begin to

decline until later in 2000, and fell less markedly than prices in other markets. German, UK, EU export,

and Far East prices, like U.S. prices, increased during 2002, while Japan export prices were stable. While

trends diverged during the following year, prices in none of the other surveyed markets showed declines

of the same magnitude as U.S. prices between late 2002 and late 2003. In 2004, however, prices in all

surveyed markets reportedly moved higher; similarly, like U.S. prices, prices in other markets (including

China) moderated during 2005 before moving sharply higher into the summer of 2006.158

Based on ***’s published monthly prices for galvanized steel, U.S. prices were generally higher

than non-U.S. prices. Over the 83-month period presented in table CORE-IV-70, U.S. prices were often

higher than German, EU export, and Far East (and later China) prices. As well, U.S. prices were

generally (though less frequently) higher than UK prices. Japan export prices, however, were more often

than not higher than U.S. prices, although not during 2006.159

Table CORE-IV-70

Galvanized steel: Prices for galvanized steel, by country or by region, and by month, January 2000-October

2006

* * * * * * *

Additional Global Supply and Demand Factors160

Worldwide, hot-dip galvanizing (“HDG”) capacity accounts for the large majority of sheet mills’

rated galvanizing capacity - *** percent, by ***’s estimate, compared to *** percent for

electrogalvanizing (“EG”) capacity. Both HDG and EG capacity are largely located in three regions: East

and South East Asia, Europe, and North America, in descending order of magnitude, although a notinsubstantial share of HDG is located outside of these regions. The following tabulation presents rated

capacities of galvanizing facilities, by region (in metric tons).161

* * * * * * *

While there are currently no safeguard measures in place for corrosion-resistant steel, several

countries implemented safeguard measures from 2002 to 2004. Table CORE-IV-71 summarizes the

countries, products covered, safeguard type, and implementation and termination dates.

Notwithstanding the impact of global safeguard actions on trade in corrosion-resistant steel,

exports worldwide increased between 2000 and 2005. As shown in table CORE-IV-72, exports even

increased in 2002 and 2003.
CORE-IV-36

Table CORE-IV-71

Steel safeguards imposed by foreign trade partners, 2002–05

Country Products covered Safeguard type

Implementation

 date

Termination

date

China

Subject products: Galvanized

sheet and organic-coated sheet.

Other products: Carbon steel slab,

plate, and sheet; electrical steel

sheets; tin mill products; stainless

steel plates and sheets; 

carbon steel bars, rebars, and wire;

carbon steel sections; and

iron or steel seamless pipes.

Provisional– Tariff rates ranging

from 7% to 26% on imports

exceeding quota levels. May 24, 2002 Nov. 19, 2002

China

Carbon steel sheet, and organiccoated sheet.

Electrical steel sheets.

Stainless steel sheet.

Definitive– Tariff quotas for the

first half year set at the average of 

imports over the prior 3 years plus

3-15%, depending on product.

Tariff quota for years 2 and 3

increased 3-15% over that of the

prior year, depending on product.

Tariff rates for above-quota

imports to decline, from the

second year, at the rate of 8% per

year and the specific annual rate

will be: 10.3-23.2% between Nov.

20, 2002, and May 23, 2003; 9.5-

21.3% between May 24, 2003,

and May 23, 2004; and 8.7-19.6%

between May 24, 2004 and May

23, 2005, depending on product. Nov. 20, 2002

December 26,

2003

European

Union

Carbon steel plate, sheet, strip,

and quarto plate. 

Other products: Alloy steel flatrolled products; electrical steel

sheets; tin mill products; carbon

and alloy steel bar and rebar;

stainless steel wire; and alloy steel

fittings and flanges. 

Provisional– Tariff rates for

above-quota imports range from

14.9% to 26.0% depending on

product. Mar. 29, 2002 Sept. 28, 2002

Hungary

Carbon steel plate, sheet, bar, rod,

sections, pipe, tube, hollow

profiles, wire-cloth, grill netting, and

fencing.

Tariff rate quota increases by

2.5% in each successive 6-

months period.

Tariff rates for above-quota

imports set between 15-25%,

depending on product, and

declines by 5% in each

successive 6-months period.

Provisional: June

3, 2002

Definitive: 

Apr. 2, 2003 May 1, 20041

Poland

Carbon steel uncoated, galvanized,

and organic-coated flat-rolled

products.

Carbon steel bar.

Electric steel sheets.

Iron or steel welded and seamless

tubes.

Definitive– Tariff rates on overquota imports are 9-15% during

Aug. 3, 2003 to Aug. 7, 2003; and

drop to 8-13% during Aug. 3,

2004, to Aug. 7, 2005, depending

on product. Mar. 8, 2003 May 1, 20041

Chile Carbon steel sheet, bar, and rod.

Definitive– Tariff rate of 10%

imposed on imports exceeding

quota levels. July 20023

 ( 2) 

 1

 Safeguards terminated with country’s accession to the European Union.

 2

 No termination date specified.

Source: World Trade Organization.
 162 This growth in demand, however, reportedly was not shared by EG steel.

CORE-IV-37

Table CORE-IV-72 

Corrosion-resistant steel: Exports from subject countries, top 10 nonsubject countries, and all other

countries, 2000-05

Exporting country 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Quantity (short tons)

Japan 3,658,784 3,362,340 4,299,832 4,465,937 4,740,787 4,423,171

Korea 2,358,554 2,390,511 2,429,481 2,732,612 2,927,076 3,126,184

Germany 3,030,482 2,985,656 3,727,173 3,842,676 4,270,117 3,736,272

France 2,493,209 2,345,592 2,212,343 2,274,787 2,244,523 2,166,447

Canada 470,094 425,784 637,440 719,140 653,587 777,377

Australia (see note) 294,178 335,729 276,563 250,101 206,005 97,073

Subtotal: Subject countries 12,305,302 11,845,611 13,582,832 14,285,254 15,042,095 14,326,523

Belgium 4,525,552 4,380,969 4,457,782 4,639,069 4,975,791 4,750,640

Taiwan 1,834,345 2,010,095 2,451,919 2,460,323 2,376,053 2,312,748

India 382,943 493,592 867,666 578,182 1,524,051 1,828,888

Austria 1,228,253 1,214,169 1,276,436 1,244,769 1,578,626 1,569,096

Netherlands 848,982 1,033,474 1,471,974 1,608,630 1,715,542 1,562,509

Italy 1,021,164 877,032 769,319 1,044,765 1,331,142 1,375,080

United States 849,902 807,549 705,012 664,590 740,255 1,061,327

Luxembourg 1,209,460 1,043,135 962,691 1,015,081 1,192,624 963,301

China 119,012 111,773 137,312 87,636 606,079 946,218

Hong Kong 708,154 620,263 792,229 842,223 824,995 708,992

Subtotal: Top 10 nonsubject 

countries 12,727,768 12,592,049 13,892,341 14,185,268 16,865,159 17,078,799

All other countries 6,098,166 5,569,294 6,326,573 6,398,311 6,066,508 5,733,147

World 31,131,236 30,006,955 33,801,745 34,868,833 37,973,762 37,138,469

Note.--Australia data are imports from Australia reported by partner countries because Australia export data are incomplete. 

Exports from Malaysia are excluded from this table because of data inconsistencies. HS codes included: 721030, 721041,

721049, 721061, 721069, 721070, 721220, 721230, 721240, and 721250.

Source: Global Trade Atlas.

According to published reports, U.S. mills entered the summer with backlogs stemming from

unplanned outages and labor disputes. Demand for corrosion-resistant steel, especially by automakers,

was reportedly somewhat less of a factor, while service centers reportedly began to re-stock inventories

over the summer. After working through the effects of unplanned outages in the first half of 2006, views

on supply availability going forward were more mixed, focusing on production cutbacks in response to

inventory drawdowns by services centers (projected to continue into the first quarter of 2007), weakening

demand in the auto sector, and slowing appliance sales.

The European market for flat products generally, including corrosion-resistant steel, continued to

experience relatively strong demand during the summer, albeit with an expected seasonal pause in

August.162 Market commentators also noted extended delivery times in Europe, reflecting both demand

for corrosion-resistant steel and, according to ***, “tight” supply-side management by European mills,

particularly Arcelor-Mittal offsetting a degree of caution by sheet buyers in the fall of 2006.
 163 See also American Metal Market, “China’s Wuhan beginning trial run at first of 3 new galvanizing lines,”

August 23, 2006, found at http://amm.com/2006-08-23__18-12-59.html, retrieved on September 24, 2006.

 164 LME Monthly Average Prices, http://www.lme.co.uk/dataprices_monthlyaverages.asp.

 165 Platt’s Metals Week, August 28, 2006, p. 6.

 166 Ibid.

CORE-IV-38

Demand in Asia is largely viewed as having rebounded since 2005, and over the course of the

summer and fall underlying demand in Japan was observed to be strong, although demand in Korea (and

Taiwan by the fall) was reportedly less so. Demand in the distribution chain, however, was viewed

somewhat less optimistically, and with the seasonal slowdown in late summer, *** pointed to potential

concerns in the sheet market generally (and market conditions in China more specifically) resulting from

continued growth in capacity combined with somewhat diminished export prospects.163 These concerns

were somewhat mitigated, however, as a result of rising auto sector demand and maintenance outages in

the fluctuating Chinese market.

Consolidation Among Global Producers

The trend of consolidation in the steel industry has encompassed U.S. firms (see Part CORE-III)

and foreign firms involved in the manufacture of corrosion-resistant steel. In particular, the merger of

Mittal Steel and Arcelor to create the largest steel company in the world has brought together two giant

companies, each itself the result of previous mergers and consolidations, with production facilities for

corrosion-resistant steel in the following countries: Algeria, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany,

Kazakstan, Macedonia, Poland, South Africa, and the United States. The merger of Kawasaki Steel and

NKK to form JFE Steel brought together the second and third largest steel companies in Japan, both of

which were producers of corrosion-resistant steel.

Global Raw Material Availability and Prices

In the production of corrosion-resistant steel, the most important material inputs are the coldrolled steel substrate and the zinc used as the coating material. The cold-rolled substrate is normally

produced from internally produced semifinished steel, although some producers are converters and

purchase the cold-rolled substrate from either domestic producers or importers. The availability of the

cold-rolled substrate has not been noted as a problem, although the price of cold-rolled steel has increased

due to increases in raw material prices, including those of iron ore, scrap, alloys, and energy.

The world price of zinc, used to coat galvanized steel, has increased rapidly beginning in early

2005. The price of zinc fell gradually from around $1,200 per metric ton in 2000 to around $800 per

metric ton in October 2003. The price was steady at that level through the first three quarters of 2003,

after which it gradually increased to about $1,300 per metric ton in the summer of 2005. Since then, the

price of zinc has increased rapidly, reaching $3,600 per metric ton in May of 2006, before easing to

around $3,300 per metric ton in August 2006.164

The increase in price has followed a rapid decline in stocks of zinc. LME warehouse stocks have

declined from nearly 800,000 metric tons in early 2004, to under 180,000 metric tons in August 2006, the

lowest inventory level in many years. The global zinc market was in deficit by 40,000 metric tons in the

first six months of 2006, as world demand increased more than world output.165 Most of the increases in

demand were in Asia, where Chinese demand was estimated at 1.5 million tons, some 29 percent of the

global total.166
 167 This section discusses the North American Free Trade Agreement. For information on the European Union

and Mercosur, please refer to Part CTL-IV.

 168 Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, found at http://archives.cbc.ca/IDD-1-73-

536/politics_economy/free_trade/.

 169 Bilateral and Regional Negotiations, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, January 2006, www.ustr.gov.

 170 The North America Free Trade Agreement, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, June 2006, found

at http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/nafta-alena/questions-en.asp.

 171 “NAFTA: A Strong Record of Success,” Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, March 2006, found at

http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Document_Library/Fact_Sheets/2006/asset_upload_file242_9156.pdf, retrieved on

September 23, 2006.

CORE-IV-39

Regional Developments167

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), a free trade agreement between Canada,

Mexico, and the United States, went into effect on January 1, 1994. This agreement was an expansion of

the earlier Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement of 1989, which included only the United States and

Canada.168 NAFTA called for the immediate elimination of duties on half of all U.S. goods shipped to

Mexico and Canada, and the gradual phasing out of other tariffs over a period of about 14 years. NAFTA

created the world’s largest free trade area, which now links 435 million people producing $13.8 trillion

worth of goods and services.169 

Each NAFTA country retains its external tariffs vis-à-vis non-members' goods and levies a lower

tariff on goods "originating" from the other NAFTA members. Rules of origin provide the basis for

customs officials to make determinations about which goods are entitled preferential tariff treatment

under the NAFTA.170 According to USTR, “From 1993 to 2005, trade among the NAFTA nations

climbed 173 percent, from $297 billion to $810 billion.”171

 1

 Cold-rolled steel is the substrate for corrosion-resistant steel.

 2

 Rising iron ore costs in 2006 reportedly have pushed steel price forecasts for the second half of 2006 up by

about 19 percent. “Steel prices are likely to jump, adding to manufacturers’ woes,” The Wall Street Journal, May

24, 2006.

 3

 U.S. producers have added surcharges, increased coating weight extras, or both due to rising zinc costs. 

“Buyers grumble as mills seek another sheet hike,” American Metal Market, June 28, 2006. Zinc prices are

expected to remain high in 2007, in part due to strong demand for galvanized products in the United States, the EU,

and China. “Price of zinc to stay high into ‘07,” American Metal Market, October 10, 2006.

CORE-V-1

PART CORE-V: PRICING AND RELATED INFORMATION

FACTORS AFFECTING PRICES

Raw Materials

The cost of raw materials, primarily iron ore, coal, and steel scrap that is used to produce coldrolled steel,1

 is an important component of the total cost of producing corrosion-resistant steel. Public

data show that prices in the United States of iron ore and coal rose during the January 2000 to September

2006 period, with the increase for iron ore occurring primarily in 2005 and 2006 (figure CORE-V-1).2

The price of steel scrap in the United States decreased in 2000 and 2001 and then increased markedly. 

After a decrease in early 2005, scrap prices then increased through mid-2006 and have only fallen slightly

in recent months. Public data also show that the prices of zinc and aluminum, which are the primary

coating materials used for corrosion-resistant steel, began to increase in 2004. These price increases then

accelerated in late 2005 through 2006 (figure CORE-V-2).3

Energy costs are another important factor in the production of corrosion-resistant steel. Both

natural gas prices and electricity prices were higher in January-July 2006 than in any of the full years

between 2000 and 2005, as shown in the following tabulation:

Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 20063

U.S. natural gas

industrial price1 $4.45 $5.24 $4.02 $5.81 $6.41 $7.09 $8.21

Electricity industrial

price2 4.64 5.04 4.88 5.13 5.11 5.27 5.93

 1 In dollars per thousand cubic feet.

 2

 In cents per kilowatt-hour.

 3

 Monthly average for January through July.

Sources: U.S. Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.doe.gov.
CORE-V-2

Figure CORE-V-1

Raw material costs: Producer price indexes (January 2000=100) of iron ore, coal, and iron and

steel scrap in the United States, by months, January 2000-September 2006

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, November 7, 2006.

Figure CORE-V-2

Coating material costs: London Metal Exchange cash prices of zinc and aluminum, by months,

January 2000-October 2006

Source: American Metal Market, November 7, 2006.

50

70

90

110

130

150

170

190

210

230

250

Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06

January 2000 = 100

Iron ore Coal Iron and steel scrap

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

cents per pound

Zinc Aluminum
 4

 Rather than including zinc in raw material surcharges, U.S. producers reportedly use coating or galvanizing

“extras,” which are calculated based on zinc prices and are dependent on the amount of zinc in the coatings. “Zinc’s

new zoom,” American Metal Market, August 18, 2006, found at http://amm.com/2006-08-18__11-07-27.html,

retrieved September 1, 2006.

 5

 *** reported that export taxes on scrap in Russia, Ukraine, and other countries have driven up world scrap

prices. *** reported that it expects raw material prices, particularly for steel scrap, iron ore, and energy products, to

remain high in the foreseeable future.

 6

 Nucor and SDI reported that they have had contracts that provide for price increases and decreases based on

changes in some raw material costs. Due to increases in the price of zinc, the two companies reported that they have

included provisions for zinc price adjustments in non-automotive contracts for 2007 but that automotive

manufacturers have not accepted the new provisions in their contracts. Nucor and SDI’s posthearing brief, answers

to Commissioners’ questions, p. 43.

 7

 ***. In addition, Mittal reported that domestic producers have not been able to fully pass along increased raw

material costs to customers, particularly for large customers with contractual arrangements. Hearing transcript, p.

127 (Schorsch). However, auto producers reported that ***. In addition, auto producers reported that ***. Auto

producers’ prehearing brief, pp. 28 and 30.

 8

 These estimates are based on a weighted average of HTS statistical reporting numbers 7210.30.0030,

7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030,

7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090,

7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, and 7212.50.0000.

CORE-V-3

Producers and importers were asked to what extent changes in the prices of raw materials had

affected the selling price of corrosion-resistant steel since 2000. Fifteen producers reported that raw

material prices, including the prices of coal, iron ore, hot- and cold-rolled coil, steel scrap, coating

materials,4

 and energy-related products, increased substantially in late 2003 or 2004 through 2005.5 Most

importers reported that raw material price increases had a dramatic effect on corrosion-resistant steel

prices, especially since 2004.

Ten producers reported using raw material surcharges or price increases during the duration of

long-term contracts.6

 Two producers reported implementing surcharges on a pass-through basis, and two

producers reported that they were not able to pass through the full amount.7

 Three producers reported

using surcharges tied to index values, and one producer reported using a fuel surcharge. *** reported

using temporary surcharges that went as high as *** per ton beginning in 2004 but reported that it no

longer uses surcharges, and *** reported that it has not used surcharges in 2005 or 2006.

Three importers reported using surcharges or price increases during the duration of long-term

contracts. Two importers reported that the raw material surcharge is tied to the zinc price on the London

Metal Exchange.

Transportation Costs to the United States

Transportation costs for shipping corrosion-resistant steel to the United States (excluding U.S.

inland costs) from the six subject countries are estimated for 2005 in the tabulation that follows. These

estimates are derived from official import data for the HTS statistical reporting numbers for the subject

product in 2005 and represent the transportation and other charges on imports valued on a c.i.f. basis, as

compared with a customs value basis.8
 9

 ***, however, reported that inland transportation costs accounted for 15 percent of the total cost of corrosionresistant steel, and *** reported that inland transportation costs accounted for 20 percent.

 10 Joint respondents reported that the substantial decline in the U.S. dollar limits the potential benefits to foreign

producers of increasing shipments to the U.S. market. Joint respondent interested parties’ prehearing brief, p. 24 and

exhibit 3. In addition, Dofasco reported that the appreciation of the Canadian dollar has made increased U.S.

shipments less likely. Hearing transcript, pp. 401-402 (Davey).

CORE-V-4

Country

Estimated shipping cost 

in 2005

(in percent)

Australia 13.06

Canada 1.74

France 7.20

Germany 6.93

Japan 9.05

Korea 7.33

U.S. Inland Transportation Costs

U.S. inland transportation costs for delivery of corrosion-resistant steel vary widely. Fourteen

responding producers estimated that U.S. inland transportation costs ranged from 3 to 8 percent of their

costs of corrosion-resistant steel. Importers reported that U.S. inland transportation costs generally

ranged from 1 to 8 percent of their costs of corrosion-resistant steel.9

 Twenty of the 34 responding

purchasers reported that inland transportation costs are a major factor in their firms’ consideration of

which suppliers to source from, and most reported that inland transportation costs accounted for 1.5 to 10

percent of the total cost of the corrosion-resistant steel that they purchase. ***, however, reported that

inland transportation costs accounted for as much as 12 to 15 percent of the total cost when sourcing from

certain suppliers.

Sixteen of the 17 responding producers reported that they arranged delivery, and ten shipped 70

percent or more of their corrosion-resistant steel between 101 and 1,000 miles. Three producers reported

shipping 60 percent or more of their corrosion-resistant steel less than 100 miles. Among importers, 13 of

the 25 responding firms reported that they arranged delivery, 11 reported that the purchaser arranged

delivery, and one reported that both producer and purchaser arranged delivery. While eight importers

(seven importing from subject countries) reported shipping 75 percent or more of their corrosion-resistant

steel less than 100 miles, five importers (all importing from subject countries) shipped at least 70 percent

of their corrosion-resistant steel between 101 and 1,000 miles, and three importers (two importing from

subject countries) shipped at least 80 percent more than 1,000 miles.

Exchange Rates10

Quarterly data reported by the International Monetary Fund indicate that both the real and

nominal values of the Australian dollar appreciated and then depreciated relative to the U.S. dollar during

the period for which data were collected (figure CORE-V-3), while the real and nominal values of the

Canadian dollar, the euro (France and Germany), and the Korean won first depreciated and then

appreciated relative to the U.S. dollar. The nominal value of the Japanese yen fluctuated but was
CORE-V-5

approximately the same in early 2006 as it was in early 2000, while the real value of the currency

depreciated relative to the U.S. dollar.

Figure CORE-V-3

Exchange rates: Indices of the nominal and real exchange rates of the Australian, Canadian,

French, German, Japanese, and Korean currencies relative to the U.S. dollar, by quarters, January

2000-June 2006

Figure continued on next page.

Australia

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Nominal Real

Jan-Mar 2000=100

Canada

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Nominal Real

Jan-Mar 2000=100
CORE-V-6

Figure CORE-V-3--Continued

Exchange rates: Indices of the nominal and real exchange rates of the Australian, Canadian,

French, German, Japanese, and Korean currencies relative to the U.S. dollar, by quarters, January

2000-June 2006

Figure continued on next page.

France

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Nominal Real

Jan-Mar 2000=100

Germany

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Nominal Real

Jan-Mar 2000=100
CORE-V-7

Figure CORE-V-3--Continued

Exchange rates: Indices of the nominal and real exchange rates of the Australian, Canadian,

French, German, Japanese, and Korean currencies relative to the U.S. dollar, by quarters, January

2000-June 2006

Source: International Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics, retrieved from http://ifs.apdi.net/imf/about.asp

on October 26, 2006.

Japan

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Nominal Real

Jan-Mar 2000=100

Korea

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Nominal Real

Jan-Mar 2000=100
 11 *** reported that base prices are adjusted to meet competitive market prices where commercially necessary.

 12 *** reported that it contacts five suppliers; three U.S. producers and two importers.

 13 *** reported that it issues a request for quotation annually to approximately 50 suppliers.

 14 Auto producers reported that they generally have contracts with individual producers to supply steel for certain

auto parts and that the life of the vehicles is multiple years. Hearing transcript, pp. 431-433 (Cover). Dofasco

reported that auto companies typically source steel for auto parts from an individual producer on a multi-year basis

and that changes in the level of Canadian exports have been a result of auto producers shifting production of certain

vehicles between plants in Canada and plants in the United States and Mexico. Hearing transcript, pp. 394-397

(Kenny) and Canadian respondent interested parties’ prehearing brief, pp. 5-7.

 15 U.S. Steel reported that automotive and appliance end users tend to favor longer-term contracts, whereas the

construction industry is more short-term and project-based. Hearing transcript, pp. 231-232 (Goodish). Nucor

(continued...)

CORE-V-8

PRICING PRACTICES

Pricing Methods

Producers generally reported determining prices on a transaction-by-transaction basis, based on

market conditions and raw material costs. Six responding producers reported having contracts for

multiple shipments, four producers reported using base prices and published extras, and three producers

reported using price lists.11 Importers also reported determining prices on a transaction-by-transaction

basis based on market conditions. Four importers reported contract pricing, and none reported using price

lists. *** reported using a pricing matrix, and *** reported using a computer model.

Most purchasers reported contacting between two and six suppliers before making a purchase.12

Five purchasers reported only contacting one supplier, and three purchasers reported contacting up to nine

suppliers.13 Thirty of the 34 responding purchasers reported that purchases of corrosion-resistant steel

usually involve negotiations between supplier and purchaser, with some explaining that prices are market

driven, but that the base price and extras are part of the negotiations. Some purchasers reported that they

give target prices, with four purchasers reporting that they quote competing prices and six reporting that

they do not. Sixteen purchasers reported varying their purchases from a given supplier based on the price

offered for a specified period, with the time period being monthly or quarterly. Four purchasers reported

that they vary their purchases annually or based on the length of their contracts.14

Sixteen of the 34 responding purchasers reported that the price of corrosion-resistant steel

changes monthly or quarterly, with nine reporting annually and five reporting that it varies based on set

contracts. Purchasers reported that market conditions, raw material prices, inventory levels, capacity, and

transportation costs are the main reasons for price changes.

AK Steel (4), U.S. Steel (3), Nucor (2), and Corus (2) were named by purchasers as influencing

the U.S. wholesale market price of corrosion-resistant steel since 2000, citing their initiation of raw

material surcharges and extras and increases in those surcharges and extras.

Sales Terms and Discounts

Fourteen producers and seven importers reported that they normally quote f.o.b. prices; one

producer and eight importers commonly quote on a delivered basis; and three producers and one importer

reported doing both. Producers’ sales terms are generally 0.5/10 net 30 days, and importers’ are generally

net 30 days. Three producers reported that sales terms are net 30 days, and three reported that sales terms

are 0.75/10 net 30 days. Eight of 20 producers reported that 85 percent or more of their sales are on a

spot basis. Six producers (***) reported that 60 percent or more of their sales are on a long-term contract

basis,15 three reported that 58 percent or more of their sales are on a short-term contract basis, and the
 15 (...continued)

reported that its contract business was generally with automotive, appliance, and HVAC end users. Hearing

transcript, p. 232 (DiMicco). Steel Dynamics reported that its contract business covered all market segments. 

Hearing transcript, p. 232 (Nolan).

 16 U.S. producers reported that some of their multi-year contracts did not allow for increased prices, despite

increased raw material costs and that auto companies have been pushing for shorter-term contracts. Hearing

transcript, pp. 167-168, 226, and 235-236 (Scherrbaum), pp. 224-225 and 235 (Schorsch), and pp. 248 and 295

(Goodish). However, some of the auto producers reported that in the past, U.S. producers valued high-volume,

contract-based business but that since 2004, U.S. suppliers have been reluctant to enter into long-term contracts,

which used to involve flat or declining prices but that now come at a price premium. In addition, some contracts

now contain volume limitations. Hearing transcript, pp. 373-374 (DeSandre), pp. 377-378 (Mohatarem), and p. 434

(King) and auto producers’ posthearing brief, appendix, pp. 32-40.

 17 *** reported long-term contracts of 6 to 12 months, and *** reported long-term contracts of three years.

 18 Auto producers reported that it is common for long-term contracts between suppliers and auto companies to

contain estimated volumes for each part number and that it requires flexibility to supply the volume of steel for the

parts as production levels vary. Hearing transcript, pp. 431-433 (Cover). Toyota reported that in 2005, it

approached suppliers with an increase in volume but that suppliers were not able to support it, which was a change

from Toyota’s past experience with steel producers. Hearing transcript, p. 433 (Nielsen).

 19 Products 1 through 7 are the same pricing items as specified in the first reviews. Product 8 was added as

requested by the joint respondent interested parties.

CORE-V-9

remaining producers reported a mix of long-term, short-term, and spot sales.16 Among importers, nine of

the 23 responding firms reported that 75 percent or more of their sales are on a short-term contract basis,

and eight reported that 95 percent or more of their sales are on a spot basis. Only four importers reported

some sales on a long-term contract basis.

Producers generally reported that long-term contracts are from one to two years,17 with either

price only or both price and quantity fixed, and no meet-or-release provisions.18 The majority of

producers reported that renegotiations are possible for long-term contracts. Short-term contracts are

generally from one to six months, with either price only or both price and quantity fixed, and no

renegotiations or meet-or-release provisions. Generally, importers reported that long-term contracts are

from one to three years with both price and quantity fixed and no renegotiations or meet-or-release

provisions. Importers also reported that short-term contracts are usually one to six months in duration,

with both price and quantity fixed, no renegotiations, and no meet-or-release provisions.

Ten of the 17 responding producers reported having a discount policy; five reporting volume

discounts, two reporting discounts for early payment, and three not specifying a specific discount policy. 

Nineteen importers reported that they did not have a discount policy. Three importers reported offering

volume discounts and one reported offering discounts for early payment. No producer reported offering

financing to U.S. purchasers of corrosion-resistant steel, and two importers reported that they may offer

extended terms up to 90 days.

PRICE DATA

The Commission requested U.S. producers and importers of corrosion-resistant steel to provide

quarterly data for the total quantity and f.o.b. value of corrosion-resistant steel that was shipped to

unrelated customers in the U.S. market. Data were requested for contract and non-contract sales for the

period January 2000 to June 2006. The products for which pricing data were requested are as follows:19
 20 *** reported that the only product it produced during the review period was *** but since it represented ***

percent of its total production, it considered *** data as “negligible” and did not report any pricing data. ***

reported that within the narrow gauge ranges specified for ***, there was only a remote possibility that it produced

the products and so did not report any pricing data. *** reported annual pricing data. *** could not report data for

2000 or 2001. *** reported estimates of contract and non-contract sales based on whether customers were primarily

contract or non-contract customers. *** reported that *** were the only pricing products for which it would have

had shipments since 2000 but that it could not report any data due to its system setup and routine system purging.

 21 *** reported that it does not track pricing data by coating weight or grade and so did not report any pricing

data. *** reported some data for imports from Japan where the value included ***, and so these data are not

included in the tables. *** only reported pricing data from nonsubject countries, specifically ***.

CORE-V-10

Product 1.–Hot-dipped galvanized carbon steel sheet, in coils, ASTM A-653, DQSK,

minimum spangle, G-40 to G-60 coating weight (Z120 to Z180 in metric coating weight), 40

inches through 70 inches in width, 0.018 inches to under 0.020 inches in thickness;

Product 2.–Aluminum-zinc alloy coated carbon steel sheet, in coils, hot dipped, structural

quality, ASTM A-792, Grade 50, AZ50, 40 inches through 49 inches in width, 0.019 inches

through 0.0219 inches in thickness; this product has a coating of 55 percent aluminum, 43.5

percent zinc, and 1.5 percent silicon, and has a variety of product names worldwide,

including “Galvalume,” “Zincalume,” “Aluzink,” “Zinkalit,” and “Zalutite”;

Product 3.–Aluminized or aluminum-coated carbon steel sheet, in coils, ASTM A-463, Type

1, CS Type B, T-140 coating, 40 inches through 50 inches in width, 0.044 inches through

0.052 inches in thickness; this product is hot-dipped, with an aluminum-silicon coating

consisting of 5 to 11 percent silicon and the balance aluminum;

Product 4.–Hot-dipped galvanized carbon steel sheet, in coils, ASTM A-653, structural 

quality, Grade 80, <G60, regular or minimum spangle, not annealed, 40 inches through 70 

inches in width, 0.018 inches to under 0.020 inches in thickness;

Product 5.–Hot-dipped Zn-Iron (galvannealed) carbon steel sheet, in coils, ASTM A-653, A50 or lower coating weight, forming steel (DQSK), 40 inches through 70 inches in width, 

0.022 inches to under 0.044 inches in thickness;

Product 6.–Electrolytically zinc-coated carbon steel sheet, in coils, ASTM A-879, 50-90 

grams/square meter per side coating, without organic coating, forming steel, 40 inches to 

under 60 inches in width, 0.022 to under 0.044 in thickness;

Product 7.–Hot-dipped Zn-Iron (galvannealed) carbon steel sheet, in coils, coating weight 

45A-45A, 24 inches to under 40 inches in width, 0.060 to under 0.085 in thickness; and

Product 8.–Hot-dipped galvanized carbon steel sheet, in coils, bake hardenable, 40 inches 

through 70 inches in width, 0.020 inches through 0.035 inches in thickness, coating weight 

60G-60G.

Thirteen U.S. producers20 and 10 importers21 provided usable pricing data for sales of the

requested products, although not all firms reported pricing for all products for all quarters. Pricing data

reported by these firms, shown in tables CORE-V-1 to CORE-V-16 and figures CORE-V-4 to CORE-V11, accounted for 3.3 percent of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of corrosion-resistant steel, *** percent
CORE-V-11

of U.S. imports from Canada, *** percent of U.S. imports from Germany, *** percent of U.S. imports

from Japan, and *** percent of U.S. imports from Korea in 2005.

Table CORE-V-1

Corrosion-resistant steel: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of contract sales as reported

by U.S. producers and importers of product 1, and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters,

January 2000-June 2006

* * * * * * *

Table CORE-V-2

Corrosion-resistant steel: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of non-contract sales as

reported by U.S. producers of product 1, by quarters, January 2000-June 2006

* * * * * * *

Table CORE-V-3

Corrosion-resistant steel: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of contract sales as reported

by U.S. producers and importers of product 2, and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters,

January 2000-June 2006

* * * * * * *

Table CORE-V-4

Corrosion-resistant steel: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of non-contract sales as

reported by U.S. producers of product 2, by quarters, January 2000-June 2006

* * * * * * *

Table CORE-V-5

Corrosion-resistant steel: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of contract sales as reported

by U.S. producers and importers of product 3, and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters,

January 2000-June 2006

* * * * * * *

Table CORE-V-6

Corrosion-resistant steel: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of non-contract sales as

reported by U.S. producers of product 3, by quarters, January 2000-June 2006

* * * * * * *

Table CORE-V-7

Corrosion-resistant steel: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of contract sales as reported

by U.S. producers and importers of product 4, and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters,

January 2000-June 2006

* * * * * * *

Table CORE-V-8

Corrosion-resistant steel: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of non-contract sales as

reported by U.S. producers and importers of product 4, and margins of underselling/(overselling), by

quarters, January 2000-June 2006

* * * * * * *
CORE-V-12

Table CORE-V-9

Corrosion-resistant steel: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of contract sales as reported

by U.S. producers and importers of product 5, and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters,

January 2000-June 2006

* * * * * * *

Table CORE-V-10

Corrosion-resistant steel: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of non-contract sales as

reported by U.S. producers and importers of product 5, and margins of underselling/(overselling), by

quarters, January 2000-June 2006

* * * * * * *
CORE-V-13

Table CORE-V-11

Corrosion-resistant steel: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of contract sales as reported

by U.S. producers and importers of product 6,1

 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters,

January 2000-June 2006

Period

U.S. producers Imports from Germany,2

 Japan, and Korea (supressed)

Contract sales

Quantity Price Quantity Price Margin

Short tons Per short ton Short tons Per short ton Percent

2000:

 Jan.-Mar. 63,349 $659.05 *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 66,825 657.70 *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 59,579 648.22 *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 57,309 641.56 *** *** ***

2001:

 Jan.-Mar. 49,218 630.01 *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 60,923 629.91 *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 44,350 620.88 *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 45,393 611.92 *** *** ***

2002:

 Jan.-Mar. 47,189 623.58 *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 54,298 622.37 *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 45,434 628.12 *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 47,263 638.46 *** *** ***

2003:

 Jan.-Mar. 41,289 666.68 *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 40,353 658.77 *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 38,010 654.74 *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 38,001 645.44 *** *** ***

2004:

 Jan.-Mar. 36,863 674.32 *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 37,244 752.60 *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 30,145 791.92 *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 27,308 759.78 *** *** ***

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. 37,990 750.59 *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 40,591 763.81 *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 35,100 717.47 *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 42,231 730.99 *** *** ***

2006:

 Jan.-Mar. 46,153 789.84 *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 45,062 797.95 *** *** ***

 1

 Product 6.–Electrolytically zinc-coated carbon steel sheet, in coils, ASTM A-879, 50-90 grams per square meter per side

coating, without organic coating, forming steel, 40" to under 60" in width, 0.022" to under 0.044" in thickness.

 2

 Data for imports from Germany have been revised since the prehearing staff report.

Source: Compiled from information submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
CORE-V-14

Table CORE-V-12

Corrosion-resistant steel: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of non-contract sales as

reported by U.S. producers of product 6,1

 by quarters, January 2000-June 20062

Period

U.S. producers

Non-contract sales

Quantity Price

Short tons Per short ton

2000:

 Jan.-Mar. 12,801 $551.30

 Apr.-June 13,154 587.92

 July-Sept. 16,019 551.00

 Oct.-Dec. 12,474 546.05

2001:

 Jan.-Mar. 10,766 518.84

 Apr.-June 8,493 543.00

 July-Sept. 6,698 527.94

 Oct.-Dec. 8,460 470.34

2002:

 Jan.-Mar. 14,582 533.80

 Apr.-June 11,759 541.82

 July-Sept. 9,946 559.32

 Oct.-Dec. 10,471 579.33

2003:

 Jan.-Mar. 8,811 535.17

 Apr.-June 6,969 540.99

 July-Sept. 6,468 608.21

 Oct.-Dec. 6,868 537.29

2004:

 Jan.-Mar. 7,016 638.08

 Apr.-June 10,139 780.83

 July-Sept. 7,467 870.01

 Oct.-Dec. 4,922 840.91

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. 7,249 775.45

 Apr.-June 6,408 844.13

 July-Sept. 5,795 746.34

 Oct.-Dec. 5,850 772.31

2006:

 Jan.-Mar. 6,008 771.73

 Apr.-June 7,673 804.67

 1

 Product 6.–Electrolytically zinc-coated carbon steel sheet, in coils, ASTM A-879, 50-90 grams per square meter per side

coating, without organic coating, forming steel, 40" to under 60" in width, 0.022" to under 0.044" in thickness.

 2

 ***.

Source: Compiled from information submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
CORE-V-15

Table CORE-V-13

Corrosion-resistant steel: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of contract sales as reported

by U.S. producers and importers of product 7, and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters,

January 2000-June 2006

* * * * * * *

Table CORE-V-14

Corrosion-resistant steel: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of non-contract sales as

reported by U.S. producers of product 7, by quarters, January 2000-June 2006

* * * * * * *

Table CORE-V-15

Corrosion-resistant steel: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of contract sales as reported

by U.S. producers and importers of product 8, and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters,

January 2000-June 2006

* * * * * * *

Table CORE-V-16

Corrosion-resistant steel: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of non-contract sales as

reported by U.S. producers and importers of product 8, and margins of underselling/(overselling), by

quarters, January 2000-June 2006

* * * * * * *

Figure CORE-V-4

Corrosion-resistant steel: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices per short ton as reported by 

U.S. producers and importers of product 1, by quarters, January 2000-June 2006

* * * * * * *

Figure CORE-V-5

Corrosion-resistant steel: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices per short ton as reported by 

U.S. producers and importers of product 2, by quarters, January 2000-June 2006

* * * * * * *

Figure CORE-V-6

Corrosion-resistant steel: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices per short ton as reported by 

U.S. producers and importers of product 3, by quarters, January 2000-June 2006

* * * * * * *

Figure CORE-V-7

Corrosion-resistant steel: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices per short ton as reported by 

U.S. producers and importers of product 4, by quarters, January 2000-June 2006

* * * * * * *

Figure CORE-V-8

Corrosion-resistant steel: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices per short ton as reported by 

U.S. producers and importers of product 5, by quarters, January 2000-June 2006

* * * * * * *
 22 Mittal announced a $30 per ton increase on coated sheet products effective with July 2006 shipments. The

move reportedly puts its prices more in line with other competitors. “Mittal reevaluates mart, ups sheet product

tags,” American Metal Market, May 24, 2006, found at http://amm.com/2006-05-23__15-56-26.html, retrieved

September 1, 2006. Nucor, Mittal, and U.S. Steel announced a $20 per ton increase on hot-dipped galvanized sheet

products effective August 1, 2006. “Flat-rolled demand seen holding firm to year-end,” American Metal Market,

July 4, 2006, found at http://amm.com/2006-07-03__17-44-39.html, retrieved September 1, 2006. California Steel

Industries and USS-POSCO increased prices in both July and August 2006, in part due to rising zinc costs. “West

Coast braces for next round of flat-rolled hikes,” American Metal Market, June 6, 2006, found at

http://amm.com/2006-06-06__14-58-20.html, retrieved September 1, 2006. However, California Steel Industries

announced a cut in galvanized prices for October 2006 and USS-POSCO cancelled a planned increase in price. 

“West Coast flat-roll prices on course for October drop,” American Metal Market, August 17, 2006, found at

http://amm.com/2006-08-17__16-02-49.html, retrieved September 1, 2006.

 23 Mittal reported that products 1 through 4 are typically for customers in non-automotive sectors, such as

construction, and that products 5 though 8 are higher value-added products for the automotive sector. Mittal’s

posthearing brief, answer to Commissioner Koplan’s question 1. Dofasco reported that product 8, a bake hardenable

product, is a typical contractual-priced product and that contract pricing is still catching up to market pricing. 

Hearing transcript, pp. 511-512 (Kenny).

 24 Mittal reported that recently negotiated contracts for 2007 will reflect price increases because long-term

contract prices have recently lagged behind spot prices. Mittal’s posthearing brief, answer to Commissioner

Hillman’s question 1.

CORE-V-16

Figure CORE-V-9

Corrosion-resistant steel: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices per short ton as reported by 

U.S. producers and importers of product 6, by quarters, January 2000-June 2006

* * * * * * *

Figure CORE-V-10

Corrosion-resistant steel: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices per short ton as reported by 

U.S. producers and importers of product 7, by quarters, January 2000-June 2006

* * * * * * *

Figure CORE-V-11

Corrosion-resistant steel: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices per short ton as reported by 

U.S. producers and importers of product 8, by quarters, January 2000-June 2006

* * * * * * *

Price Trends

Among Commission pricing products 1, 3, 4, and 6, U.S. prices of corrosion-resistant steel

showed relatively little change from 2000 through 2003. Price increases for those four products began in

the first quarter of 2004, with some leveling off or small decreases in late 2004 or early 2005. Products 1

and 4 then showed price increases in the first half of 2006.22 Prices of product 2 increased beginning in

2004 as well but also showed more volatility in 2000 through 2003, especially for non-contract sales. 

The prices of products 5, 7, and 823 showed little change over the period for contract sales, while prices of

non-contract sales increased over the period for products 5 and 7. With the exceptions of products 5, 7,

and 8, contract and non-contract prices generally followed the same trend.24

Prices of imports of products 2 and 6 from Korea, product 6 from Germany, and products 7 and 8

from Canada followed the general U.S. price trend. For the other products imported from Germany,

Korea, and Japan, there was too little data reported by importers to comment on the price trends. 
 25 One purchaser reported that the price of U.S. corrosion-resistant steel is now higher than the price of the

product from all other countries, and four purchasers reported that the price of the U.S. product is now higher than

the price of the product from various nonsubject countries, including Brazil, China, Mexico, Taiwan, and the United

Kingdom.

CORE-V-17

Importers responding to Commission questionnaires did not report data for imports from Australia or

France.

Purchasers were asked if there had been a change in the price of corrosion-resistant steel since

2000 and, if so, how the price of domestic corrosion-resistant steel changed relative to the price of

corrosion-resistant steel produced in the various subject countries. Three purchasers reported that there

has been no change in price, and 17 purchasers reported that prices have changed by the same amount.

The responses for how U.S. prices reportedly changed relative to the various subject countries is reported

in the following tabulation:25

Country

Price of U.S. product is

now relatively higher

than price of subject

country product

Price of U.S. product is

now relatively lower than

price of subject country

product

France 1 0

Germany 1 0

Japan 0 1

Korea 3 1

Price Comparisons

As shown in table CORE-V-17, subject imports from Canada, Germany, Japan, and Korea

undersold the comparable U.S. product in 57 of 161 comparisons.
 26 Dofasco reported that for product 7, ***. For product 8, it reported that ***. Staff telephone interview with

***, September 19, 2006.

CORE-V-18

Table CORE-V-17

Corrosion-resistant steel: Instances of underselling/(overselling) and the range and average margins for

products 1-8, by source country,1

 January 2000-June 20062

Country

Underselling Overselling

Number of

instances

Range

(percent)

Average

margin

(percent)

Number of

instances

Range

(percent)

Average

margin

(percent)

Canada 31 0.5 to 46.3 8.4 19 0.1 to 48.5 12.8

Germany3 8 0.0 to 24.3 6.8 30 1.0 to 108.8 16.3

Japan 5 4.3 to 15.8 8.4 15 11.2 to 111.0 32.9

Korea 13 0.9 to 26.7 12.2 40 1.6 to 128.7 35.4

 1 Importers responding to Commission questionnaires did not report data for imports from Australia or France.

 2 In the first reviews, there were 160 possible price comparisons between U.S.-produced corrosion-resistant steel and imports

from Canada, Germany, Japan, and Korea. In 74 of those, subject imports undersold the domestic product; in the remaining 86

instances, subject product oversold the domestic product. For Canada, there were 13 instances of underselling and no

instances of overselling, with an average margin of underselling of 7.5 percent. For Germany, there were no instances of

underselling and 15 instances of overselling. For Japan, there were 14 instances of underselling and 9 instances of overselling,

with an average margin of underselling of 13.5 percent. For Korea, there were 47 instances of underselling and 62 instances of

overselling, with an average margin of underselling of 14.9 percent. In the original investigations, there were 142 possible price

comparisons between U.S.-produced corrosion-resistant steel and imports from Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan,

and Korea. In 47 of those comparisons, subject imports undersold the domestic product; in the remaining 95 instances, the

subject product oversold the domestic product. For Australia, there were no instances of underselling and 2 instances of

overselling. For Canada, there was 3 instances of underselling and 11 instances of overselling, with margins of underselling

ranging from 6.6 to 24.5 percent. For France, there were 10 instances of underselling and 8 instances of overselling, with

margins of underselling ranging from 2.6 to 16.0 percent. For Germany, there was 1 instance of underselling and 26 instances of

overselling, with a margin of underselling of 3.9 percent. For Japan, there were 22 instances of underselling and 35 instances of

overselling, with margins of underselling ranging from 1.5 to 25.1 percent. For Korea, there were 11 instances of underselling

and 13 instances of overselling, with margins of underselling ranging from 5.0 to 30.2 percent.

 3

 Data for imports from Germany were revised following the prehearing staff report.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires; Certain Carbon Steel Products from

Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain,

Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom, Inv. Nos. AA1921-197, 701-TA-231, 319-320, 322, 325-328, 340, 342, 348-350, and

731-TA-573-576, 578, 582-587, 604, 607-608, 612, 614-618 (Review), USITC Publication 3364 (November 2000); and Certain

Flat-Rolled Carbon Steel Products from Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Italy,

Japan, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, Inv. Nos.

701-TA-319-332, 334, 336-342, 344, 347-353, and 731-TA-573-579, 581-592, 594-597, 599-609, 612-619 (Final), USITC

Publication 2664 (August 1993).

Canada

Prices for contract sales of imports from Canada were below prices for contract sales of U.S.

product 7 in 24 of 26 quarters where comparisons were possible, with margins of underselling ranging

from 0.5 to 13.9 percent (table CORE-V-13).26 Prices for contract sales of imports from Canada were

below prices for contract sales of U.S. product 8 in 7 of 24 quarters where comparisons were possible,

with margins of underselling ranging from 1.2 to 46.3 percent (table CORE-V-15). In the 17 quarters of

overselling, the margins ranged from 0.8 to 48.5 percent.
 27 ***.

 28 Data for imports from Germany of product 6 have been revised since the prehearing staff report.

 29 ***. Staff telephone interview with ***, August 11, 2006.

CORE-V-19

Germany

Prices for contract sales of imports from Germany were below prices for contract sales of U.S.

product 6 in 4 of 26 quarters where comparisons were possible, with margins of underselling ranging

from 0.027 to 4.0 percent (table CORE-V-11).28 In the other 22 quarters, margins of overselling ranged

from 1.0 to 33.2 percent. Prices for contract sales of imports from Germany were below prices for

contract sales of U.S. products 1, 2, 3, and 8 in 4 of 12 quarters where comparisons were possible, with

margins of underselling ranging from 2.2 to 24.3 percent (tables CORE-V-1, CORE-V-3, CORE-V-5, and

CORE-V-15). In the other eight quarters, margins of overselling ranged from 3.1 to 108.8 percent.

Japan

Prices for contract sales of imports from Japan were below prices for contract sales of U.S.

product 6 in 5 of the 17 quarters where comparisons were possible, with margins of underselling ranging

from to 4.3 to 15.8 percent (table CORE-V-11). In the other 12 quarters, margins of overselling ranged

from 11.2 to 40.4 percent. Prices for non-contract sales of imports from Japan were above prices for noncontract sales of U.S. products 4 and 5 in all three quarters where comparisons were possible (tables

CORE-V-8 and CORE-V-10).29

Korea

Prices for contract sales of imports from Korea were below prices for contract sales of U.S.

products 2, 3, and 6 in 13 of 31 quarters where comparisons were possible, with margins of underselling

ranging from 0.9 to 26.7 percent (tables CORE-V-3, CORE-V-5, and CORE-V-11). In the 18 quarters of

overselling, margins ranged from 1.6 to 59.0 percent. Prices for contract sales of imports from Korea

were above prices for contract sales of U.S. products 1, 4, 5, and 7 in all 22 quarters where comparisons

were possible (tables CORE-V-1, CORE-V-7, CORE-V-9, and CORE-V-13).

A-1

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES AND STATEMENT ON ADEQUACY

62324 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 209 / Monday, October 31, 2005 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

Colorado River Management Plan, 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, 

Grand Canyon National Park, Grand 

Canyon, Arizona 

AGENCY: National Park Service, 

Department of the Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of Availability of the 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

for the Colorado River Management 

Plan, Grand Canyon National Park. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to subsection 

102(2)(C) of the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969, codified as amended 

at 42 U.S.C. subsection 4332 (2)(C), the 

National Park Service announces the 

availability of a Final Environmental 

Impact Statement (FEIS) for the 

Colorado River Management Plan, 

Grand Canyon National Park, Grand 

Canyon, Arizona. The FEIS describes 

and analyzes the environmental impacts 

of several alternatives, including a 

modified preferred alternative, for 

future management of public use of the 

Colorado River through Grand Canyon 

National Park, including the Lower 

Gorge. The analysis includes both 

commercial and non-commercial uses. 

The FEIS incorporates changes based on 

comments on the Draft EIS, and 

includes the responses to public 

comments. 

DATES: The National Park Service will 

execute a Record of Decision (ROD) no 

sooner than 30 days following 

publication by the Environmental 

Protection Agency of the Notice of 

Availability of the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement are 

available online at www.nps.gov/grca/ 

crmp or from the office of the 

Superintendent, Grand Canyon National 

Park, P.O. Box 129, Grand Canyon, 

Arizona 86023. The document is also 

available on the Internet at: http:// 

planning.nps.gov/plans.cfm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Killeen, Special Assistant, Grand 

Canyon National Park, 928–638–7885. 

Dated: September 28, 2005. 

Michael D. Snyder, 

Acting Director, Intermountain Region, 

National Park Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–21595 Filed 10–28–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–52–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement 

Notice of Proposed Information 

Collection for 1029–0038 

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement (OSM) is announcing 

its intention to request approval for the 

collection of information for 30 CFR 

PART 783, Underground Mining Permit 

Applications—Minimum Requirements 

for Information on Environmental 

Resources. 

DATES: Comments on the proposed 

information collection must be received 

by December 30, 2005, to be assured of 

consideration. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to 

John A. Trelease, Office of Surface 

Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 

1951 Constitution Ave., NW., Room 

202–SIB, Washington, DC 20240. 

Comments may also be submitted 

electronically to jtreleas@smre.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To 

request a copy of the information 

collection request, explanatory 

information and related forms, contact 

John A. Trelease, at (202) 208–2783. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) 

regulations at 5 CFR part 1320, which 

implement provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13), 

require that interested members of the 

public and affected agencies have an 

opportunity to comment on information 

collection and recordkeeping activities 

[see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)]. This notice 

identifies an information collection 

activity that OSM will be submitting to 

OMB for extension. This collection is 

contained in 30 CFR part 783, 

Underground Mining Permit 

Applications—Minimum Requirements 

for Information on Environmental 

Resources. 

OSM has revised burden estimates, 

where appropriate, to reflect current 

reporting levels or adjustments based on 

reestimates of burden or respondents. 

OSM will request a 3-year term of 

approval for this information collection 

activity. 

Comments are invited on: (1) The 

need for the collection of information 

for the performance of the functions of 

the agency; (2) the accuracy of the 

agency’s burden estimates; (3) ways to 

enhance the quality, utility and clarity 

of the information collection; and (4) 

ways to minimize the information 

collection burden on respondents, such 

as use of automated means of collection 

of the information. A summary of the 

public comments will accompany 

OSM’s submission of the information 

collection request to OMB. 

This notice provides the public with 

60 days in which to comment on the 

following information collection 

activity: 

Title: Underground Mining Permit 

Applications—Minimum Requirements 

for Information on Environmental 

Resources—30 CFR part 783. 

OMB Control Number: 1029–0038. 

Summary: Applicants for 

underground coal mining permits are 

required to provide adequate 

descriptions of the environmental 

resources that may be affected by 

proposed underground coal mining 

activities. 

Bureau Form Number: None. 

Frequency of Collection: Once, at time 

of application submission. 

Description of Respondents: 

Underground coal mining applicants 

and State regulatory authorities. 

Total Annual Responses: 64. 

Total Annual Burden Hours: 28,856 

hours. 

Dated: October 24, 2005. 

John R. Craynon, 

Chief, Division of Regulatory Support. 

[FR Doc. 05–21577 Filed 10–28–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. AA1921–197 (Second 

Review); 701–TA–319, 320, 325–328, 348, 

and 350 (Second Review); and 731–TA–573, 

574, 576, 578, 582–587, 612, and 614–618 

(Second Review)] 

Certain Carbon Steel Products From 

Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, 

Finland, France, Germany, Japan, 

Korea, Mexico, Poland, Romania, 

Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and United 

Kingdom 

AGENCY: International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of five-year reviews 

concerning the countervailing duty and 

antidumping duty orders on certain 

carbon steel products from Australia, 

Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, 

France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, 

Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, 

Taiwan, and United Kingdom. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 209 / Monday, October 31, 2005 / Notices 62325 

1No response to this request for information is 

required if a currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the 

OMB number is 3117–0016/USITC No. 06–5–141, 

expiration date June 30, 2008. Public reporting 

burden for the request is estimated to average 10 

hours per response. Please send comments 

regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to 

the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20436. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it has instituted reviews 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) 

to determine whether revocation of the 

countervailing duty and antidumping 

duty orders on certain carbon steel 

products from Australia, Belgium, 

Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, 

Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Poland, 

Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and 

United Kingdom would be likely to lead 

to continuation or recurrence of material 

injury. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of 

the Act, interested parties are requested 

to respond to this notice by submitting 

the information specified below to the 

Commission; 1 to be assured of 

consideration, the deadline for 

responses is December 21, 2005. 

Comments on the adequacy of responses 

may be filed with the Commission by 

January 17, 2006. For further 

information concerning the conduct of 

these reviews and rules of general 

application, consult the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 

201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 

201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and 

F (19 CFR part 207). 

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 1, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. 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 

these reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—On the dates listed 

below, countervailing duty and 

antidumping duty orders on the subject 

imports were issued: 

Order date Product/Country Inv. No. FR cite 

6/13/79 ............................................... Carbon steel plate/Taiwan ........................................................................... AA1921–197 44 FR 33877 

8/17/93 ............................................... Cut-to-length carbon steel plate/Belgium .................................................... 701–TA–319 58 FR 43749 

8/17/93 ............................................... Cut-to-length carbon steel plate/Brazil ........................................................ 701–TA–320 58 FR 43751 

8/17/93 ............................................... Cut-to-length carbon steel plate/Mexico ...................................................... 701–TA–325 58 FR 43755 

8/17/93 ............................................... Cut-to-length carbon steel plate/Spain ........................................................ 701–TA–326 58 FR 43761 

8/17/93 ............................................... Cut-to-length carbon steel plate/Sweden .................................................... 701–TA–327 58 FR 43758 

8/17/93 ............................................... Cut-to-length carbon steel plate/United Kingdom ........................................ 701–TA–328 58 FR 43748 

8/19/93 ............................................... Cut-to-length carbon steel plate/Belgium .................................................... 731–TA–573 58 FR 44164 

8/19/93 ............................................... Cut-to-length carbon steel plate/Brazil ........................................................ 731–TA–574 58 FR 44164 

8/19/93 ............................................... Cut-to-length carbon steel plate/Finland ...................................................... 731–TA–576 58 FR 44165 

8/19/93 ............................................... Cut-to-length carbon steel plate/Germany ................................................... 731–TA–578 58 FR 44170 

8/19/93 ............................................... Cut-to-length carbon steel plate/Mexico ...................................................... 731–TA–582 58 FR 44165 

8/19/93 ............................................... Cut-to-length carbon steel plate/Poland ...................................................... 731–TA–583 58 FR 44166 

8/19/93 ............................................... Cut-to-length carbon steel plate/Romania ................................................... 731–TA–584 58 FR 44167 

8/19/93 ............................................... Cut-to-length carbon steel plate/Spain ........................................................ 731–TA–585 58 FR 44167 

8/19/93 ............................................... Cut-to-length carbon steel plate/Sweden .................................................... 731–TA–586 58 FR 44168 

8/19/93 ............................................... Cut-to-length carbon steel plate/United Kingdom ........................................ 731–TA–587 58 FR 44168 

8/17/93 ............................................... Corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products/France ................................. 701–TA–348 58 FR 43759 

8/17/93 ............................................... Corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products/Korea .................................. 701–TA–350 58 FR 43752 

8/19/93 ............................................... Corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products/Australia .............................. 731–TA–612 58 FR 44161 

8/19/93 ............................................... Corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products/Canada ............................... 731–TA–614 58 FR 44162 

8/19/93 ............................................... Corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products/France ................................. 731–TA–615 58 FR 44169 

8/19/93 ............................................... Corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products/Germany ............................. 731–TA–616 58 FR 44170 

8/19/93 ............................................... Corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products/Japan .................................. 731–TA–617 58 FR 44163 

8/19/93 ............................................... Corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products/Korea .................................. 731–TA–618 58 FR 44159 

Following five-year reviews by 

Commerce and the Commission, 

effective December 15, 2000, Commerce 

issued a continuation of the 

countervailing duty and antidumping 

duty orders on certain carbon steel 

products from Australia, Belgium, 

Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, 

Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Poland, 

Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and 

United Kingdom (65 FR 78469). The 

Commission is now conducting second 

reviews to determine whether 

revocation of the orders would be likely 

to lead to continuation or recurrence of 

material injury to the domestic industry 

within a reasonably foreseeable time. It 

will assess the adequacy of interested 

party responses to this notice of 

institution to determine whether to 

conduct full reviews or expedited 

reviews. The Commission’s 

determinations in any expedited 

reviews will be based on the facts 

available, which may include 

information provided in response to this 

notice. 

Definitions.—The following 

definitions apply to these reviews: 

(1) Subject Merchandise is the class or 

kind of merchandise that is within the 

scope of the five-year reviews, as 

defined by the Department of 

Commerce. 

(2) The Subject Countries in these 

reviews are Australia, Belgium, Brazil, 

Canada, Finland, France, Germany, 

Japan, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Romania, 

Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and United 

Kingdom. 

(3) The Domestic Like Product is the 

domestically produced product or 

products which are like, or in the 

absence of like, most similar in 

characteristics and uses with, the 

Subject Merchandise. In its original 

1979 antidumping determination 

concerning carbon steel plate from 

Taiwan, the Commission found one 

Domestic Like Product consisting of 

carbon steel plate. Consistent with its 

62326 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 209 / Monday, October 31, 2005 / Notices 

1993 determinations, the Commission 

found in its full five-year review 

determinations issued in 2000 a 

Domestic Like Product consisting of cutto-length plate and another Domestic 

Like Product consisting of corrosionresistant steel (excluding clad plate). 

Microalloy products were not included 

in either of these Domestic Like 

Products in the original and full fiveyear review determinations. For 

purposes of this notice, you should 

report information separately on the 

following two Domestic Like Products: 

(1) Cut-to-length plate and (2) corrosionresistant steel (excluding clad plate). 

(4) The Domestic Industry is the U.S. 

producers as a whole of the Domestic 

Like Product, or those producers whose 

collective output of the Domestic Like 

Product constitutes a major proportion 

of the total domestic production of the 

product. In its original 1979 

antidumping determination concerning 

carbon steel plate from Taiwan, the 

Commission found one regional 

Domestic Industry, consisting of 

producers of carbon steel plate located 

in the west coast States of California, 

Washington, and Oregon. Certain 

Commissioners defined the Domestic 

Industry differently. In its full five-year 

review determinations, the Commission 

utilized a national industry analysis 

with respect to Taiwan, as with all the 

countries subject to the 1993 orders. The 

Commission did not address the issue of 

processors in the 1993 investigations 

concerning cut-to-length plate; however, 

in its full five-year review 

determinations concerning cut-to-length 

plate, the Commission found the 

Domestic Industry to consist of the 

domestic producers of the Domestic 

Like Product, including processors. The 

Commission defined the Domestic 

Industry with respect to corrosionresistant steel as the domestic producers 

of the Domestic Like Product of all 

corrosion-resistant steel (excluding clad 

plate). For purposes of this notice, you 

should report information separately on 

the following two Domestic Industries: 

(1) All domestic producers of cut-tolength plate, including processors and 

(2) all domestic producers of corrosionresistant steel (excluding clad plate). 

(5) An Importer is any person or firm 

engaged, either directly or through a 

parent company or subsidiary, in 

importing the Subject Merchandise into 

the United States from a foreign 

manufacturer or through its selling 

agent. 

Participation in the reviews and 

public service list.—Persons, including 

industrial users of the Subject 

Merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in the reviews as parties 

must file an entry of appearance with 

the Secretary to the Commission, as 

provided in section 201.11(b)(4) of the 

Commission’s rules, no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. The Secretary will 

maintain a public service list containing 

the names and addresses of all persons, 

or their representatives, who are parties 

to the reviews. 

Former Commission employees who 

are seeking to appear in Commission 

five-year reviews are reminded that they 

are required, pursuant to 19 CFR 201.15, 

to seek Commission approval if the 

matter in which they are seeking to 

appear was pending in any manner or 

form during their Commission 

employment. The Commission is 

seeking guidance as to whether a second 

transition five-year review is the ‘‘same 

particular matter’’ as the underlying 

original investigation for purposes of 19 

CFR 201.15 and 18 U.S.C. 207, the post 

employment statute for Federal 

employees. Former employees may seek 

informal advice from Commission ethics 

officials with respect to this and the 

related issue of whether the employee’s 

participation was ‘‘personal and 

substantial.’’ However, any informal 

consultation will not relieve former 

employees of the obligation to seek 

approval to appear from the 

Commission under its rule 201.15. For 

ethics advice, contact Carol McCue 

Verratti, Deputy Agency Ethics Official, 

at 202–205–3088. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and APO service list.—Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

submitted in these reviews available to 

authorized applicants under the APO 

issued in the reviews, provided that the 

application is made no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. Authorized 

applicants must represent interested 

parties, as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), 

who are parties to the reviews. A 

separate service list will be maintained 

by the Secretary for those parties 

authorized to receive BPI under the 

APO. 

Certification.—Pursuant to section 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules, any 

person submitting information to the 

Commission in connection with these 

reviews must certify that the 

information is accurate and complete to 

the best of the submitter’s knowledge. In 

making the certification, the submitter 

will be deemed to consent, unless 

otherwise specified, for the 

Commission, its employees, and 

contract personnel to use the 

information provided in any other 

reviews or investigations of the same or 

comparable products which the 

Commission conducts under Title VII of 

the Act, or in internal audits and 

investigations relating to the programs 

and operations of the Commission 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3. 

Written submissions.—Pursuant to 

section 207.61 of the Commission’s 

rules, each interested party response to 

this notice must provide the information 

specified below. The deadline for filing 

such responses is December 21, 2005. 

Pursuant to section 207.62(b) of the 

Commission’s rules, eligible parties (as 

specified in Commission rule 

207.62(b)(1)) may also file comments 

concerning the adequacy of responses to 

the notice of institution and whether the 

Commission should conduct expedited 

or full reviews. The deadline for filing 

such comments is January 17, 2006. All 

written submissions must conform with 

the provisions of sections 201.8 and 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules and any 

submissions that contain BPI must also 

conform with the requirements of 

sections 201.6 and 207.7 of the 

Commission’s rules. The Commission’s 

rules do not authorize filing of 

submissions with the Secretary by 

facsimile or electronic means, except to 

the extent permitted by section 201.8 of 

the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67 

FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Also, in 

accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules, each 

document filed by a party to the reviews 

must be served on all other parties to 

the reviews (as identified by either the 

public or APO service list as 

appropriate), and a certificate of service 

must accompany the document (if you 

are not a party to the reviews you do not 

need to serve your response). 

Inability to provide requested 

information.—Pursuant to section 

207.61(c) of the Commission’s rules, any 

interested party that cannot furnish the 

information requested by this notice in 

the requested form and manner shall 

notify the Commission at the earliest 

possible time, provide a full explanation 

of why it cannot provide the requested 

information, and indicate alternative 

forms in which it can provide 

equivalent information. If an interested 

party does not provide this notification 

(or the Commission finds the 

explanation provided in the notification 

inadequate) and fails to provide a 

complete response to this notice, the 

Commission may take an adverse 

inference against the party pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act in making its 

determinations in the reviews. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 209 / Monday, October 31, 2005 / Notices 62327 

Information to be Provided in 

Response to This Notice of Institution: 

Please provide the requested 

information separately for each 

Domestic Like Product, as defined by 

the Commission in its review 

determinations, and for each of the 

products identified by Commerce as 

Subject Merchandise. If you are a 

domestic producer, union/worker 

group, or trade/business association; 

import/export Subject Merchandise 

from more than one Subject Country; or 

produce Subject Merchandise in more 

than one Subject Country, you may file 

a single response. If you do so, please 

ensure that your response to each 

question includes the information 

requested for each pertinent Subject 

Country. As used below, the term 

‘‘firm’’ includes any related firms. 

(1) The name and address of your firm 

or entity (including World Wide Web 

address if available) and name, 

telephone number, fax number, and Email address of the certifying official. 

(2) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of 

the Domestic Like Products, a U.S. 

union or worker group, a U.S. importer 

of the Subject Merchandise, a foreign 

producer or exporter of the Subject 

Merchandise, a U.S. or foreign trade or 

business association, or another 

interested party (including an 

explanation). If you are a union/worker 

group or trade/business association, 

identify the firms in which your 

workers are employed or which are 

members of your association. 

(3) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is willing to participate 

in these reviews by providing 

information requested by the 

Commission. 

(4) A statement of the likely effects of 

the revocation of the countervailing and 

antidumping duty orders on the 

Domestic Industries in general and/or 

your firm/entity specifically. In your 

response, please discuss the various 

factors specified in section 752(a) of the 

Act (19 U.S.C. 1675a(a)) including the 

likely volume of subject imports, likely 

price effects of subject imports, and 

likely impact of imports of Subject 

Merchandise on the Domestic 

Industries. 

(5) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. producers of the 

Domestic Like Products. Identify any 

known related parties and the nature of 

the relationship as defined in section 

771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1677(4)(B)). 

(6) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. importers of the Subject 

Merchandise and producers of the 

Subject Merchandise in each Subject 

Country that currently export or have 

exported Subject Merchandise to the 

United States or other countries after 

1999. 

(7) If you are a U.S. producer of the 

Domestic Like Products, provide the 

following information on your firm’s 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2004 (report quantity data 

in short tons and value data in U.S. 

dollars, f.o.b. plant). If you are a union/ 

worker group or trade/business 

association, provide the information, on 

an aggregate basis, for the firms in 

which your workers are employed/ 

which are members of your association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total U.S. production of each Domestic 

Like Product accounted for by your 

firm’s(s’) production; 

(b) the quantity and value of U.S. 

commercial shipments of each Domestic 

Like Product produced in your U.S. 

plant(s); and 

(c) the quantity and value of U.S. 

internal consumption/company 

transfers of each Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s). 

(8) If you are a U.S. importer or a 

trade/business association of U.S. 

importers of the Subject Merchandise 

from the Subject Countries, provide the 

following information on your firm’s(s’) 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2004 (report quantity data 

in short tons and value data in U.S. 

dollars). If you are a trade/business 

association, provide the information, on 

an aggregate basis, for the firms which 

are members of your association. 

(a) The quantity and value (landed, 

duty-paid but not including 

antidumping or countervailing duties) 

of U.S. imports and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total U.S. 

imports of Subject Merchandise from 

each Subject Country accounted for by 

your firm’s(s’) imports; 

(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping and/or 

countervailing duties) of U.S. 

commercial shipments of Subject 

Merchandise imported from each 

Subject Country; and 

(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping and/or 

countervailing duties) of U.S. internal 

consumption/company transfers of 

Subject Merchandise imported from 

each Subject Country. 

(9) If you are a producer, an exporter, 

or a trade/business association of 

producers or exporters of the Subject 

Merchandise in the Subject Countries, 

provide the following information on 

your firm’s(s’) operations on that 

product during calendar year 2004 

(report quantity data in short tons and 

value data in U.S. dollars, landed and 

duty-paid at the U.S. port but not 

including antidumping or 

countervailing duties). If you are a 

trade/business association, provide the 

information, on an aggregate basis, for 

the firms which are members of your 

association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total production of Subject Merchandise 

in each Subject Country accounted for 

by your firm’s(s’) production; and 

(b) the quantity and value of your 

firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of 

Subject Merchandise and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total 

exports to the United States of Subject 

Merchandise from each Subject Country 

accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. 

(10) Identify significant changes, if 

any, in the supply and demand 

conditions or business cycle for the 

Domestic Like Product that have 

occurred in the United States or in the 

market for the Subject Merchandise in 

the Subject Countries after 1999, and 

significant changes, if any, that are 

likely to occur within a reasonably 

foreseeable time. Supply conditions to 

consider include technology; 

production methods; development 

efforts; ability to increase production 

(including the shift of production 

facilities used for other products and the 

use, cost, or availability of major inputs 

into production); and factors related to 

the ability to shift supply among 

different national markets (including 

barriers to importation in foreign 

markets or changes in market demand 

abroad). Demand conditions to consider 

include end uses and applications; the 

existence and availability of substitute 

products; and the level of competition 

among the Domestic Like Products 

produced in the United States, Subject 

Merchandise produced in the Subject 

Countries, and such merchandise from 

other countries. 

(11) (OPTIONAL) A statement of 

whether you agree with the above 

definitions of the Domestic Like 

Products and Domestic Industries; if 

you disagree with either or both of these 

definitions, please explain why and 

provide alternative definitions. 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.61 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: October 24, 2005. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 05–21589 Filed 10–28–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

8874 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2006 / Notices 

Dated: February 9, 2006. 

Craig G. Peterson, 

Manager, Infrastructure and Engineering 

Services, Great Plains Region, Bureau of 

Reclamation. 

[FR Doc. E6–2393 Filed 2–17–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–MN–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. AA1921–197 (Second 

Review); 701–TA–319, 320, 325–328, 348, 

and 350 (Second Review); and 731–TA–573, 

574, 576, 578, 582–587, 612, and 614–618 

(Second Review)] 

Certain Carbon Steel Products From 

Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, 

Finland, France, Germany, Japan, 

Korea, Mexico, Poland, Romania, 

Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and The 

United Kingdom 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of Commission 

determinations to conduct full five-year 

reviews concerning the countervailing 

duty and antidumping duty orders on 

certain carbon steel products from 

Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, 

Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, 

Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, 

Sweden, Taiwan, and the United 

Kingdom. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it will proceed with full 

reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(5)) to determine whether 

revocation of the countervailing duty 

and antidumping duty orders on certain 

carbon steel products from Australia, 

Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, 

France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, 

Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, 

Taiwan, and the United Kingdom would 

be likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of material injury within a 

reasonably foreseeable time. A schedule 

for the reviews will be established and 

announced at a later date. For further 

information concerning the conduct of 

these reviews and rules of general 

application, consult the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 

201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 

201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and 

F (19 CFR part 207). 

DATES: Effective February 6, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. 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 

these reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

February 6, 2006, the Commission 

determined that it should proceed to 

full reviews in the subject five-year 

reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of 

the Act. With respect to corrosionresistant carbon steel flat products, the 

Commission found that the domestic 

and respondent interested party group 

responses to its notice of institution (70 

FR 62324, October 31, 2005) were 

adequate. With respect to cut-to-length 

carbon steel plate, the Commission 

found that the domestic interested party 

group response to its notice of 

institution was adequate and that the 

respondent interested party group 

responses with respect to Belgium, 

Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, 

Poland, and the United Kingdom were 

adequate, but found that the respondent 

interested party group responses with 

respect to Romania, Spain, Sweden, and 

Taiwan were inadequate. However, the 

Commission determined to conduct full 

reviews concerning cut-to-length carbon 

steel plate from Romania, Spain, 

Sweden, and Taiwan to promote 

administrative efficiency in light of its 

decision to conduct full reviews with 

respect to cut-to-length carbon steel 

plate from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, 

Germany, Mexico, Poland, and the 

United Kingdom. A record of the 

Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, 

and any individual Commissioner’s 

statements will be available from the 

Office of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s Web site. 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.62 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Issued: February 14, 2006. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E6–2359 Filed 2–17–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Office of the Secretary 

Submission for OMB Review: 

Comment Request 

February 14, 2006. 

The Department of Labor (DOL) has 

submitted the following public 

information collection request (ICR) to 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review and approval in 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, 

44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). A copy of this 

ICR, with applicable supporting 

documentation, may be obtained by 

calling the Department of Labor and 

contacting Ira Mills on 202–693–4122 

(this is not a toll-free number) or by EMail: Mills.Ira@dol.gov. 

Comments should be sent to Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Attn: OMB Desk Officer for ETA, Office 

of Management and Budget, Room 

10235, Washington, DC 20503, 202–

395–7316 (this is not a toll free number), 

within 30 days from the date of this 

publication in the Federal Register. 

The OMB is particularly interested in 

comments which: 

• Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

• Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

• Enhance the quality, utility and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

• Minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology, 

e.g., permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

Agency: Employment and Training 

Administration (ETA). 

Type of Review: Extension of a 

currently approved collection. 

Title: Unemployment Insurance Trust 

Fund Activity. 

OMB Number: 1205–0154. 

Frequency: On occasion; Monthly. 

Affected Public: State, Local or Tribal 

govt. 

Type of Response: Reporting. 

Number of Respondents: 53. 

Annual Responses: 3,498. 

Average Response time: 1⁄2 hour. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 8, 2006 / Notices 11577 

The Committee was first established 

in February 1985 to advise the Director 

of the U.S. Census Bureau on ways to 

reduce the differential undercount for 

all populations in the 1990 census with 

a particular emphasis and focus on the 

Hispanic population. Upon meeting the 

standards set forth in Executive Order 

12838 in that its charter is of compelling 

national interest and that other methods 

of obtaining public participation have 

been considered, the Committee was 

rechartered in the following years to 

provide advice on subsequent decennial 

censuses: 1987, 1989, 1991, 1994, 1996, 

1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004. 

The Committee will consist of a Chair, 

Vice-Chair, and seven other members 

with a substantial interest in the 

conduct and outcome of the decennial 

census, the American Community 

Survey, and related programs. The 

Committee includes academicians, 

community leaders, and appropriate 

individuals from the public at large. 

The Committee will function solely as 

an advisory body, and in compliance 

with provisions of the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act. Copies of the revised 

charter will be filed with the 

appropriate Committees of the Congress 

and with the Library of Congress. 

Dated: March 3, 2006. 

Charles Louis Kincannon, 

Director, Bureau of the Census. 

[FR Doc. E6–3257 Filed 3–7–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–07–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of the Census 

Census Advisory Committee on the 

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific 

Islander Population 

AGENCY: Bureau of the Census, 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of charter renewal. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of the Census 

(Census Bureau) is giving notice that it 

has renewed the Census Advisory 

Committee on the Native Hawaiian and 

Other Pacific Islander Population. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeri 

Green, Committee Liaison Officer, 

Department of Commerce, U.S. Census 

Bureau, Room 3627, Federal Office 

Building 3, Washington, DC 20233, 

telephone (301) 763–2070, TTY (301) 

457–2540. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 

accordance with the provisions of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, Title 

5, United States Code, Appendix 2, and 

the General Services Administration 

(GSA) rule on Federal Advisory 

Committee Management, Title 41, Code 

of Federal Regulations, Part 101–6, and 

after consultation with GSA, the 

Secretary of Commerce has determined 

that the renewal of the Census Advisory 

Committee on the Native Hawaiian and 

Other Pacific Islander Population is in 

the public interest in connection with 

the performance of duties imposed by 

law on the Department of Commerce. 

The Committee was first established 

in February 1985 to advise the Director 

of the U.S. Census Bureau on ways to 

reduce the differential undercount for 

all populations in the 1990 census with 

a particular emphasis and focus on the 

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific 

Islander population. Upon meeting the 

standards set forth in Executive Order 

12838, in that its charter is of 

compelling national interest and that 

other methods of obtaining public 

participation have been considered, the 

Committee was rechartered in the 

following years to provide input on 

subsequent decennial censuses: 1987, 

1989, 1991, 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, 

2002, and 2004. 

The Committee will consist of a Chair, 

Vice-Chair, and seven other members 

with a substantial interest in the 

conduct and outcome of the decennial 

census, the American Community 

Survey, and related programs. The 

Committee includes academicians, 

community leaders, and appropriate 

individuals from the public at large. 

The Committee will function solely as 

an advisory body, and in compliance 

with provisions of the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act. Copies of the revised 

charter will be filed with the 

appropriate Committees of the Congress 

and with the Library of Congress. 

Dated: March 3, 2006. 

Charles Louis Kincannon, 

Director, Bureau of the Census. 

[FR Doc. E6–3253 Filed 3–7–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–07–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–423–805, A–351–817, A–405–802, A–428–

816, A–201–809, A–455–802, A–485–803, A–

469–803, A–401–805, A–412–814, A–583–

080] 

Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel Plate 

From Belgium, Brazil, Finland, 

Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, 

Spain, Sweden, and the United 

Kingdom and Carbon Steel Plate From 

Taiwan; Second Five-year (Sunset) 

Reviews of Antidumping Duty Orders 

and Antidumping Finding; Final 

Results 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On November 1, 2005, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) initiated sunset reviews of 

the antidumping duty orders on cut–tolength carbon steel plate (CTL Plate) 

from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, 

Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, 

Spain, Sweden, and the United 

Kingdom and the antidumping finding 

on carbon steel plate from Taiwan, 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). On 

the basis of the notices of intent to 

participate and adequate substantive 

responses filed on behalf of domestic 

interested parties and no response or 

inadequate responses from respondent 

interested parties, the Department 

conducted expedited sunset reviews of 

these antidumping duty orders and 

antidumping finding. As a result of 

these sunset reviews, the Department 

finds that revocation of the antidumping 

duty orders on CTL Plate from Belgium, 

Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, 

Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and 

the United Kingdom and the 

antidumping finding on carbon steel 

plate from Taiwan would likely lead to 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

at the levels listed below in the section 

entitled ‘‘Final Results of Sunset 

Reviews.’’

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 8, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dana Mermelstein, Robert James, or 

Abdelali Elouaradia, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–1391, (202) 482–

0649, or (202) 482–1374, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


erjones on PROD1PC68 with NOTICES
11578 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 8, 2006 / Notices 

1 In the case of the Belgian order, one respondent 

interested party also filed a waiver of participation. 

2See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate 

from Finland, Germany and the United Kingdom: 

Final Results of Changed Circumstances 

Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty 

Reviews, and Revocation of Orders in Part, 64 FR 

46343 (August 25, 1999). 

3See Duferco Steel, Inc. v. United States, 26 CIT 

1241 (October 17, 2002). 

Background 

On November 1, 2005, the Department 

initiated sunset reviews of the 

antidumping duty orders on CTL Plate 

from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, 

Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, 

Spain, Sweden, and the United 

Kingdom and the antidumping finding 

on carbon steel plate from Taiwan 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. 

See Initiation of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Reviews, 70 FR 65844 (November 1, 

2005). For each of these orders, the 

Department received a notice of intent 

to participate from Nucor Corporation 

(Nucor), Mittal Steel USA ISG Inc. 

(Mittal), IPSCO, Inc. (IPSCO), Oregon 

Steel Mills, Inc. (Oregon Steel), and the 

United Steel, Paper and Forestry, 

Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied 

Industrial and Service Workers Union, 

AFL–CIO-CLC (USW) (collectively, 

domestic interested parties) within the 

deadline specified in 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(1)(i). Domestic interested 

parties claimed interested party status 

under sections 771(9)(C) or (D) of the 

Act either as a U.S. producer of a 

domestic like product or as a certified 

union engaged in the manufacture of a 

domestic like product. With respect to 

the antidumping duty orders on CTL 

Plate from Brazil, Finland, Germany, 

Mexico, Romania, Spain, and Sweden 

and the antidumping finding on carbon 

steel plate from Taiwan, we did not 

receive any responses from respondent 

interested parties. As a result, pursuant 

to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the 

Department conducted expedited sunset 

reviews of these antidumping duty 

orders and the antidumping finding. 

With respect to the antidumping duty 

orders on CTL Plate from Belgium, 

Poland, and the United Kingdom, the 

Department received substantive 

responses from respondent interested 

parties within the deadline specified in 

19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i).1 However, on 

December 21, 2005, the Department 

determined that the substantive 

responses filed by respondent interested 

parties were inadequate. Specifically, 

for the Belgian, Polish, and British 

orders, the Department found that total 

exports of the subject merchandise to 

the United States by participating 

respondent interested parties were 

below the 50 percent threshold (by 

volume) that the Department normally 

will consider to be an adequate foreign 

response as provided for in 19 CFR 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(A). Therefore, pursuant 

to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the 

Department also conducted expedited 

sunset reviews of the antidumping duty 

orders on CTL Plate from Belgium, 

Poland, and the United Kingdom. 

Scope of the Antidumping Duty Orders 

(CTL Plate from Belgium, Brazil, 

Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, 

Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the 

United Kingdom) 

The products covered by these 

antidumping duty orders include hot–

rolled carbon steel universal mill plates 

(i.e., flat–rolled products rolled on four 

faces or in a closed box pass, of a width 

exceeding 150 millimeters but not 

exceeding 1,250 millimeters and of a 

thickness of not less than 4 millimeters, 

not in coils and without patterns in 

relief), of rectangular shape, neither 

clad, plated nor coated with metal, 

whether or not painted, varnished, or 

coated with plastics or other 

nonmetallic substances; and certain 

hot–rolled carbon steel flat–rolled 

products in straight lengths, of 

rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither 

clad, plated, nor coated with metal, 

whether or not painted, varnished, or 

coated with plastics or other 

nonmetallic substances, 4.75 

millimeters or more in thickness and of 

a width which exceeds 150 millimeters 

and measures at least twice the 

thickness, as currently classifiable in the 

United States Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule (HTSUS) under item numbers 

7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 

7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 

7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 

7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 

7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 

7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 

7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000, 

7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and 

7212.50.0000. Included are flat–rolled 

products of non–rectangular crosssection where such cross-section is 

achieved subsequent to the rolling 

process (i.e., products which have been 

‘‘worked after rolling’’) -- for example, 

products which have been beveled or 

rounded at the edges. Excluded is grade 

X–70 plate. These HTSUS item numbers 

are provided for convenience and 

customs purposes. The written 

description remains dispositive. 

As a result of a changed 

circumstances review with respect to 

Finland, Germany, and the United 

Kingdom,2 the order was partially 

revoked with respect to certain cut–tolength carbon steel plate with a 

maximum thickness of 80 mm in steel 

grades BS 7191, 355 EM and 355 EMZ, 

as amended by Sable Offshore Energy 

Project specification XB MOO Y 15 

0001, types 1 and 2. 

As a result of a decision by the Court 

of International Trade,3 excluded from 

the scope of the antidumping duty order 

on CTL Plate from Belgium is cut-tolength floor plate imported by Duferco 

Steel, Inc. ‘‘with patterns in relief 

derived directly from the rolling 

process.’’

Scope of the Antidumping Finding 

(Carbon Steel Plate from Taiwan) 

The merchandise covered by this 

antidumping finding is hot–rolled 

carbon steel plate, 0.1875 inch or more 

in thickness, over 8 inches in width, not 

in coils, not pickled, not coated or 

plated with metal, not clad, other than 

black plate, and not pressed or stamped 

to nonrectangular shape. The 

merchandise under review is currently 

classifiable under items 7208.40.30.30, 

7208.40.30.60, 7208.51.00.30, 

7208.51.00.45, 7208.51.00.60, 

7208.52.00.00, 7208.90.00.00, 

7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 

7211.13.00.00, 7211.14.00.30, 

7211.14.00.45, 7211.90.00.00, 

7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, and 

7212.50.00.00 of the HTSUS. Although 

the HTSUS subheading is provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the merchandise 

under investigation is dispositive. 

All issues raised in these sunset 

reviews are addressed in the ‘‘Issues and 

Decision Memorandum’’ from Stephen 

J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Operations, Import Administration, to 

David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary 

for Import Administration, dated March 

1, 2006 (Decision Memorandum), which 

is hereby adopted by this notice. The 

issues discussed in the Decision 

Memorandum include the likelihood of 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

and the magnitude of the margin likely 

to prevail if the orders and finding were 

revoked. Parties can find a complete 

discussion of all issues raised in these 

sunset reviews and the corresponding 

recommendation in this public 

memorandum, which is on file in room 

B–099 of the main Department building. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly on the Internet at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html. The paper 

copy and electronic version of the 

Decision Memorandum are identical in 

content. 


erjones on PROD1PC68 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 8, 2006 / Notices 11579 

Final Results of Sunset Reviews 

We determine that revocation of the 

antidumping duty orders on CTL Plate 

from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, 

Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, 

Spain, Sweden, and the United 

Kingdom and the antidumping finding 

on carbon steel plate from Taiwan 

would likely lead to continuation or 

recurrence of dumping at the following 

percentage weighted–average margins: 

BELGIUM

Manufacturers/Exporters 

Weighted– 

Average 

Margin 

(Percent) 

Forges de Clabecq, S.A.4 .......... 6.78 

Fabrique de Fer Chaleroi, S.A. 

(FFC) ....................................... 13.315

All Other Belgian Manufacturers 

and Exporters .......................... 6.84 

4The Department has never conducted a 

changed circumstance review finding that 

Duferco Clabecq S.A. (Duferco) is the successor-in-interest to Forges de Clabecq, S.A. 

As a result, Duferco is subject to the all others 

rate. 5For this sunset review, we have reported 

the rate calculated from the original investigation for FFC. The Department notes that in the 

first sunset review it reported to the International Trade Commission (ITC) a margin of 

27.5 percent for FFC. See Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Belgium; Final Results 

of Expedited Sunset Review of Antidumping 

Duty Order, 65 FR 18292 (April 7, 2000) and 

the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. This rate was based 

on the 13.75 percent margin found in the 

1995-1996 administrative review, doubled to 

account for a 100 percent finding of duty absorption. As stated in the final results of the 

first sunset review, the Department reported 

the 27.5 percent margin ‘‘[c]onsistent with our 

stated policy of providing the Commission the 

higher of the margin the Department otherwise 

would have reported to the Commission or the 

most recent margin for that company adjusted 

to account for the Department’s findings on 

duty absorption.’’ See id. However, on March 

22, 2000, the CIT found that the Department 

lacked authority to conduct a duty absorption 

inquiry for an antidumping order issued prior 

to January 1, 1995. See SKF USA Inc. v. 

United States, 24 CIT 174 (CIT 2000). Therefore, we are reporting to the ITC the higher 

calculated rate from the original investigation 

and we find that there is no basis to provide to 

the ITC a more recently calculated margin. 

See Decision Memorandum at 25–26. 

BRAZIL

Manufacturers/Exporters 

Weighted– 

Average 

Margin 

(Percent) 

Usinas Siderurgicas de Minas 

Gerais S.A. (USIMINAS)/ 

Companhia Siderurgica 

Paulista (COSIPA) .................. 42.686

BRAZIL—Continued 

Manufacturers/Exporters 

Weighted– 

Average 

Margin 

(Percent) 

All Other Brazilian Manufacturers 

and Exporters .......................... 75.54 

6 In the first sunset review of CTL Plate from 

Brazil, the Department reported one margin for 

USIMINAS and COSIPA because the Department had collapsed these companies and 

treated them as a single entity in the most recently completed administrative review. See 

Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from 

Brazil: Amendment of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 

20570 (April 27, 1998). Thus, we are reporting 

a single margin to the ITC for the two entities 

as we did in the first sunset review. See Decision Memorandum at 26. 

FINLAND

Manufacturers/Exporters 

Weighted– 

Average 

Margin 

(Percent) 

Rautaruukki Oy ........................... 40.36 

All Other Finnish Manufacturers 

and Exporters .......................... 40.36 

GERMANY

Manufacturers/Exporters 

Weighted– 

Average 

Margin 

(Percent) 

Dillenger Huttenwerke ................ 36.00 

All Other German Manufacturers 

and Exporters .......................... 36.00 

MEXICO

Manufacturers/Exporters 

Weighted– 

Average 

Margin 

(Percent) 

Altos Hornos de Mexico, S.A. de 

C.V. ......................................... 49.25 

All Other Mexican Manufacturers 

and Exporters .......................... 49.25 

POLAND

Manufacturers/Exporters 

Weighted– 

Average 

Margin 

(Percent) 

All Polish Manufacturers and Exporters ..................................... 61.98 

ROMANIA

Manufacturers/Exporters 

Weighted– 

Average 

Margin 

(Percent) 

Metalexportimport SA ................. 75.04 

All Other Romanian Manufacturers and Exporters ................... 75.04 

SPAIN

Manufacturers/Exporters 

Weighted– 

Average 

Margin 

(Percent) 

Ensidesa ..................................... 105.61 

All Other Spanish Manufacturers 

and Exporters .......................... 105.61 

SWEDEN

Manufacturers/Exporters 

Weighted– 

Average 

Margin 

(Percent) 

Svenskt Staal ABC ..................... 24.23 

All Other Swedish Manufacturers 

and Exporters .......................... 24.23 

TAIWAN

Manufacturers/Exporters 

Weighted– 

Average 

Margin 

(Percent) 

China Steel Corporation ............. 34.00 

All Other Taiwanese Manufacturers and Exporters ................... 34.00 

UNITED KINGDOM

Manufacturers/Exporters 

Weighted– 

Average 

Margin 

(Percent) 

British Steel plc 7 ........................ 109.22 

All Other British Manufacturers 

and Exporters .......................... 109.22 

7The Department has never conducted a 

changed circumstance review finding that 

Corus Group plc (Corus) is the successor-ininterest to British Steel plc. Therefore, Corus 

is subject to the ‘‘all others’’ rate. 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective orders (APO) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 of the 

Department’s regulations. Timely 

notification of the return or destruction 

of APO materials or conversion to 

judicial protective order is hereby 

requested. Failure to comply with the 


erjones on PROD1PC68 with NOTICES
11580 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 8, 2006 / Notices 

1Lianing Machinery Import and Export Corp 

(‘‘LMC’’), LIMAC, Huarong, Shandong Jinma 

Industrial Group Company (‘‘Jinma’’), SMC, Tianjin 

Machinery Import and Export Corporation 

(‘‘TMC’’), Changzhou Light Industrial Tools, 

Laoling Pangu Tools, Leiling Zhengtai Tools Co., 

Ltd, Jiangsu Sainty International Group Co., Ltd., 

Shanghai J.E. Tools, Shanxi Tianli Industries Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘Shanxi Tianli’’), Jafsam Metal Products 

(‘‘Jafsam’’), Suqian Foreign Trade Corp., Suqian 

Telee Tools, and Laiwu Zhongtai Forging. 

regulations and terms of an APO is a 

violation which is subject to sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results and notice in accordance with 

sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act. 

Dated: March 1, 2006. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E6–3297 Filed 3–7–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–803] 

Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or 

Unfinished, With or Without Handles, 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of Administrative 

Reviews and Preliminary Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the ‘‘Department’’) is conducting 

administrative reviews of the 

antidumping duty orders on heavy 

forged hand tools, finished or 

unfinished, with or without handles, 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(‘‘PRC’’). These reviews cover imports of 

subject merchandise from eighteen 

manufacturers and/or exporters. We 

preliminarily find that certain 

manufacturers and/or exporters sold 

subject merchandise at less than normal 

value (‘‘NV’’) during the period of 

review (‘‘POR’’). We are preliminarily 

rescinding the reviews for all four 

orders for Shanghai Xinike Trading 

Company (‘‘SXT’’), for the order on 

hammers/sledges for Shandong Huarong 

Machinery Co., Ltd. (‘‘Huarong’’) and 

Iron Bull Industrial Co., Ltd. (‘‘Iron 

Bull’’), and also for the order on picks/ 

mattocks for Huarong and Iron Bull. In 

addition, we are preliminarily 

rescinding the review for Iron Bull with 

respect to the axes/adzes order. If these 

preliminary results are adopted in our 

final results of review, we will instruct 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(‘‘CBP’’) to assess antidumping duties 

on all appropriate entries. We will issue 

the final review results no later than 120 

days from the date of publication of this 

notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 8, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Matthew Renkey (Respondents Huarong 

and Tianjin Machinery Import & Export 

Corporation (‘‘TMC’’)), Cindy Robinson 

(Respondent Iron Bull), and Nicole 

Bankhead (Respondent Shandong 

Machinery Import & Export Company 

(‘‘SMC’’)), AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–2312, 

(202) 482–3797 and (202) 482–9068, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Period of Review 

The POR is February 1, 2004, through 

January 31, 2005. 

Case History 

General 

On February 19, 1991, the Department 

published in the Federal Register four 

antidumping duty orders on heavy 

forged hand tools (‘‘HFHTs’’) from the 

PRC. See Antidumping Duty Orders: 

Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or 

Unfinished, With or Without Handles 

From the People’s Republic of China, 56 

FR 6622 (February 19, 1991). Imports 

covered by these orders comprise the 

following classes or kinds of 

merchandise: (1) Hammers and sledges 

with heads over 1.5 kg (3.33 pounds) 

(hammers/sledges); (2) bars over 18 

inches in length, track tools and wedges 

(bars/wedges); (3) picks/mattocks; and 

(4) axes/adzes. See the ‘‘Scope of the 

Antidumping Duty Orders’’ section 

below for the complete description of 

subject merchandise. 

On February 1, 2005, the Department 

published an opportunity to request a 

review on all four antidumping duty 

orders on HFHTs from the PRC. See 

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 

Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation; Opportunity To Request 

Administrative Review, 70 FR 5136 

(February 1, 2005). On February 25, 

2005, the following companies 

requested an administrative review for 

certain orders: Huarong for the axes/ 

adzes and bars/wedges order, SMC for 

bars/wedges and hammers/sledges, 

TMC for axes/adzes, hammers/sledges, 

and picks/mattocks, SXT for all four 

orders, and Iron Bull for all four orders. 

On February 28, 2005, the Petitioner 

requested administrative reviews of 16 

companies,1 covering all four 

antidumping duty orders. On March 23, 

2005, the Department initiated the 14th 

administrative review of HFHTs from 

the PRC, for twenty-one companies in 

the axes/adzes and bars/wedges orders, 

and twenty companies in the hammers/ 

sledges and picks/mattocks orders. See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Requests for Revocation in 

Part (‘‘Initiation’’), 70 FR 14643 (March 

23, 2005). 

On June 9, 2005, the Department 

transferred certain documents from the 

13th Administrative Review of HFHTs 

on to the record of this review. See 

Memo to the File from Hallie Noel Zink, 

Case Analyst: Heavy Forged Hand Tools 

from the People’s Republic of China—

Document Transfer, dated June 9, 2005. 

On June 28, 2005, the Department 

placed TMC’s verification report from 

the 13th Administrative Review of 

HFHTs on to the record of the instant 

review. See Memo to the File from 

Hallie Noel Zink, Case Analyst: Heavy 

Forged Hand Tools from the People’s 

Republic of China—Document Transfer, 

dated June 28, 2005. 

On October 21, 2005, the Department 

extended the time limit for the 

preliminary results of the instant review 

on HFHTs from the PRC. See Heavy 

Forged Hand Tools, Finished or 

Unfinished, With or Without Handles, 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Extension of Time Limit for the 

Preliminary Results of the Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 

62095 (October 28, 2005). 

Duty Absorption 

On April 5, 2005, the Petitioner 

requested that the Department conduct 

a duty absorption review to determine 

whether all initiated companies have 

absorbed antidumping duties in 

accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(j)(2004). On May 31, 2005, the 

Department issued a memo to the file 

stating that because the antidumping 

duty orders on HFHTs from the PRC 

have been in effect since 1991, they are 

‘‘transition orders’’ in accordance with 

section 751(c)(6)(C) of the Act, and 

therefore the Department cannot not 

make a duty absorption determination. 

See Memo to the File, from Hallie Zink, 

Case Analyst, through Alex Villanueva, 

Program Manager, re: Duty Absorption 

Request, dated May 18, 2005. 

Questionnaires and Responses 

On April 6, 2005, the Department 

issued Section A, C and D of the 


erjones on PROD1PC68 with NOTICES
16178 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 61 / Thursday, March 30, 2006 / Notices 

Issued: March 27, 2006. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E6–4640 Filed 3–29–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. AA1921–197 (Second 

Review); 701–TA–319, 320, 325–328, 348, 

and 350 (Second Review); and 731–TA–573, 

574, 576, 578, 582–587, 612, and 614–618 

(Second Review)] 

Certain Carbon Steel Products From 

Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, 

Finland, France, Germany, Japan, 

Korea, Mexico, Poland, Romania, 

Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United 

Kingdom 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Scheduling of full five-year 

reviews concerning the countervailing 

duty and antidumping duty orders on 

certain carbon steel products from 

Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, 

Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, 

Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, 

Sweden, Taiwan, and the United 

Kingdom. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of full reviews 

pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)) 

(the Act) to determine whether 

revocation of the countervailing duty 

and antidumping duty orders on certain 

carbon steel products from Australia, 

Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, 

France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, 

Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, 

Taiwan, and the United Kingdom would 

be likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of material injury within a 

reasonably foreseeable time. The 

Commission has determined to exercise 

its authority to extend the review period 

by up to 90 days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(5)(B). For further information 

concerning the conduct of these reviews 

and rules of general application, consult 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207). 

DATES: Effective Date: March 22, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elizabeth Haines (202–205–3200), Office 

of Investigations, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. 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 

these reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background. On February 6, 2006, the 

Commission determined that responses 

to its notice of institution of the subject 

five-year reviews were such that full 

reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of 

the Act should proceed (71 FR 8874, 

February 21, 2006). A record of the 

Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, 

and any individual Commissioner’s 

statements are available from the Office 

of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s Web site. 

Participation in the reviews and 

public service list. Persons, including 

industrial users of the subject 

merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in these reviews as parties 

must file an entry of appearance with 

the Secretary to the Commission, as 

provided in section 201.11 of the 

Commission’s rules, by 45 days after 

publication of this notice. A party that 

filed a notice of appearance following 

publication of the Commission’s notice 

of institution of the reviews need not 

file an additional notice of appearance. 

The Secretary will maintain a public 

service list containing the names and 

addresses of all persons, or their 

representatives, who are parties to the 

reviews. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and BPI service list. Pursuant to section 

207.7(a) of the Commission’s rules, the 

Secretary will make BPI gathered in 

these reviews available to authorized 

applicants under the APO issued in the 

reviews, provided that the application is 

made by 45 days after publication of 

this notice. Authorized applicants must 

represent interested parties, as defined 

by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to 

the reviews. A party granted access to 

BPI following publication of the 

Commission’s notice of institution of 

the reviews need not reapply for such 

access. A separate service list will be 

maintained by the Secretary for those 

parties authorized to receive BPI under 

the APO. 

Staff report. The prehearing staff 

report in the reviews will be placed in 

the nonpublic record on September 25, 

2006, and a public version will be 

issued thereafter, pursuant to section 

207.64 of the Commission’s rules. 

Hearing. The Commission will hold 

hearings in connection with the reviews 

beginning at 9:30 a.m. on October 17 

(corrosion-resistant steel) and October 

19, 2006 (cut-to-length plate), at the U.S. 

International Trade Commission 

Building. Requests to appear at the 

hearing should be filed in writing with 

the Secretary to the Commission on or 

before October 10, 2006. A nonparty 

who has testimony that may aid the 

Commission’s deliberations may request 

permission to present a short statement 

at the hearing. All parties and 

nonparties desiring to appear at the 

hearing and make oral presentations 

should attend a prehearing conference 

to be held at 9:30 a.m. on October 13, 

2006, at the U.S. International Trade 

Commission Building. Oral testimony 

and written materials to be submitted at 

the public hearing are governed by 

sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), 207.24, 

and 207.66 of the Commission’s rules. 

Parties must submit any request to 

present a portion of their hearing 

testimony in camera no later than 7 

business days prior to the date of the 

hearing. 

Written submissions. Each party to the 

reviews may submit a prehearing brief 

to the Commission. Prehearing briefs 

must conform with the provisions of 

section 207.65 of the Commission’s 

rules; the deadline for filing is October 

5, 2006. Parties may also file written 

testimony in connection with their 

presentation at the hearing, as provided 

in section 207.24 of the Commission’s 

rules, and posthearing briefs, which 

must conform with the provisions of 

section 207.67 of the Commission’s 

rules. The deadline for filing 

posthearing briefs is October 30, 2006; 

witness testimony must be filed no later 

than three days before the hearing. In 

addition, any person who has not 

entered an appearance as a party to the 

reviews may submit a written statement 

of information pertinent to the subject of 

the reviews on or before October 30, 

2006. On December 5, 2006, the 

Commission will make available to 

parties all information on which they 

have not had an opportunity to 

comment. Parties may submit final 

comments on this information on or 

before December 8, 2006, but such final 

comments must not contain new factual 

information and must otherwise comply 

with section 207.68 of the Commission’s 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 61 / Thursday, March 30, 2006 / Notices 16179 

rules. All written submissions must 

conform with the provisions of section 

201.8 of the Commission’s rules; any 

submissions that contain BPI must also 

conform with the requirements of 

sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the 

Commission’s rules. The Commission’s 

rules do not authorize filing of 

submissions with the Secretary by 

facsimile or electronic means, except to 

the extent permitted by section 201.8 of 

the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67 

FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Even 

where electronic filing of a document is 

permitted, certain documents must also 

be filed in paper form, as specified in II 

(C) of the Commission’s Handbook on 

Electronic Filing Procedures, 67 FR 

68168, 68173 (November 8, 2002). 

Additional written submissions to the 

Commission, including requests 

pursuant to section 201.12 of the 

Commission’s rules, shall not be 

accepted unless good cause is shown for 

accepting such submissions, or unless 

the submission is pursuant to a specific 

request by a Commissioner or 

Commission staff. 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, 

each document filed by a party to the 

reviews must be served on all other 

parties to the reviews (as identified by 

either the public or BPI service list), and 

a certificate of service must be timely 

filed. The Secretary will not accept a 

document for filing without a certificate 

of service. 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.62 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Issued: March 24, 2006. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E6–4642 Filed 3–29–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 
32508 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 6, 2006 / Notices 

1 Despite filing a notice of intent to participate, 

the USW neither filed its own nor joined the 

domestic interested parties in the substantive 

responses filed. 

issued on February 22, 2005, for certain 

activity involving loading equipment, 

components of offshore drilling rigs, log 

handling equipment, cranes, drive 

systems, and parts and components 

thereof. In its original application, 

LeTourneau had indicated that one of 

its foreign–sourced inputs would be a 

driver assembly, imported duty free 

under subheading 8483.90.5000 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS), to be used in 

the production of loaders. 

LeTourneau now seeks clarification 

whether its scope includes authority to 

import two subcomponents of the driver 

assembly and then assemble the drive 

assembly at LeTourneau’s Texas facility 

(rather than importing the completed 

driver assembly). The driver–assembly 

components would be a pre–machined 

hub (HTSUS 7326.90.8587 - 2.9% duty 

rate) and a spindle 7326.19.0000 

(HTSUS 7326.19.0000 - 2.9% duty rate). 

Public comment is invited from 

interested parties. Submissions shall be 

addressed to the Board’s Executive 

Secretary at the address below. The 

closing period for their receipt is July 6, 

2006. A copy of the request is available 

for public inspection at the Office of the 

Executive Secretary, Foreign–Trade 

Zones Board, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Room 1115, 1401 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 

20230. 

Dated: May 31, 2006. 

Dennis Puccinelli, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E6–8761 Filed 6–5–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(A–602–803, A–122–822, A–427–808, A–428–

816, A–588–824, A–580–816) 

Final Results of Expedited Sunset 

Reviews: Corrosion–Resistant Carbon 

Steel Flat Products from Australia, 

Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and 

South Korea 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On November 1, 2005, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) initiated the sunset 

reviews of the antidumping duty (‘‘AD’’) 

orders on certain corrosion–resistant 

carbon steel flat products (‘‘CORE’’) 

from Australia, Canada, France, 

Germany, Japan, and South Korea 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). On 

the basis of a notice of intent to 

participate, an adequate substantive 

response filed on behalf of the domestic 

interested parties, an inadequate 

response from Canadian and French 

interested parties, and no response from 

other respondent interested parties, the 

Department determined to conduct 

expedited sunset reviews of these orders 

pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2). 

As a result of these sunset reviews, the 

Department finds that revocation of 

these AD orders would be likely to lead 

to continuation or recurrence of 

dumping at the margins indicated in the 

‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section of this 

notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 6, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Conniff, Darla Brown or Brandon 

Farlander, AD/CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 

Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–1009, (202) 482–

2849 or (202) 482–0182, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On November 1, 2005, the Department 

initiated sunset reviews of the AD 

orders on CORE from Australia, Canada, 

France, Germany, Japan, and South 

Korea pursuant to section 751(c) of the 

Act. See Initiation of Five-year 

(‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 70 FR 65884 

(November 1, 2005). The Department 

received notices of intent to participate 

from the following domestic interested 

parties: United States Steel Corporation 

(‘‘U.S. Steel’’); Mittal Steel USA ISG Inc. 

(‘‘Mittal Steel’’); Nucor Corporation 

(‘‘Nucor’’); Ispat–Inland (‘‘Ispat’’); 

Oregon Steel Mills, Inc. (‘‘Oregon 

Steel’’) (hereinafter, collectively 

‘‘domestic interested parties’’); and 

United Steel, Paper and Forestry, 

Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied 

Industrial and Service Workers 

International Union, AFL–CIO-CLC 

(‘‘USW’’), within the deadline specified 

in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). The 

domestic interested parties claimed 

interested party status under section 

771(9)(C) of the Act as U.S. producers of 

the domestic like product. USW claimed 

interested party status under section 

771(9)(D) of the Act as a union 

representing the domestic CORE 

industry. We received complete 

substantive responses from the domestic 

interested parties1 within the 30-day 

deadline specified in 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(3)(i). 

The Department did not receive a 

substantive response from any 

respondent in any of the sunset reviews 

of the AD orders on CORE from 

Australia, Germany, Japan, and South 

Korea. The Department received a 

substantive response from Stelco Inc. 

(‘‘Stelco’’), a producer and exporter of 

CORE from Canada, in the sunset review 

of the AD order on CORE from Canada. 

With respect to the sunset review of the 

AD order on CORE from France, the 

Department received a substantive 

response from Duferco Coating SA and 

Sorral SA (collectively, ‘‘Duferco 

Sorral’’) and a waiver of participation 

from Arcelor. The Department 

determined that it had received 

inadequate respondent participation in 

each of these sunset reviews. As a 

result, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department 

conducted expedited reviews of these 

orders. 

On February 28, 2006, the Department 

extended the deadline for the final 

results of these reviews for 90 days, 

until May 30, 2006. See Certain 

Corrosion–Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 

Products from Australia, Canada, 

France, Germany, Japan, and South 

Korea: Extension of Time Limits for 

Final Results of Expedited Reviews, 71 

FR 10006 (February 28, 2006). 

Scope of the Orders 

The products subject to these orders 

include flat–rolled carbon steel 

products, of rectangular shape, either 

clad, plated, or coated with corrosion–

resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, 

or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron–

based alloys, whether or not corrugated 

or painted, varnished or coated with 

plastics or other nonmetallic substances 

in addition to the metallic coating, in 

coils (whether or not in successively 

superimposed layers) and of a width of 

0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths 

which, if of a thickness less than 4.75 

mm, are of a width of 0.5 inch or greater 

and which measures at least 10 times 

the thickness, or if of a thickness of 4.75 

mm or more, are of a width which 

exceeds 150 mm and measures at least 

twice the thickness, as currently 

classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) under item numbers: 

7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 

7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 

7210.49.0090, 7210.61.0000, 

7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 

7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 

7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 

7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 

7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 6, 2006 / Notices 32509 

7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 

7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 

7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000, 

7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 

7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 

7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 

7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 

7217.90.5060, and 7217.90.5090. 

Included in these orders are flat–

rolled products of nonrectangular crosssection where such cross-section is 

achieved subsequent to the rolling 

process (i.e., products which have been 

‘‘worked after rolling’’) -- for example, 

products which have been beveled or 

rounded at the edges. 

Excluded from the scope of these 

orders are flat–rolled steel products 

either plated or coated with tin, lead, 

chromium, chromium oxides, both tin 

and lead (‘‘terne plate’’), or both 

chromium and chromium oxides (‘‘tin–

free steel’’), whether or not painted, 

varnished or coated with plastics or 

other nonmetallic substances in 

addition to the metallic coating. Also 

excluded from the scope of these orders 

are clad products in straight lengths of 

0.1875 inch or more in composite 

thickness and of a width which exceeds 

150 mm and measures at least twice the 

thickness. Also excluded from the scope 

of the orders are certain clad stainless 

flat–rolled products, which are three–

layered corrosion- resistant carbon steel 

flat–rolled products less than 4.75 mm 

in composite thickness that consist of a 

carbon steel flat–rolled product clad on 

both sides with stainless steel in a 20%- 

60%-20% ratio. 

Japan 

In addition to the above, the 

Department has issued the following 

rulings regarding the scope of the order 

on Japan: 

Excluded from the scope of this order 

are imports of certain corrosion–

resistant carbon steel flat products 

meeting the following specifications: 

widths ranging from 10 mm (0.394 

inches) through 100 mm (3.94 inches); 

thicknesses, including coatings, ranging 

from 0.11 mm (0.004 inches) through 

0.60 mm (0.024 inches); and a coating 

that is from 0.003 mm (0.00012 inches) 

through 0.005 mm (0.000196 inches) in 

thickness and that is comprised of three 

evenly applied layers, the first layer 

consisting of 99% zinc, 0.5% cobalt, 

and 0.5% molybdenum, followed by a 

layer consisting of chromate, and finally 

a layer consisting of silicate. See Certain 

Corrosion–Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 

Products From Japan: Final Results of 

Changed Circumstances Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, and 

Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty 

Order, 62 FR 66848 (Dec. 22, 1997). 

Also excluded from the scope of this 

order are imports of subject 

merchandise meeting all of the 

following criteria: (1) Widths ranging 

from 10 mm (0.394 inches) through 100 

mm (3.94 inches); (2) thicknesses, 

including coatings, ranging from 0.11 

mm (0.004 inches) through 0.60 mm 

(0.024 inches); and (3) a coating that is 

from 0.003 mm (0.00012 inches) 

through 0.005 mm (0.000196 inches) in 

thickness and that is comprised of either 

two evenly applied layers, the first layer 

consisting of 99% zinc, 0.5% cobalt, 

and 0.5% molybdenum, followed by a 

layer consisting of chromate, or three 

evenly applied layers, the first layer 

consisting of 99% zinc, 0.5% cobalt, 

and 0.5% molybdenum followed by a 

layer consisting of chromate, and finally 

a layer consisting of silicate. See Certain 

Corrosion–Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 

Products From Japan: Final Results of 

Changed Circumstances Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, and 

Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty 

Order, 64 FR 14862 (Mar. 29, 1999). 

Also excluded from the scope of this 

order are: (1) Carbon steel flat products 

measuring 1.84 mm in thickness and 

43.6 mm or 16.1 mm in width consisting 

of carbon steel coil (SAE 1008) clad 

with an aluminum alloy that is balance 

aluminum, 20% tin, 1% copper, 0.3% 

silicon, 0.15% nickel, less than 1% 

other materials and meeting the 

requirements of SAE standard 783 for 

Bearing and Bushing Alloys; and (2) 

carbon steel flat products measuring 

0.97 mm in thickness and 20 mm in 

width consisting of carbon steel coil 

(SAE 1008) with a two–layer lining, the 

first layer consisting of a copper–lead 

alloy powder that is balance copper, 9% 

to 11% tin, 9% to 11% lead, less than 

1% zinc, less than 1% other materials 

and meeting the requirements of SAE 

standard 792 for Bearing and Bushing 

Alloys, the second layer consisting of 

45% to 55% lead, 38% to 50% 

polytetrafluorethylene (‘‘PTFE’’), 3% to 

5% molybdenum disulfide and less than 

2% other materials. See Certain 

Corrosion–Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 

Products From Japan: Final Results of 

Changed Circumstances Antidumping 

Duty Review, and Revocation in Part of 

Antidumping Duty Order, 64 FR 57032 

(Oct. 22, 1999). 

Also excluded from the scope of the 

order are imports of doctor blades 

meeting the following specifications: 

carbon steel coil or strip, plated with 

nickel phosphorous, having a thickness 

of 0.1524 mm (0.006 inches), a width 

between 31.75 mm (1.25 inches) and 

50.80 mm (2.00 inches), a core hardness 

between 580 to 630 HV, a surface 

hardness between 900--990 HV; the 

carbon steel coil or strip consists of the 

following elements identified in 

percentage by weight: 0.90% to 1.05% 

carbon; 0.15% to 0.35% silicon; 0.30% 

to 0.50% manganese; less than or equal 

to 0.03% of phosphorous; less than or 

equal to 0.006% of sulfur; other 

elements representing 0.24%; and the 

remainder of iron. See Certain 

Corrosion–Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 

Products From Japan: Final Results of 

Changed Circumstances Review, and 

Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty 

Order, 65 FR 53983 (Sept. 6, 2000). 

Also excluded from the scope of the 

order are imports of carbon steel flat 

products meeting the following 

specifications: carbon steel flat products 

measuring 1.64 mm in thickness and 

19.5 mm in width consisting of carbon 

steel coil (SAE 1008) with a lining clad 

with an aluminum alloy that is balance 

aluminum; 10 to 15% tin; 1 to 3% lead; 

0.7 to 1.3% copper; 1.8 to 3.5% silicon; 

0.1 to 0.7% chromium; less than 1% 

other materials and meeting the 

requirements of SAE standard 783 for 

Bearing and Bushing Alloys. See Certain 

Corrosion–Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 

Products From Japan: Final Results of 

Changed Circumstances Review, and 

Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty 

Order, 66 FR 8778 (Feb. 2, 2001). 

Also excluded from the scope of the 

order are carbon steel flat products 

meeting the following specifications: (1) 

Carbon steel flat products measuring 

0.975 mm in thickness and 8.8 mm in 

width consisting of carbon steel coil 

(SAE 1012) clad with a two–layer lining, 

the first layer consisting of a copper–

lead alloy powder that is balance 

copper, 9%-11% tin, 9%-11% lead, 

maximum 1% other materials and 

meeting the requirements of SAE 

standard 792 for Bearing and Bushing 

Alloys, the second layer consisting of 

13%-17% carbon, 13%-17% aromatic 

polyester, with a balance (approx. 66%- 

74%) of PTFE; and (2) carbon steel flat 

products measuring 1.02 mm in 

thickness and 10.7 mm in width 

consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 

1008) with a two–layer lining, the first 

layer consisting of a copper–lead alloy 

powder that is balance copper, 9%-11% 

tin, 9%-11% lead, less than 0.35% iron, 

and meeting the requirements of SAE 

standard 792 for Bearing and Bushing 

Alloys, the second layer consisting of 

45%-55% lead, 3%-5% molybdenum 

disulfide, with a balance (approx. 40%- 

52%) of PTFE. See Certain Corrosion–

Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products 

From Japan: Notice of Final Results of 

Changed Circumstances Review, and 

Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty 

Order, 66 FR 15075 (Mar. 15, 2001). 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
32510 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 6, 2006 / Notices 

Also excluded from this order are 

carbon steel flat products meeting the 

following specifications: (1) carbon steel 

coil or strip, measuring 1.93 mm or 2.75 

mm (0.076 inches or 0.108 inches) in 

thickness, 87.3 mm or 99 mm (3.437 

inches or 3.900 inches) in width, with 

a low carbon steel back comprised of: 

carbon under 8%, manganese under 

0.4%, phosphorous under 0.04%, and 

sulfur under 0.05%; clad with 

aluminum alloy comprised of: 0.7% 

copper, 12% tin, 1.7% lead, 0.3% 

antimony, 2.5% silicon, 1% maximum 

total other (including iron), and 

remainder aluminum; and (2) carbon 

steel coil or strip, clad with aluminum, 

measuring 1.75 mm (0.069 inches) in 

thickness, 89 mm or 94 mm (3.500 

inches or 3.700 inches) in width, with 

a low carbon steel back comprised of: 

carbon under 8%, manganese under 

0.4%, phosphorous under 0.04%, and 

sulfur under 0.05%; clad with 

aluminum alloy comprised of: 0.7% 

copper, 12% tin, 1.7% lead, 2.5% 

silicon, 0.3% antimony, 1% maximum 

total other (including iron), and 

remainder aluminum. See Certain 

Corrosion–Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 

Products From Japan: Notice of Final 

Results of Changed Circumstances 

Review, and Revocation in Part of 

Antidumping Duty Order, 66 FR 20967 

(Apr. 26, 2001). 

Also excluded from this order are 

carbon steel flat products meeting the 

following specifications: carbon steel 

coil or strip, measuring a minimum of 

and including 1.10 mm to a maximum 

of and including 4.90 mm in overall 

thickness, a minimum of and including 

76.00 mm to a maximum of and 

including 250.00 mm in overall width, 

with a low carbon steel back comprised 

of: carbon under 0.10%, manganese 

under 0.40%, phosphorous under 

0.04%, sulfur under 0.05%, and silicon 

under 0.05%; clad with aluminum alloy 

comprised of: under 2.51% copper, 

under 15.10% tin, and remainder 

aluminum as listed on the mill 

specification sheet. See Certain 

Corrosion–Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 

Products From Japan: Notice of Final 

Results of Changed Circumstances 

Review, and Revocation in Part of 

Antidumping Duty Order, 67 FR 7356 

(Feb. 19, 2002). 

Also excluded from this order are 

products meeting the following 

specifications: (1) Diffusion–annealed, 

non–alloy nickel–plated carbon 

products, with a substrate of cold–rolled 

battery grade sheet (‘‘CRBG’’) with both 

sides of the CRBG initially 

electrolytically plated with pure, 

unalloyed nickel and subsequently 

annealed to create a diffusion between 

the nickel and iron substrate, with the 

nickel plated coating having a thickness 

of 0–5 microns per side with one side 

equaling at least 2 microns; and with the 

nickel carbon sheet having a thickness 

of from 0.004’’ (0.10 mm) to 0.030’’

(0.762 mm) and conforming to the 

following chemical specifications (%): C 

≤ 0.08; Mn ≤ 0.45; P ≤ 0.02; S ≤ 0.02; 

Al ≤ 0.15; and Si ≤ 0.10; and the 

following physical specifications: 

Tensile = 65 KSI maximum; Yield = 32 

- 55 KSI; Elongation = 18% minimum 

(aim 34%); Hardness = 85 - 150 Vickers; 

Grain Type = Equiaxed or Pancake; 

Grain Size (ASTM) = 7–12; Delta r value 

= aim less than 0.2; Lankford value 

≥1.2.; and (2) next generation diffusion–

annealed nickel plate meeting the 

following specifications: (a) Nickel–

graphite plated, diffusion–annealed, 

tin–nickel plated carbon products, with 

a natural composition mixture of nickel 

and graphite electrolytically plated to 

the top side of diffusion–annealed tin–

nickel plated carbon steel strip with a 

cold rolled or tin mill black plate base 

metal conforming to chemical 

requirements based on AISI 1006; 

having both sides of the cold rolled 

substrate electrolytically plated with 

natural nickel, with the top side of the 

nickel plated strip electrolytically 

plated with tin and then annealed to 

create a diffusion between the nickel 

and tin layers in which a nickel–tin 

alloy is created, and an additional layer 

of mixture of natural nickel and graphite 

then electrolytically plated on the top 

side of the strip of the nickel–tin alloy; 

having a coating thickness: top side: 

nickel–graphite, tin–nickel layer ≥ 1.0 

micrometers; tin layer only ≥ 0.05 

micrometers, nickel–graphite layer only 

> 0.2 micrometers, and bottom side: 

nickel layer ≥ 1.0 micrometers; (b) 

nickel–graphite, diffusion–annealed, 

nickel plated carbon products, having a 

natural composition mixture of nickel 

and graphite electrolytically plated to 

the top side of diffusion–annealed 

nickel plated steel strip with a cold 

rolled or tin mill black plate base metal 

conforming to chemical requirements 

based on AISI 1006; with both sides of 

the cold rolled base metal initially 

electrolytically plated with natural 

nickel, and the material then annealed 

to create a diffusion between the nickel 

and the iron substrate; with an 

additional layer of natural nickel–

graphite then electrolytically plated on 

the top side of the strip of the nickel 

plated steel strip; with the nickel–

graphite, nickel plated material 

sufficiently ductile and adherent to the 

substrate to permit forming without 

cracking, flaking, peeling, or any other 

evidence of separation; having a coating 

thickness: top side: nickel–graphite, tin–

nickel layer ≥ 1.0 micrometers; nickel–

graphite layer ≥ 0.5 micrometers; bottom 

side: nickel layer ≥ 1.0 micrometers; (c) 

diffusion–annealed nickel–graphite 

plated products, which are cold–rolled 

or tin mill black plate base metal 

conforming to the chemical 

requirements based on AISI 1006; 

having the bottom side of the base metal 

first electrolytically plated with natural 

nickel, and the top side of the strip then 

plated with a nickel–graphite 

composition; with the strip then 

annealed to create a diffusion of the 

nickel–graphite and the iron substrate 

on the bottom side; with the nickel–

graphite and nickel plated material 

sufficiently ductile and adherent to the 

substrate to permit forming without 

cracking, flaking, peeling, or any other 

evidence of separation; having coating 

thickness: top side: nickel–graphite 

layer ≥ 1.0 micrometers; bottom side: 

nickel layer ≥ 1.0 micrometers; (d) 

nickel–phosphorous plated diffusion–

annealed nickel plated carbon product, 

having a natural composition mixture of 

nickel and phosphorus electrolytically 

plated to the top side of a diffusion–

annealed nickel plated steel strip with 

a cold rolled or tin mill black plate base 

metal conforming to the chemical 

requirements based on AISI 1006; with 

both sides of the base metal initially 

electrolytically plated with natural 

nickel, and the material then annealed 

to create a diffusion of the nickel and 

iron substrate; another layer of the 

natural nickel–phosphorous then 

electrolytically plated on the top side of 

the nickel plated steel strip; with the 

nickel–phosphorous, nickel plated 

material sufficiently ductile and 

adherent to the substrate to permit 

forming without cracking, flaking, 

peeling or any other evidence of 

separation; having a coating thickness: 

top side: nickel–phosphorous, nickel 

layer ≥ 1.0 micrometers; nickel–

phosphorous layer ≥ 0.1 micrometers; 

bottom side: nickel layer ≥ 1.0 

micrometers; (e) diffusion–annealed, 

tin–nickel plated products, 

electrolytically plated with natural 

nickel to the top side of a diffusion–

annealed tin–nickel plated cold rolled 

or tin mill black plate base metal 

conforming to the chemical 

requirements based on AISI 1006; with 

both sides of the cold rolled strip 

initially electrolytically plated with 

natural nickel, with the top side of the 

nickel plated strip electrolytically 

plated with tin and then annealed to 

create a diffusion between the nickel 

and tin layers in which a nickel–tin 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 6, 2006 / Notices 32511 

alloy is created, and an additional layer 

of natural nickel then electrolytically 

plated on the top side of the strip of the 

nickel–tin alloy; sufficiently ductile and 

adherent to the substrate to permit 

forming without cracking, flaking, 

peeling or any other evidence of 

separation; having coating thickness: 

top side: nickel–tin-nickel combination 

layer ≥ 1.0 micrometers; tin layer only 

≥ 0.05 micrometers; bottom side: nickel 

layer ≥ 1.0 micrometers; and (f) tin mill 

products for battery containers, tin and 

nickel plated on a cold rolled or tin mill 

black plate base metal conforming to 

chemical requirements based on AISI 

1006; having both sides of the cold 

rolled substrate electrolytically plated 

with natural nickel; then annealed to 

create a diffusion of the nickel and iron 

substrate; then an additional layer of 

natural tin electrolytically plated on the 

top side; and again annealed to create a 

diffusion of the tin and nickel alloys; 

with the tin–nickel, nickel plated 

material sufficiently ductile and 

adherent to the substrate to permit 

forming without cracking, flaking, 

peeling or any other evidence of 

separation; having a coating thickness: 

top side: nickel–tin layer ≥1 micrometer; 

tin layer alone ≥0.05 micrometers; 

bottom side: nickel layer ≥1.0 

micrometer. See Certain Corrosion–

Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products 

From Japan: Notice of Final Results of 

Changed Circumstances Review, and 

Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty 

Order, 67 FR 47768 (Jul. 22, 2002). 

Also excluded from this order are 

products meeting the following 

specifications: (1) Widths ranging from 

10 mm (0.394 inches) through 100 mm 

(3.94 inches); (2) thicknesses, including 

coatings, ranging from 0.11 mm (0.004 

inches) through 0.60 mm (0.024 inches); 

and (3) a coating that is from 0.003 mm 

(0.00012 inches) through 0.005 mm 

(0.000196 inches) in thickness and that 

is comprised of either two evenly 

applied layers, the first layer consisting 

of 99% zinc, 0.5% cobalt, and 0.5% 

molybdenum, followed by a layer 

consisting of phosphate, or three evenly 

applied layers, the first layer consisting 

of 99% zinc, 0.5% cobalt, and 0.5% 

molybdenum followed by a layer 

consisting of phosphate, and finally a 

layer consisting of silicate. See Certain 

Corrosion–Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 

Products From Japan: Notice of Final 

Results of Changed Circumstances 

Review, and Revocation in Part of 

Antidumping Duty Order, 67 FR 57208 

(Sept. 9, 2002). 

Also excluded from this order are 

products meeting the following 

specifications: (1) Flat–rolled products 

(provided for in HTSUS subheading 

7210.49.00), other than of high–strength 

steel, known as ‘‘ASE Iron Flash’’ and 

either: (A) having a base layer of zinc–

based zinc–iron alloy applied by hot–

dipping and a surface layer of iron–zinc 

alloy applied by electrolytic process, the 

weight of the coating and plating not 

over 40% by weight of zinc; or (B) two–

layer-coated corrosion–resistant steel 

with a coating composed of (a) a base 

coating layer of zinc–based zinc–iron 

alloy by hot–dip galvanizing process, 

and (b) a surface coating layer of iron–

zinc alloy by electro–galvanizing 

process, having an effective amount of 

zinc up to 40% by weight, and (2) 

corrosion resistant continuously 

annealed flat–rolled products, 

continuous cast, the foregoing with 

chemical composition (percent by 

weight): carbon not over 0.06% by 

weight, manganese 0.20 or more but not 

over 0.40, phosphorus not over 0.02, 

sulfur not over 0.023, silicon not over 

0.03, aluminum 0.03 or more but not 

over 0.08, arsenic not over 0.02, copper 

not over 0.08 and nitrogen 0.003 or 

more but not over 0.008; and meeting 

the characteristics described below: (A) 

Products with one side coated with a 

nickel–iron-diffused layer which is less 

than 1 micrometer in thickness and the 

other side coated with a two–layer 

coating composed of a base nickel–irondiffused coating layer and a surface 

coating layer of annealed and softened 

pure nickel, with total coating thickness 

for both layers of more than 2 

micrometers; surface roughness (RA–

microns) 0.18 or less; with scanning 

electron microscope (SEM) not revealing 

oxides greater than 1 micron; and 

inclusion groups or clusters shall not 

exceed 5 microns in length; (B) products 

having one side coated with a nickel–

iron-diffused layer which is less than 1 

micrometer in thickness and the other 

side coated with a four–layer coating 

composed of a base nickel–iron-diffused 

coating layer; with an inner middle 

coating layer of annealed and softened 

pure nickel, an outer middle surface 

coating layer of hard nickel and a 

topmost nickel–phosphorus-plated 

layer; with combined coating thickness 

for the four layers of more than 2 

micrometers; surface roughness (RA–

microns) 0.18 or less; with SEM not 

revealing oxides greater than 1 micron; 

and inclusion groups or clusters shall 

not exceed 5 microns in length; (C) 

products having one side coated with a 

nickel–iron-diffused layer which is less 

than 1 micrometer in thickness and the 

other side coated with a three–layer 

coating composed of a base nickel–irondiffused coating layer, with a middle 

coating layer of annealed and softened 

pure nickel and a surface coating layer 

of hard, luster–agent-added nickel 

which is not heat–treated; with 

combined coating thickness for all three 

layers of more than 2 micrometers; 

surface roughness (RA–microns) 0.18 or 

less; with SEM not revealing oxides 

greater than 1 micron; and inclusion 

groups or clusters shall not exceed 5 

microns in length; or (D) products 

having one side coated with a nickel–

iron-diffused layer which is less than 1 

micrometer in thickness and the other 

side coated with a three–layer coating 

composed of a base nickel–iron-diffused 

coating layer, with a middle coating 

layer of annealed and softened pure 

nickel and a surface coating layer of 

hard, pure nickel which is not heat–

treated; with combined coating 

thickness for all three layers of more 

than 2 micrometers; surface roughness 

(RA–microns) 0.18 or less; SEM not 

revealing oxides greater than 1 micron; 

and inclusion groups or clusters shall 

not exceed 5 microns in length. See 

Certain Corrosion–Resistant Carbon 

Steel Flat Products From Japan: Notice 

of Final Results of Changed 

Circumstances Review, and Revocation 

in Part of Antidumping Duty Order, 68 

FR 19970 (Apr. 23, 2003). 

Also excluded from the scope of this 

order is merchandise meeting the 

following specifications: (1) Base metal: 

Aluminum Killed, Continuous Cast, 

Carbon Steel SAE 1008, (2) Chemical 

Composition: Carbon 0.08% max, 

Silicon, 0.03% max., Manganese 0.40% 

max., Phosphorus, 0.020% max., Sulfur 

0.020% max., (3) Nominal thickness of 

0.054 mm, (4) Thickness tolerance 

minimum 0.0513 mm, maximum 0.0567 

mm, (5) Width of 600 mm or greater, 

and (7) Nickel plate min. 2.45 microns 

per side. See Notice of Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Changed 

Circumstances Review and Revocation, 

In Part: Certain Corrosion–Resistant 

Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan, 

70 FR 2608 (Jan. 14, 2005). 

Also excluded from the scope of this 

order are the following 24 separate 

corrosion–resistant carbon steel coil 

products meeting the following 

specifications: 

Product 1 Products described in 

industry usage as of carbon steel, 

measuring 1.625 mm to 1.655 mm in 

thickness and 19.3 mm to 19.7 mm in 

width, consisting of carbon steel coil 

(SAE 1010) with a lining clad with an 

aluminum alloy containing by weight 

10% or more but not more than 15% of 

tin, 1% or more but not more than 3% 

of lead, 0.7% or more but not more than 

1.3% of copper, 1.8% or more but not 

more than 3.5% of silicon, 0.1% or more 

but not more than 0.7% of chromium 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
32512 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 6, 2006 / Notices 

and less than or equal to 1% of other 

materials, and meeting the requirements 

of SAE standard 788 for Bearing and 

Bushing Alloys. 

Product 2 Products described in 

industry usage as of carbon steel, 

measuring 0.955 mm to 0.985 mm in 

thickness and 8.6 mm to 9.0 mm in 

width, consisting of carbon steel coil 

(SAE 1012) clad with a two–layer lining, 

the first layer consisting of a copper–

lead alloy powder that contains by 

weight 9% or more but not more than 

11% of tin, 9% or more but not more 

than 11% of lead, less than 0.05% 

phosphorus, less than 0.35% iron and 

less than or equal to 1% other materials, 

and meeting the requirements of SAE 

standard 797 for Bearing and Bushing 

Alloys, with the second layer containing 

by weight 13% or more but not more 

than 17% of carbon, 13% or more but 

not more than 17% of aromatic 

polyester, and the remainder (approx. 

66–74%) of PTFE. 

Product 3 Products described in 

industry usage as of carbon steel, 

measuring 1.01 mm to 1.03 mm in 

thickness and 10.5 mm to 10.9 mm in 

width, consisting of carbon steel coil 

(SAE 1010) with a two–layer lining, the 

first layer consisting of a copper–lead 

alloy powder that contains by weight 

9% or more but not more than 11% of 

tin, 9% or more but not more than 11% 

of lead, less than 1% zinc and less than 

or equal to 1% other materials, and 

meeting the requirements of SAE 

standard 797 for Bearing and Bushing 

Alloys, with the second layer containing 

by weight 45% or more but not more 

than 55% of lead, 3% or more but not 

more than 5% of molybdenum 

disulfide, and the remainder made up of 

PTFE (approximately 38% to 52%) and 

less than 2% in the aggregate of other 

materials. 

Product 4 Products described in 

industry usage as of carbon steel, 

measuring 1.8 mm to 1.88 mm in 

thickness and 43.4 mm to 43.8 mm or 

16.1 mm to 1.65 mm in width, 

consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 

1010) clad with an aluminum alloy that 

contains by weight 19% to 20% tin, 1% 

to 1.2% copper, less than 0.3% silicon, 

0.15% nickel and less than 1% in the 

aggregate other materials and meeting 

the requirements of SAE standard 783 

for Bearing and Bushing Alloys. 

Product 5 Products described in 

industry usage as of carbon steel, 

measuring 0.95 mm to 0.98 mm in 

thickness and 19.95 mm to 20 mm in 

width, consisting of carbon steel coil 

(SAE 1010) with a two–layer lining, the 

first layer consisting of a copper–lead 

alloy powder that contains by weight 

9% or more but not more than 11% of 

tin, 9% or more but not more than 11% 

of lead, less than 1% of zinc and less 

than or equal to 1% in the aggregate of 

other materials and meeting the 

requirements of SAE standard 797 for 

Bearing and Bushing Alloys, with the 

second layer consisting by weight of 

45% or more but not more than 55% of 

lead, 3% or more but not more than 5% 

of molybdenum disulfide and with the 

remainder made up of PTFE 

(approximately 38% to 52%) and up to 

2% in the aggregate of other materials. 

Product 6 Products described in 

industry usage as of carbon steel, 

measuring 0.96 mm to 0.98 mm in 

thickness and 18.75 mm to 18.95 mm in 

width; base of SAE 1010 steel with a 

two–layer lining, the first layer 

consisting of copper–base alloy powder 

with chemical composition (percent by 

weight): tin 9 to 11, lead 9 to 11, 

phosphorus less than 0.05, ferrous 

group less than 0.35, and other materials 

less than 1%; meeting the requirements 

of SAE standard 797 for bearing and 

bushing alloys; the second layer 

consisting of lead 33 to 37%, aromatic 

polyester 28 to 32%, and other materials 

less than 2% with a balance of PTFE. 

Product 7 Products described in 

industry usage as of carbon steel, 

measuring 1.21 mm to 1.25 mm in 

thickness and 19.4 mm to 19.6 mm in 

width; base of SAE 1012 steel with 

lining of copper base alloy with 

chemical composition (percent by 

weight): tin 9 to 11, lead 9 to 11, 

phosphorus less than 0.05, ferrous 

group less than 0.35 and other materials 

less than 1%; meeting the requirements 

of SAE standard 797 for bearing and 

bushing alloys. 

Product 8 Products described in 

industry usage as of carbon steel, 

measuring 0.96 mm to 0.98 mm in 

thickness and 21.5 mm to 21.7 mm in 

width; base of SAE 1010 steel with a 

two–layer lining, the first layer 

consisting of copper–base alloy powder 

with chemical composition (percent by 

weight): tin 9 to 11, lead 9 to 11, 

phosphorus less than 0.05%, ferrous 

group less than 0.35 and other materials 

less than 1; meeting the requirements of 

SAE standard 797 for bearing and 

bushing alloys; the second layer 

consisting of (percent by weight) lead 33 

to 37, aromatic polyester 28 to 32 and 

other materials less than 2 with a 

balance of PTFE. 

Product 9 Products described in 

industry usage as of carbon steel, 

measuring 0.96 mm to 0.99 mm in 

thickness and 7.65 mm to 7.85 mm in 

width; base of SAE 1012 steel with a 

two–layer lining, the first layer 

consisting of copper–based alloy 

powder with chemical composition 

(percent by weight): tin 9 to 11, lead 9 

to 11, phosphorus less than 0.05, ferrous 

group less than 0.35 and other materials 

less than 1; meeting the requirements of 

SAE standard 797 for bearing and 

bushing alloys; the second layer 

consisting of (percent by weight) carbon 

13 to 17 and aromatic polyester 13 to 17, 

with a balance of PTFE. 

Product 10 Products described in 

industry usage as of carbon steel, 

measuring 0.955 mm to 0.985 mm in 

thickness and 13.6 mm to 14 mm in 

width; base of SAE 1012 steel with a 

two–layer lining, the first layer 

consisting of copper–based alloy 

powder with chemical composition 

(percent by weight): tin 9 to 11, lead 9 

to 11, phosphorus less than 0.05, ferrous 

group less than 0.35 and other materials 

less than 1; meeting the requirements of 

SAE standard 797 for bearing and 

bushing alloys; the second layer 

consisting of (percent by weight) carbon 

13 to 17, aromatic polyester 13 to 17, 

with a balance (approximately 66 to 74) 

of PTFE. 

Product 11 Products described in 

industry usage as of carbon steel, 

measuring 1.2 mm to 1.24 mm in 

thickness; 20 mm to 20.4 mm in width; 

consisting of carbon steel coils (SAE 

1012) with a lining of sintered 

phosphorus bronze alloy with chemical 

composition (percent by weight): tin 5.5 

to 7; phosphorus 0.03 to 0.35; lead less 

than 1 and other non–copper materials 

less than 1. 

Product 12 Products described in 

industry usage as of carbon steel, 

measuring 1.8 mm to 1.88 mm in 

thickness and 43.3 mm to 43.7 mm in 

width; base of SAE 1010 steel with a 

lining of aluminum based alloy with 

chemical composition (percent by 

weight: tin 10 to 15, lead 1 to 3, copper 

0.7 to 1.3, silicon 1.8 to 3.5, chromium 

0.1 to 0.7 and other materials less than 

1; meeting the requirements of SAE 

standard 788 for bearing and bushing 

alloys. 

Product 13 Products described in 

industry usage as of carbon steel, 

measuring 1.8 mm to 1.88 mm in 

thickness and 24.2 mm to 24.6 mm in 

width; base of SAE 1010 steel with a 

lining of aluminum alloy with chemical 

composition (percent by weight): tin 10 

to 15, lead 1 to 3, copper 0.7 to 1.3, 

silicon 1.8 to 3.5, chromium 0.1 to 0.7 

and other materials less than 1; meeting 

the requirements of SAE standard 788 

for bearing and bushing alloys. 

Product 14 Flat–rolled coated SAE 

1009 steel in coils, with thickness not 

less than 0.915 mm but not over 0.965 

mm, width not less than 19.75 mm or 

more but not over 20.35 mm; with a 

two–layer coating; the first layer 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 6, 2006 / Notices 32513 

consisting of tin 9 to 11%, lead 9 to 

11%, zinc less than 1%, other materials 

(other than copper) not over 1% and 

balance copper; the second layer 

consisting of lead 45 to 55%, 

molybdenum disulfide (MoS2) 3 to 5%, 

other materials not over 2%, balance 

PTFE. 

Product 15 Flat–rolled coated SAE 

1009 steel in coils with thickness not 

less than 0.915 mm or more but not over 

0.965 mm; width not less than 18.65 

mm or more but not over19.25 mm; with 

a two–layer coating; the first layer 

consisting of tin 9 to 11%, lead 9 to 

11%, zinc less than 1%, other materials 

(other than copper) not over 1%, 

balance copper; the second layer 

consisting of lead 33 to 37%, aromatic 

polyester 13 to 17%, other materials 

other than PTFE less than 2%, balance 

PTFE. 

Product 16 Flat–rolled coated SAE 

1009 steel in coils with thickness not 

less than 0.920 mm or more but not over 

0.970 mm; width not less than 21.35 

mm or more but not over 21.95 mm; 

with a two–layer coating; the first layer 

consisting of tin 9 to 11%, lead 9 to 

11%, zinc less than 1%, other materials 

(other than copper) not over 1%, 

balance copper; the second layer 

consisting of lead 33 to 37%, aromatic 

polyester 13 to 17%, other materials 

(other than PTFE) less than 2%, balance 

PTFE. 

Product 17 Flat–rolled coated SAE 

1009 steel in coils with thickness not 

less than 1.80 mm or more but not over 

1.85 mm, width not less than 14.7 mm 

or more but not over 15.3 mm; with a 

lining consisting of tin 2.5 to 4.5%, lead 

21.0 to 25.0%, zinc less than 3%, iron 

less than 0.35%, other materials (other 

than copper) less than 1%, balance 

copper. 

Product 18 Flat–rolled coated SAE 

1009 steel in coils with thickness 1.59 

mm or more but not over 1.64 mm; 

width 14.5 mm or more but not over 

15.1 mm; with a lining consisting of tin 

2.3 to 4.2%, lead 20 to 25%, iron 1.5 to 

4.5%, phosphorus 0.2 to 2.0%, other 

materials (other than copper) less than 

1%, balance copper. 

Product 19 Flat–rolled coated SAE 

1009 steel in coils with thickness not 

less than 1.75 mm or more but not over 

1.8 mm; width not less than 18.0 mm or 

more but not over 18.6 mm; with a 

lining consisting of tin 2.3 to 4.2%, lead 

20 to 25%, iron 1.5 to 4.5%, phosphorus 

0.2 to 2.0%, other materials (other than 

copper) less than 1%, balance copper. 

Product 20 Flat–rolled coated SAE 

1009 steel in coils with thickness 1.59 

mm or more but not over 1.64 mm; 

width 13.6 mm or more but not over 

14.2 mm; with a lining consisting of tin 

2.3 to 4.2%, lead 20 to 25%, iron 1.5 to 

4.5%, phosphorus 0.2 to 2.0%, other 

materials (other than copper) less than 

1%, with a balance copper. 

Product 21 Flat–rolled coated SAE 

1009 steel in coils with thickness 1.59 

mm or more but not over 1.64 mm; 

width 11.5 mm or more but not over 

12.1 mm; with a lining consisting of tin 

2.3 to 4.2%, lead 20 to 25%, iron 1.5 to 

4.5%, phosphorus 0.2 to 2.0%, other 

materials (other than copper) less than 

1%, balance copper. 

Product 22 Flat–rolled coated SAE 

1009 steel in coils with thickness 1.59 

mm or more but not over 1.64 mm; 

width 11.2 mm or more but not over 

11.8 mm, with a lining consisting of 

copper 0.7 to 1.3%, tin 17.5 to 22.5%, 

silicon less than 0.3%, nickel less than 

0.15%, other materials less than 1%, 

balance aluminum. 

Product 23 Flat–rolled coated SAE 

1009 steel in coils with thickness 1.59 

mm or more but not over 1.64 mm; 

width 7.2 mm or more but not over 7.8 

mm; with a lining consisting of copper 

0.7 to 1.3%, tin 17.5 to 22.5%, silicon 

less than 0.3%, nickel less than 0.15%, 

other materials (other than copper) less 

than 1%, balance copper. 

Product 24 Flat–rolled coated SAE 

1009 steel in coils with thickness 1.72 

mm or more but not over 1.77 mm; 

width 7.7 mm or more but not over 8.3 

mm; with a lining consisting of copper 

0.7 to 1.3%, tin 17.5 to 22.5%, silicon 

less than 0.3%, nickel less than 0.15%, 

other materials (other than copper) less 

than 1%, balance copper. See Notice of 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Changed Circumstances Review and 

Revocation, in Part: Certain Corrosion–

Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products 

From Japan, 70 FR 5137 (Feb. 1, 2005). 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in these reviews are 

addressed in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum (‘‘Decision 

Memorandum’’) from Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, to David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, dated May 30, 2006, 

which is hereby adopted by this notice. 

Parties can find a complete discussion 

of all issues raised in these reviews and 

the corresponding recommendations in 

this public memorandum which is on 

file in the Central Records Unit room B–

099 of the main Commerce building. In 

addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly on the Web at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Final Results of Review 

The Department determines that 

revocation of the AD orders on CORE 

from Australia, Canada, France, 

Germany, Japan, and South Korea 

would be likely to lead to continuation 

or recurrence of dumping at the 

following weighted–average percentage 

margins: 

Australia.

Broken Hill Proprietary Company 

Ltd. (‘‘BHP’’) .................................. 24.96% 

All Others .......................................... 24.96% 

Canada.

Dofasco, Inc. ..................................... 11.71% 

Stelco, Inc. ........................................ 22.70% 

All Others .......................................... 18.71% 

France.

Usinor Sacilor ................................... 29.41% 

All Others .......................................... 29.41% 

Germany.

Thyssen Stahl AG (‘‘Thyssen’’) ........ 10.02% 

All Others .......................................... 10.02% 

Japan.

Kawasaki Steel Corporation (‘‘KSC’’) 36.41% 

Nippon Steel Corporation (‘‘NSC’’) ... 36.41% 

All Others .......................................... 36.41% 

South Korea.

Pohang Iron and Steel Company, 

Ltd. ................................................ 17.70% 

All Others .......................................... 17.70% 

Notification Regarding Administrative 

Protective Order 

This notice serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. 

Timely notification of return/ 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and the terms of an 

APO is a sanctionable violation. 

We are issuing and publishing the 

results and notice in accordance with 

sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act. 

Dated: May 30, 2006. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E6–8760 Filed 6–5–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 6, 2006 / Notices 32519 

8We note that Tenex did not file either a waiver 

of intent to participate in this sunset review 

pursuant to Section 351.218(d)(2) of the 

Department’s sunset regulations or a complete 

substantive response to the notice of initiation 

pursuant to Section 351.218(d) (3). 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/summary/russia/E6–

4738–1.pdf. In our preliminary results, 

we found that revocation of the 

antidumping duty Suspension 

Agreement on uranium from Russia 

would likely lead to a continuation or 

recurrence of dumping at the weighted–

average margin of 115.82 percent for all 

producers/exporters from Russia. 

On April 17, 2006, we received case 

briefs on behalf of Power Resources, Inc. 

(‘‘PRI’’) and Crow Butte Resources, Inc. 

(‘‘Crow Butte’’); USEC Inc. and United 

States Enrichment Corporation 

(collectively, ‘‘USEC’’); the Ad Hoc 

Utilities Group (‘‘AHUG’’); and AO 

Techsnabexport (‘‘Tenex’’).8 On April 

24, 2006, we received rebuttal briefs on 

behalf of Power Resources and Crow 

Butte, USEC, and AHUG. On April 26, 

2006, USEC requested that the 

Department reject AHUG’s rebuttal brief 

because it contained new information 

not permissible under the Department’s 

regulations. On May 24, 2006, the 

Department notified AHUG that it was 

returning AHUG’s rebuttal brief because 

it contained information not timely filed 

under the regulations and offered AHUG 

the opportunity to redact the new 

information and to re–submit the brief 

to the Department within two days. On 

May 26, 2006, AHUG re–submitted its 

rebuttal brief; however it failed to redact 

all references to the new information 

that appeared in its May 24, 2006 

rebuttal brief. We requested again that 

AHUG re–submit its rebuttal brief 

without the references to the new 

information, by the close–of-business on 

May 30, 2006. On, May 30, 2006, AHUG 

filed its rebuttal brief and redacted all 

new information. Additionally, on May 

26, 2006, AHUG submitted a letter to 

the Department which also contained 

new and untimely filed information. On 

May 30, 2006, the Department notified 

AHUG that it was returning this 

additional May 26, 2006 letter because 

it contained information not timely filed 

under the Department’s regulations. No 

interested party requested a hearing in 

this sunset review. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised by parties to this 

sunset review are addressed in the 

‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for 

the Sunset Review of the Agreement 

Suspending the Antidumping 

Investigation on Uranium from the 

Russian Federation; Final Results’’ from 

Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Policy and Negotiations, to 

David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary 

for Import Administration (May 30, 

2006) (‘‘Final Results Decision 

Memorandum’’), which is adopted by 

this notice. The issues discussed in the 

Final Results Decision Memorandum 

include the likelihood of continuation 

or recurrence of dumping, scope of the 

subject merchandise, and the magnitude 

of the margins likely to prevail were the 

Suspension Agreement to be terminated. 

Parties may find a complete discussion 

of all issues raised in this review and 

the corresponding recommendations in 

this public memorandum which is on 

file in the Central Records Unit, room 

B–099, of the main Department of 

Commerce building. In addition, a 

complete version of the Final Results 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly on the Web at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Final Results 

Decision Memorandum are identical in 

content. 

Final Results of Review 

We determine that termination of the 

Suspension Agreement on uranium 

from Russia would likely lead to a 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

at the following percentage weighted–

average margin: 

Exporter/manufacturer Weighted–average 

margin (percent) 

Russia–Wide ................. 115.82 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 of the 

Department’s regulations. Timely 

notification of the return or destruction 

of APO materials or conversion to 

judicial protective order is hereby 

requested. Failure to comply with the 

regulations and terms of an APO is a 

violation which is subject to sanction. 

This sunset review and notice are in 

accordance with sections 751(c), 752, 

and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: May 30, 2006. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E6–8758 Filed 6–5–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–580–818] 

Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon 

Steel Flat Products From Korea: Final 

Results of Expedited Five-Year 

(‘‘Sunset’’) Review of the 

Countervailing Duty Order 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On November 1, 2005, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) published in the Federal 

Register the notice of initiation of the 

second five-year sunset review of the 

countervailing duty order on certain 

corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat 

products (CORE) from the Republic of 

Korea (‘‘Korea’’), pursuant to section 

751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’). See Initiation of 

Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 70 FR 

65884 (November 1, 2005) (‘‘Second 

Sunset Review’’). On the basis of a 

notice of intent to participate and an 

adequate substantive response filed on 

behalf of domestic interested parties, 

and an inadequate response from 

respondent interested parties (in this 

case, no response), the Department has 

conducted an expedited sunset review 

of this order pursuant to section 

751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(B). As a result of this 

sunset review, the Department finds that 

revocation of the countervailing duty 

order is likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of a countervailable subsidy 

at the level indicated in the ‘‘Final 

Results of Review’’ section of this 

notice. 

DATES: Effective Date: June 6, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephanie Moore or Brandon Farlander, 

AD/CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–3692 or (202) 482–

5439, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The countervailing duty order which 

covers CORE from Korea, was published 

in the Federal Register on August 17, 

1993. See Countervailing Duty Orders 

and Amendments to Final Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determinations: 

Certain Steel Products from Korea, 58 

FR 43752 (August 17, 1993). On 

November 1, 2005, the Department 

initiated the second sunset review of the 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
32520 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 6, 2006 / Notices 

1See December 21, 2005 letter to ITC, Robert 

Carpenter, Director of Investigations, from Barbara 

E. Tillman, Director, Office 6, AD/CVD Operations, 

Import Administration. 

countervailing duty order on CORE from 

Korea, pursuant to section 751(c) of the 

Act. See Second Sunset Review. The 

Department received notices of intent to 

participate from Nucor Corporation 

(‘‘Nucor’’), Mittal Steel USA ISG Inc. 

(‘‘Mittal Steel USA’’) and Ispat-Inland 

(‘‘Ispat’’); United States Steel 

Corporation (‘‘U.S. Steel’’); (collectively, 

‘‘domestic interested parties’’); and on 

behalf of United Steel, Paper and 

Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, 

Energy, Allied Industrial and Service 

Workers International Union, AFL–CIO–

CLC (‘‘USW’’), within the deadline 

specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). 

Domestic interested parties and the 

USW claimed interested party status 

under sections 771(9)(C) and (D) of the 

Act, as U.S. producers and a certified 

union engaged in the manufacture, 

production, or wholesale of CORE in the 

United States. 

On December 1, 2005, the Department 

received a substantive response from 

domestic interested parties within the 

deadline specified in section 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(3)(i). The Department did 

not receive any responses from any 

respondent interested party to this 

proceeding. In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department 

notified the International Trade 

Commission (‘‘ITC’’) that respondent 

interested parties provided an 

inadequate response to the Notice of 

Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Review.1 The Department, therefore, is 

conducting an expedited sunset review 

of the countervailing duty order, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(B) 

and 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2). 

In accordance with section 

751(c)(5)(C)(v) of the Act, the 

Department may treat a review as 

extraordinarily complicated if it is a 

review of a transition order (i.e., an 

order in effect on January 1, 1995, the 

effective date of the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act), as is the case in this 

proceeding. As such, the Department 

determined that the sunset review of the 

countervailing duty order on CORE from 

Korea is extraordinarily complicated 

and required additional time for the 

completion of the final results of review. 

In accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) 

of the Act, the Department extended the 

time limit for completion of the final 

results of CORE from Korea until no 

later than May 30, 2006. See Certain 

Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 

Products from Australia, Canada, 

France, Germany, Japan, and South 

Korea: Extension of Time Limits for 

Final Results of Expedited Sunset 

Reviews, 71 FR 10006 (February 28, 

2006). 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise covered by this 

order includes flat-rolled carbon steel 

products, of rectangular shape, either 

clad, plated, or coated with corrosionresistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, 

or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or ironbased alloys, whether or not corrugated 

or painted, varnished or coated with 

plastics or other nonmetallic substances 

in addition to the metallic coating, in 

coils (whether or not in successively 

superimposed layers) and of a width of 

0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths 

which, if of a thickness less than 4.75 

millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch 

or greater and which measures at least 

10 times the thickness or if of a 

thickness of 4.75 millimeters or more 

are of a width which exceeds 150 

millimeters and measures at least twice 

the thickness, as currently classifiable in 

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS) under item 

numbers 7210.31.0000, 7210.39.0000, 

7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 

7210.49.0090, 7210.60.0000, 

7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 

7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 

7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 

7212.21.0000, 7212.29.0000, 

7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 

7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 

7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 

7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000, 

7215.90.1000, 7215.90.5000, 

7217.12.1000, 7217.13.1000, 

7217.19.1000, 7217.19.5000, 

7217.22.5000, 7217.23.5000, 

7217.29.1000, 7217.29.5000, 

7217.32.5000, 7217.33.5000, 

7217.39.1000, and 7217.39.5000. 

Included in this order are flat-rolled 

products of non-rectangular crosssection where such cross-section is 

achieved subsequent to the rolling 

process (i.e., products which have been 

‘‘worked after rolling’’)—for example, 

products which have been beveled or 

rounded at the edges. Excluded from 

this order are flat-rolled steel products 

either plated or coated with tin, lead, 

chromium, chromium oxides, both tin 

and lead (‘‘terne plate’’), or both 

chromium and chromium oxides (‘‘tinfree steel’’), whether or not painted, 

varnished or coated with plastics or 

other nonmetallic substances in 

addition to the metallic coating. 

Excluded from this order are clad 

products in straight lengths of 0.1875 

inch or more in composite thickness 

and of a width which exceeds 150 

millimeters and measures at least twice 

the thickness. Also excluded from this 

order are certain clad stainless flatrolled products, which are three-layered 

corrosion-resistant carbon steel flatrolled products less than 4.75 

millimeters in composite thickness that 

consist of a carbon steel flat-rolled 

product clad on both sides with 

stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio. 

Although the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

merchandise covered by this order is 

dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in substantive 

responses by parties in this sunset 

review are addressed in the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum for Final Results 

of Expedited Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Review of the Countervailing Duty Order 

on Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon 

Steel Flat Products from Korea 

(‘‘Decision Memo’’), from Stephen J. 

Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, to David M. 

Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, dated May 30, 2006, 

which is hereby adopted by this notice. 

The issues discussed in the Decision 

Memo include the likelihood of 

continuation or recurrence of a 

countervailable subsidy and the net 

countervailable subsidy rate likely to 

prevail if the order were revoked. 

Parties can find a complete discussion 

of all issues raised in this sunset review 

and the corresponding recommendation 

in this public memorandum which is on 

file in B–099, the Central Records Unit, 

of the main Commerce building. In 

addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memo can be accessed directly 

on the Department’s Web page at 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy 

and electronic version of the Decision 

Memo are identical in content. 

Final Results of Review 

The Department determines that 

revocation of the countervailing duty 

order on CORE from Korea is likely to 

lead to continuation or recurrence of 

countervailable subsidies at the 

following countervailing duty rate: 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 6, 2006 / Notices 32521 

2Union Steel was excluded from the order on the 

basis of a de minimis net subsidy rate. See Certain 

Cold-Rolled and Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel 

Flat Products From Korea: Amended Final 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determinations in 

Accordance with Decision Upon Remand, 66 FR 

16656 (March 27, 2001). 

Manufacturer/exporter 

Net subsidy 

margin 

(percent) 

All Producers/Exporters from 

Korea 2 .................................. 1.15 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective orders (APO) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with section 351.303 of the 

Department’s regulations. Timely 

notification of the return or destruction 

of APO materials or conversion to 

judicial protective order is hereby 

requested. Failure to comply with the 

regulations and terms of an APO is a 

violation which is subject to sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

determination and notice in accordance 

with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i) of 

the Act. 

Dated: May 30, 2006. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E6–8754 Filed 6–5–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–201–810] 

Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel 

Plate From Mexico: Final Results of 

Expedited Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review 

of the Countervailing Duty Order 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On November 1, 2005, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) initiated a sunset review 

of the countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) 

order on certain cut-to-length carbon 

steel plate from Mexico pursuant to 

section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (‘‘the Act’’). See Initiation 

of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 70 FR 

65884 (November 1, 2005). On the basis 

of notices of intent to participate and an 

adequate substantive response filed on 

behalf of the domestic interested parties, 

and an inadequate response from 

respondent interested parties (in this 

case, no response), the Department is 

conducting an expedited sunset review 

pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(B). As 

a result of this sunset review, the 

Department finds that revocation of the 

CVD order would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of 

countervailable subsidies at the levels 

indicated in the ‘‘Final Results of 

Review’’ section of this notice. 

DATES: Effective Date: June 6, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Copyak or Brandon Farlander, 

AD/CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: 202–482–2209 or 202–482–

0182, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background 

On November 1, 2005, the Department 

initiated a sunset review of the CVD 

order on certain cut-to-length carbon 

steel plate from Mexico pursuant to 

section 751(c) of the Act. See Initiation 

of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 70 FR 

65884. In November 2005, the 

Department received notices of intent to 

participate on behalf of Nucor 

Corporation (‘‘Nucor’’); IPSCO Steel Inc. 

(‘‘IPSCO’’); Oregon Steel Mills (‘‘Oregon 

Steel’’); Mittal Steel USA ISG Inc. 

(‘‘Mittal Steel USA’’); and United Steel, 

Paper and Forestry, Rubber, 

Manufacturing, Energy, Allied 

Industrial and Service Workers 

International Union, AFL–CIO–CLC 

(‘‘USW’’) (collectively, ‘‘domestic 

interested parties’’). The domestic 

interested parties claimed interested 

party status under sections 771(9)(C) 

and (D) of the Act, as domestic 

producers of a like product, or a union 

engaged in the production of subject 

merchandise in the United States. The 

Department received a complete 

substantive response from the domestic 

interested parties within the 30-day 

deadline specified in 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(3)(i). We did not receive a 

substantive response or a rebuttal 

response from any foreign respondents. 

As a result, pursuant to section 

751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department is 

conducting an expedited sunset review 

of this CVD order. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by this order 

are certain cut-to-length carbon steel 

plates. These products include hotrolled carbon steel universal mill plates 

(i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on four 

faces or in a closed box pass, of a width 

exceeding 150 millimeters but not 

exceeding 1,250 millimeters and of a 

thickness of not less than 4 millimeters, 

not in coils and without patterns in 

relief), of rectangular shape, neither 

clad, plated nor coated with metal, 

whether or not painted, varnished, or 

coated with plastics or other 

nonmetallic substances; and certain hotrolled carbon steel flat-rolled products 

in straight lengths, of rectangular shape, 

hot rolled, neither clad, plated, nor 

coated with metal, whether or not 

painted, varnished, or coated with 

plastics or other nonmetallic substances, 

4.75 millimeters or more in thickness 

and of a width which exceeds 150 

millimeters and measures at least twice 

the thickness, as currently classifiable in 

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) under item 

numbers 7208.31.0000, 7208.32.0000, 

7208.33.1000, 7208.33.5000, 

7208.41.0000, 7208.42.0000, 

7208.43.0000, 7208.90.0000, 

7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 

7211.11.0000, 7211.12.0000, 

7211.21.0000, 7211.22.0045, 

7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 

7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000. 

Included in this administrative review 

are flat-rolled products of nonrectangular cross-section where such 

cross-section is achieved subsequent to 

the rolling process (i.e., products which 

have been ‘‘worked after rolling’’)—for 

example, products which have been 

beveled or rounded at the edges. 

Excluded from this administrative 

review is grade X–70 plate. HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes. 

Although the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

merchandise covered by this order is 

dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in this review are 

addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Expedited Sunset 

Review of the Countervailing Duty Order 

on Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel 

Plate from Mexico; Final Results’’

(‘‘Decision Memorandum’’) from 

Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration to 

David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary 

for Import Administration, dated May 

30, 2006, which is hereby adopted by 

this notice. The issues discussed in the 

Decision Memorandum include the 

likelihood of continuation or recurrence 

of a countervailable subsidy and the net 

countervailable subsidy rate likely to 

prevail if the order were revoked. 

Parties can find a complete discussion 

of all issues raised in this review and 

the corresponding recommendation in 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 6, 2006 / Notices 32521 

2Union Steel was excluded from the order on the 

basis of a de minimis net subsidy rate. See Certain 

Cold-Rolled and Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel 

Flat Products From Korea: Amended Final 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determinations in 

Accordance with Decision Upon Remand, 66 FR 

16656 (March 27, 2001). 

Manufacturer/exporter 

Net subsidy 

margin 

(percent) 

All Producers/Exporters from 

Korea 2 .................................. 1.15 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective orders (APO) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with section 351.303 of the 

Department’s regulations. Timely 

notification of the return or destruction 

of APO materials or conversion to 

judicial protective order is hereby 

requested. Failure to comply with the 

regulations and terms of an APO is a 

violation which is subject to sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

determination and notice in accordance 

with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i) of 

the Act. 

Dated: May 30, 2006. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E6–8754 Filed 6–5–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–201–810] 

Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel 

Plate From Mexico: Final Results of 

Expedited Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review 

of the Countervailing Duty Order 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On November 1, 2005, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) initiated a sunset review 

of the countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) 

order on certain cut-to-length carbon 

steel plate from Mexico pursuant to 

section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (‘‘the Act’’). See Initiation 

of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 70 FR 

65884 (November 1, 2005). On the basis 

of notices of intent to participate and an 

adequate substantive response filed on 

behalf of the domestic interested parties, 

and an inadequate response from 

respondent interested parties (in this 

case, no response), the Department is 

conducting an expedited sunset review 

pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(B). As 

a result of this sunset review, the 

Department finds that revocation of the 

CVD order would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of 

countervailable subsidies at the levels 

indicated in the ‘‘Final Results of 

Review’’ section of this notice. 

DATES: Effective Date: June 6, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Copyak or Brandon Farlander, 

AD/CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: 202–482–2209 or 202–482–

0182, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background 

On November 1, 2005, the Department 

initiated a sunset review of the CVD 

order on certain cut-to-length carbon 

steel plate from Mexico pursuant to 

section 751(c) of the Act. See Initiation 

of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 70 FR 

65884. In November 2005, the 

Department received notices of intent to 

participate on behalf of Nucor 

Corporation (‘‘Nucor’’); IPSCO Steel Inc. 

(‘‘IPSCO’’); Oregon Steel Mills (‘‘Oregon 

Steel’’); Mittal Steel USA ISG Inc. 

(‘‘Mittal Steel USA’’); and United Steel, 

Paper and Forestry, Rubber, 

Manufacturing, Energy, Allied 

Industrial and Service Workers 

International Union, AFL–CIO–CLC 

(‘‘USW’’) (collectively, ‘‘domestic 

interested parties’’). The domestic 

interested parties claimed interested 

party status under sections 771(9)(C) 

and (D) of the Act, as domestic 

producers of a like product, or a union 

engaged in the production of subject 

merchandise in the United States. The 

Department received a complete 

substantive response from the domestic 

interested parties within the 30-day 

deadline specified in 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(3)(i). We did not receive a 

substantive response or a rebuttal 

response from any foreign respondents. 

As a result, pursuant to section 

751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department is 

conducting an expedited sunset review 

of this CVD order. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by this order 

are certain cut-to-length carbon steel 

plates. These products include hotrolled carbon steel universal mill plates 

(i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on four 

faces or in a closed box pass, of a width 

exceeding 150 millimeters but not 

exceeding 1,250 millimeters and of a 

thickness of not less than 4 millimeters, 

not in coils and without patterns in 

relief), of rectangular shape, neither 

clad, plated nor coated with metal, 

whether or not painted, varnished, or 

coated with plastics or other 

nonmetallic substances; and certain hotrolled carbon steel flat-rolled products 

in straight lengths, of rectangular shape, 

hot rolled, neither clad, plated, nor 

coated with metal, whether or not 

painted, varnished, or coated with 

plastics or other nonmetallic substances, 

4.75 millimeters or more in thickness 

and of a width which exceeds 150 

millimeters and measures at least twice 

the thickness, as currently classifiable in 

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) under item 

numbers 7208.31.0000, 7208.32.0000, 

7208.33.1000, 7208.33.5000, 

7208.41.0000, 7208.42.0000, 

7208.43.0000, 7208.90.0000, 

7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 

7211.11.0000, 7211.12.0000, 

7211.21.0000, 7211.22.0045, 

7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 

7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000. 

Included in this administrative review 

are flat-rolled products of nonrectangular cross-section where such 

cross-section is achieved subsequent to 

the rolling process (i.e., products which 

have been ‘‘worked after rolling’’)—for 

example, products which have been 

beveled or rounded at the edges. 

Excluded from this administrative 

review is grade X–70 plate. HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes. 

Although the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

merchandise covered by this order is 

dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in this review are 

addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Expedited Sunset 

Review of the Countervailing Duty Order 

on Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel 

Plate from Mexico; Final Results’’

(‘‘Decision Memorandum’’) from 

Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration to 

David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary 

for Import Administration, dated May 

30, 2006, which is hereby adopted by 

this notice. The issues discussed in the 

Decision Memorandum include the 

likelihood of continuation or recurrence 

of a countervailable subsidy and the net 

countervailable subsidy rate likely to 

prevail if the order were revoked. 

Parties can find a complete discussion 

of all issues raised in this review and 

the corresponding recommendation in 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
32522 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 6, 2006 / Notices 

1 Domestic interested parties note that Mittal, 

IPSCO, and Oregon Steel Mills, were the petitioners 

or successors to petitioners in the original 

investigation and that they have participated in the 

first sunset review. 

2On December 1, 2005, the Department received 

a letter from domestic interested parties regarding 

an amendment to their November 30, 2005 

substantive response to the Department’s initiation 

of the sunset review on CTL Plate from Brazil. In 

the letter, domestic interested parties included 

United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, 

Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and 

Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC 

(‘‘USW’’) to the November 30, 2005 substantive 

response. 

3See December 21, 2005 letter to Robert 

Carpenter, Director of Investigations, ITC, from 

Barbara E. Tillman, Director, Office 6, AD/CVD 

Operations, Import Administration. 

this public memorandum which is on 

file in the Central Records Unit, Room 

B–099 of the main Commerce building. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly on the Web at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Final Results of Review 

The Department determines that 

revocation of the CVD order on certain 

cut-to-length carbon steel plate from 

Mexico would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of a 

countervailable subsidy at the rates 

listed below: 

Manufacturer/exporter 

Net 

countervailable 

subsidy 

(percent) 

AHMSA ................................. 28.32 

All Others .............................. 20.25 

Notification Regarding Administrative 

Protective Order 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 of the 

Department’s regulations. Timely 

notification of the return or destruction 

of APO materials or conversion to 

judicial protective order is hereby 

requested. Failure to comply with the 

regulations and terms of an APO is a 

violation which is subject to sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results and notice in accordance with 

sections 751(c), 752(b), and 777(i)(1) of 

the Act. 

Dated: May 30, 2006. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 06–5144 Filed 6–5–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(C–351–818) 

Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from 

Brazil: Final Results of Expedited Fiveyear (‘‘Sunset’’) Review of the 

Countervailing Duty Order 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On November 1, 2005, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) published in the Federal 

Register the notice of initiation of the 

second five-year sunset review of the 

countervailing duty order on certain 

cut–to-length carbon steel plate (‘‘CTL 

Plate’’) from Brazil, pursuant to section 

751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’). See Initiation of 

Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 70 FR 

65884 (November 1, 2005)(‘‘Second 

Sunset Review’’). On the basis of a 

notice of intent to participate and an 

adequate substantive response filed on 

behalf of domestic interested parties, 

and an inadequate response from 

respondent interested parties (in this 

case, no response), the Department has 

conducted an expedited sunset review 

of this order pursuant to section 

751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and section 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(B) of the Department’s 

regulations. As a result of this sunset 

review, the Department finds that 

revocation of the countervailing duty 

order is likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of a countervailable subsidy 

at the level indicated in the ‘‘Final 

Results of Review’’ section of this 

notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 6, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Martha Douthit or Dana Mermelstein, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–2371 or (202) 482–

3964, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The countervailing duty order which 

covers CTL Plate from Brazil was 

published in the Federal Register on 

August 17, 1993. See Countervailing 

Duty Order and Amendment to Final 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination: Certain Steel Products 

From Brazil, 58 FR 43751 (August 17, 

1993). On November 1, 2005, the 

Department initiated the second sunset 

review of the countervailing duty order 

on CTL Plate from Brazil, pursuant to 

section 751(c) of the Act. See Second 

Sunset Review. The Department 

received notices of intent to participate 

from IPSCO, Inc., Mittal Steel USA ISG, 

Inc., Nucor Corporation, Oregon Steel 

Mills, Inc., and United Steel, Paper and 

Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, 

Energy, Allied Industrial and Service 

Workers International Union, AFL–CIOCLC (‘‘USW’’) (collectively, ‘‘domestic 

interested parties’’), within the deadline 

specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i).1

Domestic interested parties claimed 

interested party status under sections 

771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act, as U.S. 

producers and a certified union engaged 

in the manufacture, production, or 

wholesale of CTL Plate in the United 

States. 

On November 30, 2005, the 

Department received a substantive 

response from domestic interested 

parties within deadline specified in 19 

CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i).2 The Department 

did not receive any responses from any 

respondent interested party to this 

proceeding. In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(1), the Department 

notified the International Trade 

Commission (‘‘ITC’’) that respondent 

interested parties provided an 

inadequate response to the Notice of 

Initiation of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Reviews.3 The Department, therefore, 

has conducted an expedited sunset 

review of the countervailing duty order, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(B) 

and 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2). 

In accordance with section 

751(c)(5)(C)(v) of the Act, the 

Department may treat a review as 

extraordinarily complicated if it is a 

review of a transition order (i.e., an 

order in effect on January 1, 1995, the 

effective date of the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act), as is the case in this 

proceeding. As such, the Department 

determined that the sunset review of the 

countervailing duty order on CTL Plate 

from Brazil, is extraordinarily 

complicated and requires additional 

time for the completion of final results 

of review. In accordance with section 

751(c)(5)(B) of the Act, the Department 

extended the time limit for completion 

of the final results of CTL Plate from 

Brazil until no later than May 30, 2006. 

See Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel Plate 

from Brazil and Spain; Extension of 

Time Limits for Final Results of 

Expedited Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
32522 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 6, 2006 / Notices 

1 Domestic interested parties note that Mittal, 

IPSCO, and Oregon Steel Mills, were the petitioners 

or successors to petitioners in the original 

investigation and that they have participated in the 

first sunset review. 

2On December 1, 2005, the Department received 

a letter from domestic interested parties regarding 

an amendment to their November 30, 2005 

substantive response to the Department’s initiation 

of the sunset review on CTL Plate from Brazil. In 

the letter, domestic interested parties included 

United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, 

Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and 

Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC 

(‘‘USW’’) to the November 30, 2005 substantive 

response. 

3See December 21, 2005 letter to Robert 

Carpenter, Director of Investigations, ITC, from 

Barbara E. Tillman, Director, Office 6, AD/CVD 

Operations, Import Administration. 

this public memorandum which is on 

file in the Central Records Unit, Room 

B–099 of the main Commerce building. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly on the Web at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Final Results of Review 

The Department determines that 

revocation of the CVD order on certain 

cut-to-length carbon steel plate from 

Mexico would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of a 

countervailable subsidy at the rates 

listed below: 

Manufacturer/exporter 

Net 

countervailable 

subsidy 

(percent) 

AHMSA ................................. 28.32 

All Others .............................. 20.25 

Notification Regarding Administrative 

Protective Order 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 of the 

Department’s regulations. Timely 

notification of the return or destruction 

of APO materials or conversion to 

judicial protective order is hereby 

requested. Failure to comply with the 

regulations and terms of an APO is a 

violation which is subject to sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results and notice in accordance with 

sections 751(c), 752(b), and 777(i)(1) of 

the Act. 

Dated: May 30, 2006. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 06–5144 Filed 6–5–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(C–351–818) 

Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from 

Brazil: Final Results of Expedited Fiveyear (‘‘Sunset’’) Review of the 

Countervailing Duty Order 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On November 1, 2005, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) published in the Federal 

Register the notice of initiation of the 

second five-year sunset review of the 

countervailing duty order on certain 

cut–to-length carbon steel plate (‘‘CTL 

Plate’’) from Brazil, pursuant to section 

751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’). See Initiation of 

Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 70 FR 

65884 (November 1, 2005)(‘‘Second 

Sunset Review’’). On the basis of a 

notice of intent to participate and an 

adequate substantive response filed on 

behalf of domestic interested parties, 

and an inadequate response from 

respondent interested parties (in this 

case, no response), the Department has 

conducted an expedited sunset review 

of this order pursuant to section 

751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and section 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(B) of the Department’s 

regulations. As a result of this sunset 

review, the Department finds that 

revocation of the countervailing duty 

order is likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of a countervailable subsidy 

at the level indicated in the ‘‘Final 

Results of Review’’ section of this 

notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 6, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Martha Douthit or Dana Mermelstein, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–2371 or (202) 482–

3964, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The countervailing duty order which 

covers CTL Plate from Brazil was 

published in the Federal Register on 

August 17, 1993. See Countervailing 

Duty Order and Amendment to Final 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination: Certain Steel Products 

From Brazil, 58 FR 43751 (August 17, 

1993). On November 1, 2005, the 

Department initiated the second sunset 

review of the countervailing duty order 

on CTL Plate from Brazil, pursuant to 

section 751(c) of the Act. See Second 

Sunset Review. The Department 

received notices of intent to participate 

from IPSCO, Inc., Mittal Steel USA ISG, 

Inc., Nucor Corporation, Oregon Steel 

Mills, Inc., and United Steel, Paper and 

Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, 

Energy, Allied Industrial and Service 

Workers International Union, AFL–CIOCLC (‘‘USW’’) (collectively, ‘‘domestic 

interested parties’’), within the deadline 

specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i).1

Domestic interested parties claimed 

interested party status under sections 

771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act, as U.S. 

producers and a certified union engaged 

in the manufacture, production, or 

wholesale of CTL Plate in the United 

States. 

On November 30, 2005, the 

Department received a substantive 

response from domestic interested 

parties within deadline specified in 19 

CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i).2 The Department 

did not receive any responses from any 

respondent interested party to this 

proceeding. In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(1), the Department 

notified the International Trade 

Commission (‘‘ITC’’) that respondent 

interested parties provided an 

inadequate response to the Notice of 

Initiation of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Reviews.3 The Department, therefore, 

has conducted an expedited sunset 

review of the countervailing duty order, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(B) 

and 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2). 

In accordance with section 

751(c)(5)(C)(v) of the Act, the 

Department may treat a review as 

extraordinarily complicated if it is a 

review of a transition order (i.e., an 

order in effect on January 1, 1995, the 

effective date of the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act), as is the case in this 

proceeding. As such, the Department 

determined that the sunset review of the 

countervailing duty order on CTL Plate 

from Brazil, is extraordinarily 

complicated and requires additional 

time for the completion of final results 

of review. In accordance with section 

751(c)(5)(B) of the Act, the Department 

extended the time limit for completion 

of the final results of CTL Plate from 

Brazil until no later than May 30, 2006. 

See Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel Plate 

from Brazil and Spain; Extension of 

Time Limits for Final Results of 

Expedited Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 6, 2006 / Notices 32523 

of Countervailing Duty Orders; 71 FR 

7018 (February 10, 2006). 

Since the publication of its results in 

the first sunset review (see Cut–toLength Carbon Steel Plate from Brazil; 

Final Results of Expedited Sunset 

Review of Countervailing Duty Order, 65 

FR 18065 (April 6, 2000) (‘‘First Sunset 

Review’’)), there have been no 

administrative reviews of this order. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by this 

countervailing duty order include hot–

rolled carbon steel universal mill plates 

(i.e., flat–rolled products rolled on four 

faces or in a closed box pass, of a width 

exceeding 150 millimeters but not 

exceeding 1,250 millimeters and of a 

thickness of not less than 4 millimeters, 

not in coils and without patterns in 

relief), of rectangular shape, neither 

clad, plated, nor coated with metal, 

whether or not painted, varnished, or 

coated with plastics or other 

nonmetallic substances; and certain 

hot–rolled carbon steel flat–rolled 

products in straight lengths, of 

rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither 

clad, plated, nor coated with metal, 

whether or not painted, varnished, or 

coated with plastics or other 

nonmetallic substances, 4.75 

millimeters or more in thickness and of 

a width which exceeds 150 millimeters 

and measures at least twice the 

thickness, as currently classifiable in the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) under item 

numbers 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 

7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 

7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 

7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 

7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 

7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 

7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 

7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000. 

Included within the scope are flat–

rolled products of non–rectangular 

cross-section where such cross-section 

is achieved subsequent to the rolling 

process (i.e., products which have been 

‘‘worked after rolling’’); for example, 

products which have been beveled or 

rounded at the edges. Excluded is grade 

X–70 plate. These HTSUS item numbers 

are provided for convenience and 

customs purposes. The Department’s 

written description remains dispositive. 

Since the completion of the first 

sunset review, the Department has 

determined that continuous cast steel 

slab is outside the scope of this order. 

See Notice of Scope Rulings and Anti–

circumvention Inquiries, 68 FR 36770 

(June 19, 2003). 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in substantive 

responses by parties to this sunset 

review are addressed in the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum for Final Results 

of Expedited Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Review of the Countervailing Duty Order 

on Certain Cut–to-Length Steel Plate 

from Brazil, (‘‘Decision Memo’’) from 

Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, to 

David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary 

for Import Administration, dated May 

30, 2006, which is hereby adopted by 

this notice. The issues discussed in the 

Decision Memo include the likelihood 

of continuation or recurrence of a 

countervailable subsidy and the net 

countervailable subsidy rate likely to 

prevail if the order were the order 

revoked. 

Parties can find a complete discussion 

of all issues raised in this sunset review 

and the corresponding recommendation 

in this public memorandum which is on 

file in B–099, the Central Records Unit, 

of the main Commerce building. In 

addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memo can be accessed directly 

on the Department’s Web page at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Decision Memo 

are identical in content. 

Final Results of Review 

The Department determines that 

revocation of the countervailing duty 

order on CTL Plate from Brazil would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of countervailable subsidies 

at the following net countervailing duty 

rates: 

Manufacturer/Exporter Net Subsidy Rate 

(percent) 

Usinas Siderurgicas de 

Minas Gerais S.A. 

(‘‘USIMINAS’’) ........... 5.44 

Companhia Siderurgica 

Paulista (‘‘COSIPA’’) 48.64 

All others ....................... 23.10 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective orders (APO) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with section 351.305 of the 

Department’s regulations. Timely 

notification of the return or destruction 

of APO materials or conversion to 

judicial protective order is hereby 

requested. Failure to comply with the 

regulations and terms of an APO is a 

violation which is subject to sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

determination and notice in accordance 

with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i) of 

the Act. 

Dated: May 30, 2006. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E6–8756 Filed 6–5–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(C–469–804) 

Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from 

Spain: Final Results of Expedited Fiveyear (‘‘Sunset’’) Review of the 

Countervailing Duty Order 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On November 1, 2005, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) published in the Federal 

Register the notice of initiation of the 

second five-year sunset review of the 

countervailing duty order on certain 

cut–to-length carbon steel plate (‘‘CTL 

Plate’’) from Spain, pursuant to section 

751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’). See Initiation of 

Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 70 FR 

65884 (November 1, 2005) (‘‘Second 

Sunset Review’’). On the basis of a 

notice of intent to participate and an 

adequate substantive response filed on 

behalf of domestic interested parties, 

and an inadequate response from 

respondent interested parties (in this 

case, no response), the Department has 

conducted an expedited sunset review 

of this order pursuant to section 

751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and section 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(B) of the Department’s 

regulations. As a result of this sunset 

review, the Department finds that 

revocation of the countervailing duty 

order is likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of a countervailable subsidy 

at the level indicated in the ‘‘Final 

Results of Review’’ section of this 

notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 6, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Myrna Lobo or Sean Carey, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 6, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–2371 or (202) 482–

3964, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 6, 2006 / Notices 32523 

of Countervailing Duty Orders; 71 FR 

7018 (February 10, 2006). 

Since the publication of its results in 

the first sunset review (see Cut–toLength Carbon Steel Plate from Brazil; 

Final Results of Expedited Sunset 

Review of Countervailing Duty Order, 65 

FR 18065 (April 6, 2000) (‘‘First Sunset 

Review’’)), there have been no 

administrative reviews of this order. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by this 

countervailing duty order include hot–

rolled carbon steel universal mill plates 

(i.e., flat–rolled products rolled on four 

faces or in a closed box pass, of a width 

exceeding 150 millimeters but not 

exceeding 1,250 millimeters and of a 

thickness of not less than 4 millimeters, 

not in coils and without patterns in 

relief), of rectangular shape, neither 

clad, plated, nor coated with metal, 

whether or not painted, varnished, or 

coated with plastics or other 

nonmetallic substances; and certain 

hot–rolled carbon steel flat–rolled 

products in straight lengths, of 

rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither 

clad, plated, nor coated with metal, 

whether or not painted, varnished, or 

coated with plastics or other 

nonmetallic substances, 4.75 

millimeters or more in thickness and of 

a width which exceeds 150 millimeters 

and measures at least twice the 

thickness, as currently classifiable in the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) under item 

numbers 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 

7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 

7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 

7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 

7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 

7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 

7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 

7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000. 

Included within the scope are flat–

rolled products of non–rectangular 

cross-section where such cross-section 

is achieved subsequent to the rolling 

process (i.e., products which have been 

‘‘worked after rolling’’); for example, 

products which have been beveled or 

rounded at the edges. Excluded is grade 

X–70 plate. These HTSUS item numbers 

are provided for convenience and 

customs purposes. The Department’s 

written description remains dispositive. 

Since the completion of the first 

sunset review, the Department has 

determined that continuous cast steel 

slab is outside the scope of this order. 

See Notice of Scope Rulings and Anti–

circumvention Inquiries, 68 FR 36770 

(June 19, 2003). 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in substantive 

responses by parties to this sunset 

review are addressed in the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum for Final Results 

of Expedited Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Review of the Countervailing Duty Order 

on Certain Cut–to-Length Steel Plate 

from Brazil, (‘‘Decision Memo’’) from 

Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, to 

David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary 

for Import Administration, dated May 

30, 2006, which is hereby adopted by 

this notice. The issues discussed in the 

Decision Memo include the likelihood 

of continuation or recurrence of a 

countervailable subsidy and the net 

countervailable subsidy rate likely to 

prevail if the order were the order 

revoked. 

Parties can find a complete discussion 

of all issues raised in this sunset review 

and the corresponding recommendation 

in this public memorandum which is on 

file in B–099, the Central Records Unit, 

of the main Commerce building. In 

addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memo can be accessed directly 

on the Department’s Web page at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Decision Memo 

are identical in content. 

Final Results of Review 

The Department determines that 

revocation of the countervailing duty 

order on CTL Plate from Brazil would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of countervailable subsidies 

at the following net countervailing duty 

rates: 

Manufacturer/Exporter Net Subsidy Rate 

(percent) 

Companhia Siderurgica 

Paulista (‘‘COSIPA’’) 48.64 

All others ....................... 23.10 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective orders (APO) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with section 351.305 of the 

Department’s regulations. Timely 

notification of the return or destruction 

of APO materials or conversion to 

judicial protective order is hereby 

requested. Failure to comply with the 

regulations and terms of an APO is a 

violation which is subject to sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

determination and notice in accordance 

with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i) of 

the Act. 

Dated: May 30, 2006. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E6–8756 Filed 6–5–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(C–469–804) 

Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from 

Spain: Final Results of Expedited Fiveyear (‘‘Sunset’’) Review of the 

Countervailing Duty Order 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On November 1, 2005, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) published in the Federal 

Register the notice of initiation of the 

second five-year sunset review of the 

countervailing duty order on certain 

cut–to-length carbon steel plate (‘‘CTL 

Plate’’) from Spain, pursuant to section 

751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’). See Initiation of 

Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 70 FR 

65884 (November 1, 2005) (‘‘Second 

Sunset Review’’). On the basis of a 

notice of intent to participate and an 

adequate substantive response filed on 

behalf of domestic interested parties, 

and an inadequate response from 

respondent interested parties (in this 

case, no response), the Department has 

conducted an expedited sunset review 

of this order pursuant to section 

751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and section 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(B) of the Department’s 

regulations. As a result of this sunset 

review, the Department finds that 

revocation of the countervailing duty 

order is likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of a countervailable subsidy 

at the level indicated in the ‘‘Final 

Results of Review’’ section of this 

notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 6, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Myrna Lobo or Sean Carey, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 6, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–2371 or (202) 482–

3964, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
32524 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 6, 2006 / Notices 

1 Domestic interested parties note that Mittal, 

IPSCO, and Oregon Steel Mills, were the petitioners 

or successors to petitioners in the original 

investigation and that they have participated in 

subsequent reviews. 

2On December 1, 2005, the Department received 

a letter from domestic interested parties amending 

their November 30, 2005 substantive response to 

the Department’s initiation of the sunset review on 

CTL Plate from Spain, to include United Steel, 

Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, 

Allied Industrial and Service Workers International 

Union, AFL-CIO-CLC (‘‘USW’’). 

3See December 21, 2005 letter to ITC, Robert 

Carpenter, Director of Investigations, from Barbara 

E. Tillman, Director, Office 6, AD/CVD Operations, 

Import Administration. 

Background 

The countervailing duty order which 

covers CTL Plate from Spain, was 

published in the Federal Register on 

August 17, 1993. See Countervailing 

Duty Order: Certain Steel Products from 

Spain, 58 FR 43761 (August 17, 1993). 

On November 1, 2005, the Department 

initiated the second sunset review of the 

countervailing duty order on CTL Plate 

from Spain, pursuant to section 751(c) 

of the Act. See Second Sunset Review. 

The Department received notices of 

intent to participate from IPSCO, Inc., 

Mittal Steel USA ISG, Inc., Nucor 

Corporation, Oregon Steel Mills, Inc., 

United Steel, Paper and Forestry, 

Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied 

Industrial and Service Workers 

International Union, AFL–CIO-CLC 

(‘‘USW’’) (collectively ‘‘domestic 

interested parties’’), within the deadline 

specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i).1

Domestic interested parties claimed 

interested party status under sections 

771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act, as U.S. 

producers and a certified union engaged 

in the manufacture, production, or 

wholesale of CTL Plate in the United 

States. 

On November 30, 2005, the 

Department received a substantive 

response from domestic interested 

parties within the deadline specified in 

section 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i).2 The 

Department did not receive any 

responses from any respondent 

interested party to this proceeding. In 

accordance with 19 CFR 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department 

notified the International Trade 

Commission (‘‘ITC’’) that respondent 

interested parties provided inadequate 

response to the Notice of Initiation of 

Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review.3 The 

Department, therefore, is conducting an 

expedited sunset review of the 

countervailing duty order, pursuant to 

19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(B) and 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2). 

In accordance with section 

751(c)(5)(C)(v) of the Act, the 

Department may treat a review as 

extraordinarily complicated if it is a 

review of a transition order (i.e, an order 

in effect on January 1, 1995, the 

effective date of the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act), as is the case in this 

proceeding. As such, the Department 

determined that the sunset review of the 

countervailing duty order on CTL Plate 

from Spain is extraordinarily 

complicated and required additional 

time for the completion of the final 

results of review. In accordance with 

section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act, the 

Department extended the time limit for 

completion of the final results of CTL 

Plate from Spain until no later than May 

30, 2006. See Cut–to-Length Carbon 

Steel Plate from Brazil and Spain; 

Extension of Time Limits for Final 

Results of Expedited Five-year 

(‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of Countervailing 

Duty Orders; 71 FR 7018 (February 10, 

2006). 

Since the publication of its results in 

the first sunset review, see Cut–toLength Carbon Steel Plate from Spain; 

Final Results of Expedited Sunset 

Review of Countervailing Duty Order, 65 

FR 18307 (April 7, 2000) (‘‘First Sunset 

Review’’), the Department has 

conducted two proceedings pursuant to 

Section 129 of the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act (URAA). See Final 

Results of Expedited Sunset Review of 

Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from 

Spain (‘‘First Section 129 Review’’), 

from Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, to James J. Jochum, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, dated October 24, 2003; 

and Second Section 129 Determination 

on the Sunset Review of the 

Countervailing Duty Order on Certain 

Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from 

Spain (‘‘Second Section 129 Review’’), 

from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, to David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, dated May 26, 2006. 

The First Section 129 Review was 

conducted pursuant to a WTO ruling 

that found the Department must modify 

its privatization methodology and apply 

that revised methodology to the First 

Sunset Review. The Department 

modified its methodology but 

determined it unnecessary to reach the 

privatization issue in the First Section 

129 Review in view of its conclusion on 

recurring, non–allocable subsidies. The 

WTO, however, disagreed and directed 

the Department to conduct a second 129 

proceeding to apply its modified 

privatization methodology. 

In the Second Section 129 Review, the 

Department determined that the 

privatization of Aceralia did not 

extinguish the non–recurring, allocable 

subsidies provided to Aceralia prior to 

its privatization. The Department 

further determined that it had been 

provided substantial evidence that 

demonstrated the termination of 

programs under Royal Decree 878/81 

that were originally found 

countervailable in the investigation. 

However, because countervailable 

programs continued to exist, the 

Department determined that revocation 

of the countervailing duty order would 

likely lead to continuation or recurrence 

of a countervailable subsidy. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by this 

countervailing duty order, include hot–

rolled carbon steel universal mill plates 

(i.e., flat–rolled products rolled on four 

faces or in a closed box pass, of a width 

exceeding 150 millimeters but not 

exceeding 1,250 millimeters and of a 

thickness of not less than 4 millimeters, 

not in coils and without patterns in 

relief), of rectangular shape, neither 

clad, plated, nor coated with metal, 

whether or not painted, varnished, or 

coated with plastics or other 

nonmetallic substances; and certain 

hot–rolled carbon steel flat–rolled 

products in straight lengths, of 

rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither 

clad, plated, nor coated with metal, 

whether or not painted, varnished, or 

coated with plastics or other 

nonmetallic substances, 4.75 

millimeters or more in thickness and of 

a width which exceeds 150 millimeters 

and measures at least twice the 

thickness, as currently classifiable in the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) under item 

numbers 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 

7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 

7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 

7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 

7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 

7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 

7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 

7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000. 

Included within the scope are flat–

rolled products of non–rectangular 

cross-section where such cross-section 

is achieved subsequent to the rolling 

process (i.e., products which have been 

‘‘worked after rolling’’); for example, 

products which have been beveled or 

rounded at the edges. Excluded is grade 

X–70 plate. These HTSUS item numbers 

are provided for convenience and 

customs purposes. The Department’s 

written description remains dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in substantive 

responses by parties in this sunset 

review are addressed in the Issues and 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 6, 2006 / Notices 32525 

Decision Memorandum for Final Results 

of Expedited Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Review of the Countervailing Duty Order 

on Cut–to-Length Steel Plate from Spain 

(‘‘Decision Memo’’), from Stephen J. 

Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, to David M. 

Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, dated May 30, 2006, 

which is hereby adopted by this notice. 

The issues discussed in the Decision 

Memo include the likelihood of 

continuation or recurrence of a 

countervailable subsidy and the net 

countervailable subsidy rate likely to 

prevail if the order were revoked. 

Parties can find a complete discussion 

of all issues raised in this sunset review 

and the corresponding recommendation 

in this public memorandum which is on 

file in B–099, the Central Records Unit, 

of the main Commerce building. In 

addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memo can be accessed directly 

on the Department’s Web page at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Decision Memo 

are identical in content. 

Final Results of Review 

The Department determines that 

revocation of the countervailing duty 

order on CTL Plate from Spain is likely 

to lead to continuation or recurrence of 

countervailable subsidies at the 

following countervailing duty rate: 

Manufacturer/Exporter Net Subsidy Margin 

(percent) 

All Producers/Exporters 

from Spain ................. 33.68 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective orders (APO) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with section 351.303 of the 

Department’s regulations. Timely 

notification of the return or destruction 

of APO materials or conversion to 

judicial protective order is hereby 

requested. Failure to comply with the 

regulations and terms of an APO is a 

violation which is subject to sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

determination and notice in accordance 

with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i) of 

the Act. 

Dated: May 30, 2006. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E6–8757 Filed 6–5–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology 

Proposed Information Collection; 

Comment Request; Advanced 

Technology Program Business 

Reporting System 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(DOC), as part of its continuing effort to 

reduce paperwork and respondent 

burden, invites the general public and 

other Federal agencies to comment on 

the continuing and proposed 

information collection, as required by 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(2)(A)). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted on or before August 7, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments 

to Diana Hynek, Departmental 

Paperwork Clearance Officer, 

Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 

14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230 (or via the 

Internet at dHynek@doc.gov). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information or 

copies of the information collection 

instruments and instructions should be 

directed to the attention of Barbara 

Lambis/Advanced Technology Program 

Senior Policy and Operations Advisor/ 

100 Bureau Drive, Stop 4700, 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899–4700/301–

975–4447/barbara.lambis@nist.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Abstract 

This submission under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act represents a request for 

extension of a currently approved 

collection by the Department of 

Commerce’s National Institute of 

Standards and Technology. The 

Advanced Technology Program (ATP) 

provides cost-shared multi-year funding 

to single companies and to industry-led 

joint ventures to accelerate the 

development of challenging, high-risk 

technologies that promise significant 

commercial payoffs and widespread 

benefits for the nation. This 

government-industry partnership aids 

companies in accelerating the 

development of emerging or enabling 

technologies that lead to revolutionary 

new products and industrial processes 

and services that can compete in rapidly 

changing world markets. ATP 

challenges the research and 

development community to take on 

higher technical risk with 

commensurately higher potential 

payoffs for the nation than they would 

otherwise pursue. This request is for the 

information collection requirements 

associated with completing project 

surveys once an award is granted. The 

intent of the collection is to meet 

statutory requirements for ATP, as well 

as compliance with 15 CFR part 14 and 

the Government Performance and 

Results Act. 

II. Method of Collection 

The baseline, quarterly, anniversary, 

and closeout business reports are 

submitted in a Web-based survey 

instrument. The post-project survey 

report is conducted as a telephone 

survey interview and supplemented 

with a Web-based survey instrument. 

III. Data 

OMB Number: 0693–0009. 

Form Numbers: None. 

Type of Review: Regular submission. 

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit organizations; and not-for-profit 

institutions. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

425. 

Estimated Time per Response: 5 

Hours. 

Estimated Total Annual Respondent 

Burden Hours: 2,125. 

Estimated Total Annual Respondent 

Cost Burden: $212,500. 

IV. Request for Comments 

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden 

(including hours and cost) of the 

proposed collection of information; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, e.g., the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized or 

included in the request for OMB 

approval of this information collection; 

they also will become a matter of public 

record. 

Dated: June 1, 2006. 

Gwellnar Banks, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. 06–5140 Filed 6–5–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–13–P 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 3, 2006 / Notices 58431 

1Correspondence of September 5, 2006, from 

Wiley Rein & Fielding, Schagrin Associates, and 

Stewart and Stewart. 

meter proving, well testing, or sampling 

frequency ($1,200 per application)) or to 

submit requests for approval of complex 

applications (creation of new facility 

measurement points (FMPs); association 

of leases or units with existing FMPs; 

inclusion of production from additional 

structures; meter updates which add 

buyback gas meters or pigging meters; 

other applications which request 

deviations from the approved allocation 

procedures ($3,550 per application)). 

Public Disclosure Statement: The PRA 

(44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) provides that an 

agency may not conduct or sponsor a 

collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. Until OMB approves a 

collection of information, you are not 

obligated to respond. 

Comments: Before submitting an ICR 

to OMB, PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) 

requires each agency ‘‘* * * to provide 

notice * * * and otherwise consult 

with members of the public and affected 

agencies concerning each proposed 

collection of information * * *’’. 

Agencies must specifically solicit 

comments to: (a) Evaluate whether the 

proposed collection of information is 

necessary for the agency to perform its 

duties, including whether the 

information is useful; (b) evaluate the 

accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the 

burden of the proposed collection of 

information; (c) enhance the quality, 

usefulness, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and (d) 

minimize the burden on the 

respondents, including the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

Agencies must also estimate the ‘‘nonhour cost’’ burdens to respondents or 

recordkeepers resulting from the 

collection of information. Therefore, if 

you have costs to generate, maintain, 

and disclose this information, you 

should comment and provide your total 

capital and startup cost components or 

annual operation, maintenance, and 

purchase of service components. You 

should describe the methods you use to 

estimate major cost factors, including 

system and technology acquisition, 

expected useful life of capital 

equipment, discount rate(s), and the 

period over which you incur costs. 

Capital and startup costs include, 

among other items, computers and 

software you purchase to prepare for 

collecting information, monitoring, and 

record storage facilities. You should not 

include estimates for equipment or 

services purchased: (a) Before October 1, 

1995; (b) to comply with requirements 

not associated with the information 

collection; (c) for reasons other than to 

provide information or keep records for 

the Government; or (d) as part of 

customary and usual business or private 

practices. 

We will summarize written responses 

to this notice and address them in our 

submission for OMB approval. As a 

result of your comments, we will make 

any necessary adjustments to the burden 

in our submission to OMB. 

Public Comment Policy: MMS’s 

practice is to make comments, including 

the names and addresses of 

respondents, available for public 

review. Individual respondents may 

request that we withhold their address 

from the rulemaking record, which we 

will honor to the extent allowable by 

law. There may be circumstances in 

which we would withhold from the 

record a respondent’s identity, as 

allowable by the law. If you wish us to 

withhold your name and/or address, 

you must state this prominently at the 

beginning of your comment. In addition, 

you must present a rationale for 

withholding this information. This 

rationale must demonstrate that 

disclosure ‘‘would constitute an 

unwarranted invasion of privacy.’’

Unsupported assertions will not meet 

this burden. In the absence of 

exceptional, documentable 

circumstances, this information will be 

released. However, we will not consider 

anonymous comments. Except for 

proprietary information, we will make 

all submissions from organizations or 

businesses, and from individuals 

identifying themselves as 

representatives or officials of 

organizations or businesses, available 

for public inspection in their entirety. 

MMS Federal Register Liaison Officer: 

Arlene Bajusz, (202) 208–7744. 

Dated: September 26, 2006. 

E.P. Danenberger, 

Chief, Office of Offshore Regulatory Programs. 

[FR Doc. E6–16305 Filed 10–2–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. AA1921–197 (Second 

Review); 701–TA–319, 320, 325–328, 348, 

and 350 (Second Review); and 731–TA–573, 

574, 576, 578, 582–587, 612, and 614–618 

(Second Review)] 

Certain Carbon Steel Products From 

Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, 

Finland, France, Germany, Japan, 

Korea, Mexico, Poland, Romania, 

Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and The 

United Kingdom 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Revised schedule for the subject 

reviews. 

DATES: Effective Date: September 20, 

2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Szustakowski (202–205–3188) 

or Douglas Corkran (202–205–3057), 

Office of Investigations, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. 

Hearing-impaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Effective 

March 22, 2006, the Commission 

established a schedule for the conduct 

of the subject full reviews (71 FR 16178, 

March 30, 2006). Subsequently, counsel 

on behalf of domestic interested parties, 

IPSCO Steel, Inc., Mittal Steel, Nucor, 

and Oregon Steel Mills, requested that 

the Commission postpone its deadline 

for the filing of prehearing briefs for the 

cut-to-length plate portion of the 

reviews by one day. Counsel cited the 

burden of filing prehearing briefs on 

cut-to-length plate and corrosionresistant steel on the same day.1 No 

party to the reviews objected to the 

requested postponement. The 

Commission, therefore, is revising its 

schedule to incorporate this change to 

the schedule of the reviews. 

The Commission’s new schedule for 

the reviews is as follows: The deadline 

for filing prehearing briefs for the CTL 

steel plate portion of the reviews is 

October 6, 2006. 

For further information concerning 

these reviews see the Commission’s 

notice cited above and the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207). 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.62 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
58432 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 3, 2006 / Notices 

Issued: September 26, 2006. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E6–16230 Filed 10–2–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

The Department of Justice, Office of 

Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice 

Assistance, has submitted the following 

information collection request for 

review and clearance in accordance 

with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995. This proposed information 

collection is published to obtain 

comments from the public and affected 

agencies. Comments are encouraged and 

will be accepted for ‘‘sixty days’’ until 

December 4, 2006. If you have 

additional comments, suggestions, or 

need a copy of the proposed information 

collection instrument with instructions 

or additional information, please 

contact M. Pressley at 202–353–8643 or 

1–866–859–2687, Bureau of Justice 

Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, 

U. S. Department of Justice, 810 7th 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20531. 

Written comments and suggestions 

from the public and affected agencies 

concerning the proposed collection of 

information are encouraged. Your 

comments should address one or more 

of the following four points: 

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

function of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility. 

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used. 

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected. 

(4) Minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology, 

e.g., permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

Overview of this information: 

(1) Type of information collection: 

Revision of currently approved 

collection. 

(2) The title of the form/collection: 

Bulletproof Vest Partnership. 

(3) The agency form number, if any, 

and the applicable component of the 

Department sponsoring the collection: 

Form Number: None, Bureau of Justice 

Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, 

Department of Justice. 

(4) Affected public who will be asked 

or required to respond, as well as a brief 

abstract. Primary: State, Local, or Tribal 

Governments. Other: None. Abstract: 

The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) 

collects this information as part of the 

application for federal assistance 

process under the Bulletproof Vest 

Partnership (BVP) Program. The 

purpose of this program is to help 

protect the lives of law enforcement 

officers by helping states and units of 

local and tribal governments equip their 

officers with armor vests. An applicant 

may request funds to help purchase one 

vest per officer per fiscal year. Federal 

payment covers up to 50 percent of each 

jurisdiction’s total costs. BJA uses the 

information collected to review, 

approve, and make awards to 

jurisdictions in accordance with 

programmatic and statutory 

requirements. 

(5) An estimate of the total number of 

respondents and the amount of time 

estimated for an average respondent to 

respond/reply: There are approximately 

5,000 respondents who will respond 

approximately once per year, for a total 

of 5,000 responses. Each response will 

require approximately 1 hour to 

complete. 

(6) An estimate of the total public 

burden (in hours) associated with the 

collection: The total annual public 

burden hours for this information 

collection is estimated to be 5,000 

hours: 5,000 × 60 minutes per 

application = 300,000 minutes / by 60 

minutes per hour = 5,000 hours. 

If additional information is required, 

please contact, Lynn Bryant, 

Department Clearance Officer, United 

States Department of Justice, Justice 

Management Division, Policy and 

Planning Staff, Patrick Henry Building, 

Suite 1600, 601 D Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20530. 

Dated: September 27, 2006. 

Lynn Bryant, 

Department Clearance Officer, United States 

Department of Justice. 

[FR Doc. E6–16269 Filed 10–2–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–18–P 
58584 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 4, 2006 / Notices 

69 FR 47409 (August 5, 2004) 

(‘‘Preliminary Results’’)) and the Final 

Results, and applied a by–product offset 

to reflect Guangdong’s sale of fatty acid 

and glycerine made in the production 

process. 

Before the Court, Guangdong 

challenged the Department’s selection of 

Indian import statistics as the surrogate 

to value sebacic acid, and its 

determination to apply the by–product 

offset after the application of the 

surrogate financial ratio to 

manufacturing costs in the Final 

Results. On January 25, 2006, the Court 

issued a remand in Guangdong 

Chemicals Import & Export Corporation 

v. United States, Ct. No. 05–00023 Slip 

Op. 06–13 (January 25, 2006). The Court 

stated that the Department did not 

justify its decision to abandon a more 

product–specific data source. See id. at 

19. The Court specifically pointed out 

that a remand was necessary because 

the Department did not address the data 

Guangdong used to corroborate its 

ChemImpEx data, and the Department 

did not explain why the Department’s 

use of the Indian import statistics was 

not aberrational given that the data was 

comprised of a basket category. See id. 

at 19 and 20. The Court concluded that 

the Department failed to present 

substantial evidence supporting its 

surrogate value for sebacic acid. See id. 

at 22. 

Additionally, the Court granted the 

Department’s request for a voluntary 

remand to give interested parties an 

opportunity to comment on the 

application of the by–product offset 

which was changed between the 

Preliminary Results and the Final 

Results without allowing parties the 

opportunity to comment on this change. 

See id. at 22. 

In order to comply with the Court’s 

remand order, the Department reviewed 

its choice of surrogate value for sebacic 

acid and made changes to the Indian 

import statistics to eliminate a value 

that the Department determined to be 

aberrational. Also, the Department 

provided additional explanation of its 

by–product methodology and provided 

interested parties an opportunity to 

comment on its methodology for the 

redetermination on remand. On May 3, 

2006, the Department issued its Final 

Redetermination Pursuant to Court 

Remand (‘‘Final Redetermination’’). 

Guangdong continued to challenge 

the Department’s determination in the 

Final Redetermination. On September 

18, 2006, the Court found that the 

Department duly complied with the 

Court’s remand order and sustained the 

Final Redetermination. See Guangdong 

II, Slip Op. 06–142 (September 18, 

2006). The Court found that the 

Department’s elimination of aberrational 

values constituted a reasonable step to 

compensate for some weaknesses in the 

Indian import statistics. See id. at 10. 

Therefore, the Court found that the 

Department’s selection of surrogate 

value for sebacic acid is supported by 

substantial evidence. See id. at 12. Also, 

the Court found that the Department’s 

analysis of the reliability of the Indian 

import statistics in view of the 

corroborating evidence submitted by 

Guangdong was reasonable. See id. at 

15. Additionally, the Court upheld the 

Department’s decision to account for 

separable costs associated with by–

product sales by applying a by–product 

credit after the application of financial 

ratios to manufacturing costs. See id. at 

21. Therefore, the Department’s Final 

Redetermination was sustained in its 

entirety by the Court. Consequently, the 

antidumping duty rate for Guangdong 

will be 19.82 percent. 

Timken Notice 

In its decision in Timken Co., v. 

United States, 893 F.2d 337, 341 (Fed. 

Cir. 1990) (‘‘Timken’’), the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of 

the Act of 1930, the Department must 

publish a notice of a court decision that 

is not ‘‘in harmony’’ with a Department 

determination, and must suspend 

liquidation of entries pending a 

‘‘conclusive’’ court decision. The 

Court’s decision in Guangdong II on 

September 18, 2006, constitutes a final 

decision of that court that is not in 

harmony with the Department’s final 

results of administrative review. This 

notice is published in fulfillment of the 

publication requirements of Timken. 

Accordingly, the Department will 

continue the suspension of liquidation 

of the subject merchandise pending the 

expiration of the period of appeal, or, if 

appealed, upon a final and conclusive 

court decision. 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with section 516A(c)(1) of 

the Act. 

Dated: September 28, 2006. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Acting Assistant Secretaryfor Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E6–16395 Filed 10–3–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–427–810] 

Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 

Products From France; Final Results 

of Full Sunset Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On November 1, 2005, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) initiated a sunset review 

of the countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) 

order on certain corrosion-resistant 

carbon steel flat products from France, 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). On 

the basis of a notice of intent to 

participate and an adequate substantive 

response filed on behalf of the domestic 

interested party, an adequate response 

from respondent interested parties, and 

respondent interested parties’

arguments regarding post-investigation 

privatization of Usinor, the Department 

determined to conduct a full sunset 

review of this CVD order pursuant to 

section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.218(e)(2). As a result of this sunset 

review, the Department finds that 

revocation of the CVD order would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of a countervailable subsidy. 

Therefore, the Department is not 

revoking this CVD order. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 4, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephanie Moore or Brandon Farlander, 

AD/CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone (202) 482–3692 or (202) 482–

4136, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On November 1, 2005, the Department 

initiated a sunset review of the CVD 

order on certain corrosion-resistant 

carbon steel flat products from France 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. 

See Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Reviews, 70 FR 65884 (November 1, 

2005). 

On May 31, 2006, the Department 

published the preliminary results of the 

full sunset review of the instant order. 

See Preliminary Results of Full Sunset 

Review: Certain Corrosion-Resistant 

Carbon Steel Flat Products from France, 

71 FR 30875 (May 31, 2006). Interested 

parties were invited to comment on our 

preliminary results. On July 11, 2006, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 4, 2006 / Notices 58585 

we received a case brief from Duferco 

Coating SA and Sorral SA (collectively, 

‘‘Duferco Sorral’’). We also received 

comments from the European 

Commission and from Sollac 

Atlantique, Sollac, Lorraine, Arcelor 

FCS Commercial, and Arcelor 

International America, LLC 

(‘‘respondent interested parties’’). On 

July 17, 2006, we received a rebuttal 

brief from United States Steel 

Corporation (‘‘domestic interested 

party’’). 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise covered by this 

order includes flat-rolled carbon steel 

products, of rectangular shape, either 

clad, plated, or coated with corrosionresistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, 

or zinc-, aluminum-, or iron-based 

alloys, whether or not corrugated or 

painted, varnished or coated with 

plastics or other nonmetallic substances 

in addition to the metallic coating, in 

coils (whether or not in successively 

superimposed layers) and of a width of 

0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths 

which, if of a thickness less than 4.75 

millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch 

or greater and which measures at least 

10 times the thickness or if of a 

thickness of 4.75 millimeters or more 

are of a width which exceeds 150 

millimeters and measures at least twice 

the thickness, as currently classifiable 

under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 

of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) item 

numbers 7210.31.000, 7210.39.0000, 

7210.41.000, 7210.49.0030, 

7210.49.0090, 7210.60.0000, 

7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 

7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 

7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 

7212.21.0000, 7212.29.0000, 

7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 

7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 

7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 

7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000, 

7215.90.1000, 7215.90.5000, 

7217.12.1000, 7217.13.1000, 

7217.19.1000, 7217.19.5000, 

7217.22.5000, 7217.23.5000, 

7217.29.1000, 7217.29.5000, 

7217.32.5000, 7217.33.5000, 

7217.39.1000, 7217.33.5000, 

7217.39.1000, and 7217.39.5000. 

Included in this order are flat-rolled 

products of non-rectangular crosssection where such cross-section is 

achieved subsequent to the rolling 

process (i.e., products which have been 

‘‘worked after rolling’’)—for example, 

products which have been beveled or 

rounded at the edges. Excluded from 

this order are flat-rolled steel products 

either plated or coated with tin, lead, 

chromium, chromium oxides, both tin 

and lead (‘‘terne plate’’), or both 

chromium and chromium oxides (‘‘tinfree steel’’), whether or not painted, 

varnished or coated with plastics or 

other nonmetallic substances in 

addition to the metallic coating. 

Excluded from this order are clad 

products in straight lengths of 0.1875 

inch or more in composite thickness 

and of a width which exceeds 150 

millimeters and measures at least twice 

the thickness. Also excluded from this 

order are certain clad stainless flatrolled products, which are three-layered 

corrosion-resistant carbon steel flatrolled products less than 4.75 

millimeters in composite thickness that 

consist of a carbon steel flat-rolled 

product clad on both sides with 

stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio. 

The HTSUS numbers are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes. The 

written description remains dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issued raised in this review are 

addressed in the Issue and Decision 

Memorandum (‘‘Decision 

Memorandum’’) from Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Adminstration, to James C. Leonard, III, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, dated September 27, 

2006, which is hereby adopted by this 

notice. Parties can find a complete 

discussion of all issues raised in this 

review and the corresponding 

recommendation in this public 

memorandum which is on file in the 

Central Records Unit, Room B–099 of 

the main Commerce building. In 

addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly on the Web at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Final Results of Review 

The Department determines that 

revocation of the CVD order on 

corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat 

products from France is likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of 

counteravailable subsidies at the 

following countervailing duty rate: 

Manufacturer/exporter 

Net subsidy 

margin 

(percent) 

Country-Wide Rate ............... 0.16 

Notification Regarding Administrative 

Protective Order 

This notice serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. 

Timely notification of return/ 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and the terms of an 

APO is a sanctionable violation. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results and notice in accordance with 

sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act. 

Dated: September 27, 2006. 

James C. Leonard, III, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 06–8485 Filed 10–3–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–05–M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

C–423–806 

Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from 

Belgium: Final Results of Full Sunset 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On November 1, 2005, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) initiated a sunset review of 

the countervailing duty (CVD) order on 

cut–to-length carbon steel plate (CTL 

plate) from Belgium, pursuant to section 

751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the Act). On the basis of a 

notice of intent to participate and an 

adequate substantive response filed on 

behalf of the domestic interested parties 

and adequate responses from 

respondent interested parties, the 

Department determined to conduct a 

full sunset review of this CVD order 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act 

and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(2). On July 21, 

2006, the Department published the 

preliminary results in this review and 

invited interested parties to comment on 

those results. See Preliminary Results of 

Full Sunset Review: Cut–to-Length 

Carbon Steel Plate From Belgium, 71 FR 

41424 (Preliminary Results). As a result 

of our analysis, the Department finds 

that revocation of the CVD order would 

be likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of a countervailable subsidy 

at the level indicated in the ‘‘Final 

Results of Review’’ section of this 

notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 4, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sean Carey, AD/CVD Operations, Office 

6, Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 4, 2006 / Notices 58585 

we received a case brief from Duferco 

Coating SA and Sorral SA (collectively, 

‘‘Duferco Sorral’’). We also received 

comments from the European 

Commission and from Sollac 

Atlantique, Sollac, Lorraine, Arcelor 

FCS Commercial, and Arcelor 

International America, LLC 

(‘‘respondent interested parties’’). On 

July 17, 2006, we received a rebuttal 

brief from United States Steel 

Corporation (‘‘domestic interested 

party’’). 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise covered by this 

order includes flat-rolled carbon steel 

products, of rectangular shape, either 

clad, plated, or coated with corrosionresistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, 

or zinc-, aluminum-, or iron-based 

alloys, whether or not corrugated or 

painted, varnished or coated with 

plastics or other nonmetallic substances 

in addition to the metallic coating, in 

coils (whether or not in successively 

superimposed layers) and of a width of 

0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths 

which, if of a thickness less than 4.75 

millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch 

or greater and which measures at least 

10 times the thickness or if of a 

thickness of 4.75 millimeters or more 

are of a width which exceeds 150 

millimeters and measures at least twice 

the thickness, as currently classifiable 

under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 

of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) item 

numbers 7210.31.000, 7210.39.0000, 

7210.41.000, 7210.49.0030, 

7210.49.0090, 7210.60.0000, 

7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 

7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 

7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 

7212.21.0000, 7212.29.0000, 

7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 

7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 

7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 

7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000, 

7215.90.1000, 7215.90.5000, 

7217.12.1000, 7217.13.1000, 

7217.19.1000, 7217.19.5000, 

7217.22.5000, 7217.23.5000, 

7217.29.1000, 7217.29.5000, 

7217.32.5000, 7217.33.5000, 

7217.39.1000, 7217.33.5000, 

7217.39.1000, and 7217.39.5000. 

Included in this order are flat-rolled 

products of non-rectangular crosssection where such cross-section is 

achieved subsequent to the rolling 

process (i.e., products which have been 

‘‘worked after rolling’’)—for example, 

products which have been beveled or 

rounded at the edges. Excluded from 

this order are flat-rolled steel products 

either plated or coated with tin, lead, 

chromium, chromium oxides, both tin 

and lead (‘‘terne plate’’), or both 

chromium and chromium oxides (‘‘tinfree steel’’), whether or not painted, 

varnished or coated with plastics or 

other nonmetallic substances in 

addition to the metallic coating. 

Excluded from this order are clad 

products in straight lengths of 0.1875 

inch or more in composite thickness 

and of a width which exceeds 150 

millimeters and measures at least twice 

the thickness. Also excluded from this 

order are certain clad stainless flatrolled products, which are three-layered 

corrosion-resistant carbon steel flatrolled products less than 4.75 

millimeters in composite thickness that 

consist of a carbon steel flat-rolled 

product clad on both sides with 

stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio. 

The HTSUS numbers are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes. The 

written description remains dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issued raised in this review are 

addressed in the Issue and Decision 

Memorandum (‘‘Decision 

Memorandum’’) from Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Adminstration, to James C. Leonard, III, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, dated September 27, 

2006, which is hereby adopted by this 

notice. Parties can find a complete 

discussion of all issues raised in this 

review and the corresponding 

recommendation in this public 

memorandum which is on file in the 

Central Records Unit, Room B–099 of 

the main Commerce building. In 

addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly on the Web at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Final Results of Review 

The Department determines that 

revocation of the CVD order on 

corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat 

products from France is likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of 

counteravailable subsidies at the 

following countervailing duty rate: 

Manufacturer/exporter 

Net subsidy 

margin 

(percent) 

Country-Wide Rate ............... 0.16 

Notification Regarding Administrative 

Protective Order 

This notice serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. 

Timely notification of return/ 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and the terms of an 

APO is a sanctionable violation. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results and notice in accordance with 

sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act. 

Dated: September 27, 2006. 

James C. Leonard, III, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 06–8485 Filed 10–3–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–05–M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

C–423–806 

Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from 

Belgium: Final Results of Full Sunset 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On November 1, 2005, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) initiated a sunset review of 

the countervailing duty (CVD) order on 

cut–to-length carbon steel plate (CTL 

plate) from Belgium, pursuant to section 

751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the Act). On the basis of a 

notice of intent to participate and an 

adequate substantive response filed on 

behalf of the domestic interested parties 

and adequate responses from 

respondent interested parties, the 

Department determined to conduct a 

full sunset review of this CVD order 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act 

and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(2). On July 21, 

2006, the Department published the 

preliminary results in this review and 

invited interested parties to comment on 

those results. See Preliminary Results of 

Full Sunset Review: Cut–to-Length 

Carbon Steel Plate From Belgium, 71 FR 

41424 (Preliminary Results). As a result 

of our analysis, the Department finds 

that revocation of the CVD order would 

be likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of a countervailable subsidy 

at the level indicated in the ‘‘Final 

Results of Review’’ section of this 

notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 4, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sean Carey, AD/CVD Operations, Office 

6, Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
58586 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 4, 2006 / Notices 

1 In other proceedings under this order, Fafer has 

at times been referred to as ‘‘Fabfer.’’

2Although Duferco reported that it purchased 

Clabecq, and Arcelor claims to be successor-ininterest to the other two original respondent 

companies, the Department has not made a 

determination in the past that Duferco and Arcelor 

are the successors-in-interest to the respective 

respondent companies and is not making such a 

determination in this sunset review. However, we 

have considered in this sunset review the historical 

information provided with respect to Duferco and 

Arcelor for purposes of our privatization and 

change-in-ownership analyses. See Memorandum to 

Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary, 

Import Administration, Re: Sunset Review of 

Countervailing Duty Order on Cut-to-Length Carbon 

Steel Plate from Belgium; Analysis of Changes in 

Ownership, dated July 14, 2006, incorporated in the 

Preliminary Results and on file in the CRU. 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3964. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On November 1, 2005, the Department 

initiated the second sunset review of the 

CVD order on CTL plate from Belgium, 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. 

See Initiation of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Reviews, 70 FR 65884 (November 1, 

2005). On December 21, 2005, the 

Department determined that the 

participation of the respondent 

interested parties was adequate, and 

that it was appropriate to conduct a full 

sunset review. See Memorandum to 

Steven J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary, Import Administration, Re: 

Adequacy Determination; Sunset 

Review of the Countervailing Duty Order 

on Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel Plate 

from Belgium dated December 21, 2005, 

and on file in the Central Records Unit, 

Room B–099 of the Department of 

Commerce building (CRU). 

On February 10, 2006, the Department 

extended the time limit for the 

preliminary and final results of the 

sunset review of the CVD order on CTL 

plate from Belgium. See Cut–to-Length 

Carbon Steel Plate from Belgium, 

Sweden, and the United Kingdom; 

Extension of Time Limits for 

Preliminary and Final Results of Full 

Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of 

Countervailing Duty Orders, 71 FR 7017. 

On July 21, 2006, the Department 

published its Preliminary Results of Full 

Sunset Review: Cut–to-Length Carbon 

Steel Plate from Belgium, 71 FR 41424 

(Preliminary Results). In our Preliminary 

Results, we found that revocation of the 

order would likely lead to continuation 

or recurrence of countervailable 

subsidies on the subject merchandise. 

Interested parties were invited to 

comment on our Preliminary Results. 

On August 4, 2006, we received a timely 

case brief from the Government of 

Belgium (GOB). On August 7, 2006, we 

received timely case briefs from Duferco 

Clabecq S.A. (Duferco), which 

purchased Forges de Clabecq 

S.A.(Clabecq), and Arcelor S.A. 

(Arcelor), claiming to be the successor–

in-interest to both Fabrique de Fer de 

Charleroi (Fafer)1 and Cockerill Sambre 

(Cockerill).2 We received no comments 

from domestic interested parties. 

Scope Of The Order 

The product subject to this CVD order 

includes hot–rolled carbon steel 

universal mill plates (i.e., flat–rolled 

products rolled on four faces or in a 

closed box pass, of a width exceeding 

150 millimeters but not exceeding 1,250 

millimeters and of a thickness of not 

less than 4 millimeters, not in coils and 

without patterns in relief), of 

rectangular shape, neither clad, plated, 

nor coated with metal, whether or not 

painted, varnished, or coated with 

plastics or other nonmetallic substances; 

and certain hot–rolled carbon steel flat–

rolled products in straight lengths, of 

rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither 

clad, plated, nor coated with metal, 

whether or not painted, varnished, or 

coated with plastics or other 

nonmetallic substances, 4.75 

millimeters or more in thickness and of 

a width which exceeds 150 millimeters 

and measures at least twice the 

thickness, as currently classifiable in the 

United States Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule (‘‘HTS’’) under item numbers: 

7208.31.0000, 7208.32.0000, 

7208.33.1000, 7208.33.5000, 

7208.41.0000, 7208.42.0000, 

7208.43.0000, 7208.90.0000, 

7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 

7211.11.0000, 7211.12.0000, 

7211.21.0000, 7211.22.0045, 

7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 

7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.5000. 

Included in this CVD order are flat–

rolled products of non–rectangular 

cross-section where such cross-section 

is achieved subsequent to the rolling 

process (i.e., products which have been 

‘‘worked after rolling’’)--for example, 

products which have been beveled or 

rounded at the edges. Excluded from 

this order is grade X–70 plate. The HTS 

item numbers are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes. The 

written description remains dispositive. 

The Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit found, in Duferco Steel, Inc. v. 

United States, 296 F.3d 1087 (July 12, 

2002), that imported floor plate is 

excluded from this CVD order on steel 

plate. 

Analysis Of Comments Received 

All issues raised in this review are 

addressed in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for Final Results of Full 

Sunset Review of the Countervailing 

Duty Order on Cut–to-length Carbon 

Steel Plate from Belgium from Steven J. 

Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, to James C. 

Leonard III, Acting Assistant Secretary 

for Import Administration (Final 

Decision Memorandum), dated 

concurrently with this notice and which 

is hereby adopted by this notice. The 

issues discussed in the Final Decision 

Memorandum include the likelihood of 

continuation or recurrence a 

countervailable subsidy; the net 

countervailable subsidy likely to 

prevail; privatization of Cockerill; and, 

nature of the subsidy. Parties can find 

a complete discussion of all issues 

raised in this review and the 

corresponding recommendation in this 

public memorandum which is on file in 

the CRU. In addition, a complete 

version of the Final Decision 

Memorandum can be accessed directly 

on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. 

The paper and electronic versions of the 

Final Decision Memorandum are 

identical in content. 

Final Results Of Review 

The Department determines that 

revocation of the CVD order would 

likely lead to continuation or recurrence 

of a countervailable subsidy. As 

discussed more fully in the Final 

Decision Memorandum, we find that 

certain countervailable subsidies 

continue to be in existence. 

Accordingly, we find the net 

countervailable subsidy likely to prevail 

if the order were revoked to be: 

Producers/exporters Net Countervailable 

Subsidy (percent) 

Cockerill ........................ 2.82 

Fafer ............................. 0.56 

All others (including 

Clabecq) .................... 0.50 

International Trade Commission (ITC) 

Notification 

In accordance with section 752(b)(3) 

of the Act, we will notify the ITC of the 

final results of this full sunset review. 

Notification Regarding Administrative 

Protective Order 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective orders (APO) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with section 351.305 of the 

Department’s regulations. Timely 

notification of the return or destruction 

of APO materials or conversion to 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 4, 2006 / Notices 58587 

judicial protective order is hereby 

requested. Failure to comply with the 

regulations and terms of an APO is a 

violation which is subject to sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

determination and notice in accordance 

with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i) of 

the Act. 

Dated: September 27, 2006. 

James C. Leonard III, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E6–16390 Filed 10–3–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–401–804] 

Final Results of Full Sunset Review: 

Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From 

Sweden 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On July 19, 2006, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published in the Federal 

Register the preliminary results of the 

full sunset review of the countervailing 

duty (CVD) order on cut-to-length 

carbon steel plate from Sweden, 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). As 

a result of our analysis, the Department 

preliminarily found that revocation of 

the CVD order would be likely to lead 

to the continuation or recurrence of a 

countervailable subsidy. 

We provided interested parties an 

opportunity to comment on our 

preliminary results. However, we 

received no comments from interested 

parties. As a result, the final results 

remain the same as the preliminary 

results of this review. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 4, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jacqueline Arrowsmith or Gene Calvert, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–5255 or (202) 482–

3586, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 

19, 2006, the Department published in 

the Federal Register the preliminary 

results of the full sunset review of the 

CVD order on cut-to-length carbon steel 

plate from Sweden. See Preliminary 

Results of Full Sunset Review: Cut-toLength Carbon Steel Plate From 

Sweden, 71 FR 40992 (July 19, 2006) 

(Preliminary Results). No interested 

parties filed case briefs in response to 

the Department’s invitation to comment 

on the Preliminary Results. 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise subject to the CVD 

order is certain cut-to-length carbon 

steel plate. These products include hotrolled carbon steel universal mill plates 

(i.e., flat-rolled products on four faces or 

in a closed box pass, of a width 

exceeding 150 millimeters but not 

exceeding 1,250 millimeters, and of a 

thickness of not less than 4 millimeters, 

not in coils and without patterns in 

relief), of rectangular shape, neither 

clad, plated nor coated with metal, 

whether or not painted, varnished, or 

coated with plastics or other 

nonmetallic substances; and certain hotrolled carbon steel flat-rolled products 

in straight lengths, of rectangular shape, 

hot rolled, neither clad, plated, nor 

coated with plastics or other 

nonmetallic substances, 4.75 

millimeters or more in thickness and a 

width which exceeds 150 millimeters 

and measures at least twice the 

thickness, as currently classifiable in the 

United States Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule (HTS) under item numbers 

7208.31.0000, 7208.32.0000, 

7208.33.1000, 7208.33.5000, 

7208.41.0000, 7208.42.0000, 

7208.43.0000, 7208.90.0000, 

7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 

7211.11.0000, 7211.12.0000, 

7211.21.0000, 7211.22.0045, 

7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 

7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000. 

Included are flat-rolled products of nonrectangular cross-section where such 

cross-section is achieved subsequent to 

the rolling process (i.e., products which 

have been ‘‘worked after rolling’’)—for 

example, products which have been 

bevelled or rounded at the edges. 

Excluded from this review is grade X–

70 plate. The HTS item numbers are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes. The written description 

remains dispositive. 

Final Results of Review 

As stated in the Preliminary Results, 

the Department determined that 

revocation of the CVD order would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of a countervailable subsidy. 

In addition, we preliminarily 

determined that the rate likely to prevail 

is de minimis. As we did not receive 

any comments from any interested 

parties regarding the Preliminary 

Results, we have no reason to reconsider 

our preliminary decision. 

International Trade Commission (ITC) 

Notification 

In accordance with section 752(b)(3) 

of the Act, we will notify the ITC of the 

final results of this full sunset review. 

Administrative Protective Orders 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective orders (APO) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with 19 CFR § 351.305. 

Timely notification of the return or 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and terms of an 

APO is a violation that is subject to 

sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

final results and this notice of sunset 

review in accordance with sections 

751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: September 27, 2006. 

James C. Leonard, III, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E6–16392 Filed 10–3–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

C–412–815 

Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from 

the United Kingdom: Final Results of 

Full Sunset Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On November 1, 2005, the 

Department of Commerce (Department) 

initiated a sunset review of the 

countervailing duty (CVD) order on cut–

to-length carbon steel plate (CTL plate) 

from the United Kingdom, pursuant to 

section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (the Act). On the basis of a 

notice of intent to participate and an 

adequate substantive response filed on 

behalf of the domestic interested parties 

and an adequate response from 

respondent interested parties, the 

Department determined to conduct a 

full sunset review of this CVD order 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act 

and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(2). On July 19, 

2006, the Department published the 

preliminary results of this review and 

invited interested parties to comment on 

those results. See Preliminary Results of 

Full Sunset Review: Cut–to-Length 

Carbon Steel Plate From the United 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 4, 2006 / Notices 58587 

judicial protective order is hereby 

requested. Failure to comply with the 

regulations and terms of an APO is a 

violation which is subject to sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

determination and notice in accordance 

with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i) of 

the Act. 

Dated: September 27, 2006. 

James C. Leonard III, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E6–16390 Filed 10–3–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–401–804] 

Final Results of Full Sunset Review: 

Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From 

Sweden 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On July 19, 2006, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published in the Federal 

Register the preliminary results of the 

full sunset review of the countervailing 

duty (CVD) order on cut-to-length 

carbon steel plate from Sweden, 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). As 

a result of our analysis, the Department 

preliminarily found that revocation of 

the CVD order would be likely to lead 

to the continuation or recurrence of a 

countervailable subsidy. 

We provided interested parties an 

opportunity to comment on our 

preliminary results. However, we 

received no comments from interested 

parties. As a result, the final results 

remain the same as the preliminary 

results of this review. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 4, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jacqueline Arrowsmith or Gene Calvert, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–5255 or (202) 482–

3586, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 

19, 2006, the Department published in 

the Federal Register the preliminary 

results of the full sunset review of the 

CVD order on cut-to-length carbon steel 

plate from Sweden. See Preliminary 

Results of Full Sunset Review: Cut-toLength Carbon Steel Plate From 

Sweden, 71 FR 40992 (July 19, 2006) 

(Preliminary Results). No interested 

parties filed case briefs in response to 

the Department’s invitation to comment 

on the Preliminary Results. 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise subject to the CVD 

order is certain cut-to-length carbon 

steel plate. These products include hotrolled carbon steel universal mill plates 

(i.e., flat-rolled products on four faces or 

in a closed box pass, of a width 

exceeding 150 millimeters but not 

exceeding 1,250 millimeters, and of a 

thickness of not less than 4 millimeters, 

not in coils and without patterns in 

relief), of rectangular shape, neither 

clad, plated nor coated with metal, 

whether or not painted, varnished, or 

coated with plastics or other 

nonmetallic substances; and certain hotrolled carbon steel flat-rolled products 

in straight lengths, of rectangular shape, 

hot rolled, neither clad, plated, nor 

coated with plastics or other 

nonmetallic substances, 4.75 

millimeters or more in thickness and a 

width which exceeds 150 millimeters 

and measures at least twice the 

thickness, as currently classifiable in the 

United States Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule (HTS) under item numbers 

7208.31.0000, 7208.32.0000, 

7208.33.1000, 7208.33.5000, 

7208.41.0000, 7208.42.0000, 

7208.43.0000, 7208.90.0000, 

7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 

7211.11.0000, 7211.12.0000, 

7211.21.0000, 7211.22.0045, 

7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 

7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000. 

Included are flat-rolled products of nonrectangular cross-section where such 

cross-section is achieved subsequent to 

the rolling process (i.e., products which 

have been ‘‘worked after rolling’’)—for 

example, products which have been 

bevelled or rounded at the edges. 

Excluded from this review is grade X–

70 plate. The HTS item numbers are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes. The written description 

remains dispositive. 

Final Results of Review 

As stated in the Preliminary Results, 

the Department determined that 

revocation of the CVD order would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of a countervailable subsidy. 

In addition, we preliminarily 

determined that the rate likely to prevail 

is de minimis. As we did not receive 

any comments from any interested 

parties regarding the Preliminary 

Results, we have no reason to reconsider 

our preliminary decision. 

International Trade Commission (ITC) 

Notification 

In accordance with section 752(b)(3) 

of the Act, we will notify the ITC of the 

final results of this full sunset review. 

Administrative Protective Orders 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective orders (APO) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with 19 CFR § 351.305. 

Timely notification of the return or 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and terms of an 

APO is a violation that is subject to 

sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

final results and this notice of sunset 

review in accordance with sections 

751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: September 27, 2006. 

James C. Leonard, III, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E6–16392 Filed 10–3–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

C–412–815 

Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from 

the United Kingdom: Final Results of 

Full Sunset Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On November 1, 2005, the 

Department of Commerce (Department) 

initiated a sunset review of the 

countervailing duty (CVD) order on cut–

to-length carbon steel plate (CTL plate) 

from the United Kingdom, pursuant to 

section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (the Act). On the basis of a 

notice of intent to participate and an 

adequate substantive response filed on 

behalf of the domestic interested parties 

and an adequate response from 

respondent interested parties, the 

Department determined to conduct a 

full sunset review of this CVD order 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act 

and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(2). On July 19, 

2006, the Department published the 

preliminary results of this review and 

invited interested parties to comment on 

those results. See Preliminary Results of 

Full Sunset Review: Cut–to-Length 

Carbon Steel Plate From the United 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 4, 2006 / Notices 58587 

judicial protective order is hereby 

requested. Failure to comply with the 

regulations and terms of an APO is a 

violation which is subject to sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

determination and notice in accordance 

with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i) of 

the Act. 

Dated: September 27, 2006. 

James C. Leonard III, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E6–16390 Filed 10–3–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–401–804] 

Final Results of Full Sunset Review: 

Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From 

Sweden 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On July 19, 2006, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published in the Federal 

Register the preliminary results of the 

full sunset review of the countervailing 

duty (CVD) order on cut-to-length 

carbon steel plate from Sweden, 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). As 

a result of our analysis, the Department 

preliminarily found that revocation of 

the CVD order would be likely to lead 

to the continuation or recurrence of a 

countervailable subsidy. 

We provided interested parties an 

opportunity to comment on our 

preliminary results. However, we 

received no comments from interested 

parties. As a result, the final results 

remain the same as the preliminary 

results of this review. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 4, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jacqueline Arrowsmith or Gene Calvert, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–5255 or (202) 482–

3586, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 

19, 2006, the Department published in 

the Federal Register the preliminary 

results of the full sunset review of the 

CVD order on cut-to-length carbon steel 

plate from Sweden. See Preliminary 

Results of Full Sunset Review: Cut-toLength Carbon Steel Plate From 

Sweden, 71 FR 40992 (July 19, 2006) 

(Preliminary Results). No interested 

parties filed case briefs in response to 

the Department’s invitation to comment 

on the Preliminary Results. 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise subject to the CVD 

order is certain cut-to-length carbon 

steel plate. These products include hotrolled carbon steel universal mill plates 

(i.e., flat-rolled products on four faces or 

in a closed box pass, of a width 

exceeding 150 millimeters but not 

exceeding 1,250 millimeters, and of a 

thickness of not less than 4 millimeters, 

not in coils and without patterns in 

relief), of rectangular shape, neither 

clad, plated nor coated with metal, 

whether or not painted, varnished, or 

coated with plastics or other 

nonmetallic substances; and certain hotrolled carbon steel flat-rolled products 

in straight lengths, of rectangular shape, 

hot rolled, neither clad, plated, nor 

coated with plastics or other 

nonmetallic substances, 4.75 

millimeters or more in thickness and a 

width which exceeds 150 millimeters 

and measures at least twice the 

thickness, as currently classifiable in the 

United States Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule (HTS) under item numbers 

7208.31.0000, 7208.32.0000, 

7208.33.1000, 7208.33.5000, 

7208.41.0000, 7208.42.0000, 

7208.43.0000, 7208.90.0000, 

7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 

7211.11.0000, 7211.12.0000, 

7211.21.0000, 7211.22.0045, 

7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 

7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000. 

Included are flat-rolled products of nonrectangular cross-section where such 

cross-section is achieved subsequent to 

the rolling process (i.e., products which 

have been ‘‘worked after rolling’’)—for 

example, products which have been 

bevelled or rounded at the edges. 

Excluded from this review is grade X–

70 plate. The HTS item numbers are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes. The written description 

remains dispositive. 

Final Results of Review 

As stated in the Preliminary Results, 

the Department determined that 

revocation of the CVD order would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of a countervailable subsidy. 

In addition, we preliminarily 

determined that the rate likely to prevail 

is de minimis. As we did not receive 

any comments from any interested 

parties regarding the Preliminary 

Results, we have no reason to reconsider 

our preliminary decision. 

International Trade Commission (ITC) 

Notification 

In accordance with section 752(b)(3) 

of the Act, we will notify the ITC of the 

final results of this full sunset review. 

Administrative Protective Orders 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective orders (APO) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with 19 CFR § 351.305. 

Timely notification of the return or 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and terms of an 

APO is a violation that is subject to 

sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

final results and this notice of sunset 

review in accordance with sections 

751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: September 27, 2006. 

James C. Leonard, III, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E6–16392 Filed 10–3–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

C–412–815 

Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from 

the United Kingdom: Final Results of 

Full Sunset Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On November 1, 2005, the 

Department of Commerce (Department) 

initiated a sunset review of the 

countervailing duty (CVD) order on cut–

to-length carbon steel plate (CTL plate) 

from the United Kingdom, pursuant to 

section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (the Act). On the basis of a 

notice of intent to participate and an 

adequate substantive response filed on 

behalf of the domestic interested parties 

and an adequate response from 

respondent interested parties, the 

Department determined to conduct a 

full sunset review of this CVD order 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act 

and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(2). On July 19, 

2006, the Department published the 

preliminary results of this review and 

invited interested parties to comment on 

those results. See Preliminary Results of 

Full Sunset Review: Cut–to-Length 

Carbon Steel Plate From the United 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
58588 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 4, 2006 / Notices 

1 In the Preliminary Results, with respect to the 

change in ownership of Glynwed Steel Limited 

(Glynwed), the Department concluded that the sale 

of Glynwed was an arm’s-length transaction 

negotiated between unrelated private parties. Thus, 

the Department concluded that, because it was a 

private-to-private sale at arm’s length and, absent 

evidence to the contrary, the transaction was for fair 

market value and the countervailable benefits 

attributed to Glynwed in the original investigation 

were extinguished by the change in ownership. See 

‘‘Final Decision in the Second 129 Proceeding –

First Sunset review of the Countervailing Duty 

Order on Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the 

United Kingdom’’ dated May 26, 2006 (Second 129) 

at 15. 

2Corus/BS plc relationship: See footnote 2. 

3 Glynwed Steel Limited (Glynwed)/Niagara 

relationship: See footnote 1. 

Kingdom, 71 FR 40993 (Preliminary 

Results). Based on our analysis of the 

comments and the record, the 

Department finds that revocation of the 

CVD order on CTL plate from the United 

Kingdom would not be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of a 

countervailable subsidy. Therefore, the 

Department is revoking this CVD order 

in accordance with section 751(c) of the 

Act. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 4, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kimberley Hunt or Mark Hoadley, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 6, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–1272 or (202) 482–

3148, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On November 1, 2005, the Department 

initiated a sunset review of the CVD 

order on cut–to-length carbon steel plate 

from the United Kingdom pursuant to 

section 751(c) of the Act. See Initiation 

of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 70 FR 

65884 (November 1, 2005) (Notice of 

Initiation). 

On December 21, 2005, the 

Department determined that the 

participation of the respondent 

interested parties was adequate, and 

that it was appropriate to conduct a full 

sunset review. See Memorandum to 

Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary, Import Administration, Re: 

Adequacy Determination; Sunset 

Review of the Countervailing Duty Order 

on Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel Plate 

from the United Kingdom, on file in 

CRU. On February 10, 2006, the 

Department extended the time limit for 

the preliminary and final results of the 

sunset review of the CVD order on CTL 

plate from the United Kingdom (UK) to 

no later than July 14 and September 27, 

2006, respectively. See Cut–to-Length 

Carbon Steel Plate from Belgium, 

Sweden, and the United Kingdom; 

Extension of Time Limits for 

Preliminary and Final Results of Full 

Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of 

Countervailing Duty Orders, 71 FR 7017 

(February 10, 2006). 

On July 19, 2006, the Department 

published the preliminary results of the 

full sunset review, finding that 

revocation of the CVD order would 

likely lead to continuation or recurrence 

of a countervailable subsidy and 

requested case and rebuttal briefs from 

interested parties. See Preliminary 

Results.1 Corus Group plc (Corus)2

requested, and the Department granted, 

an extension of time for the submission 

of case briefs, hearing requests and 

rebuttal briefs. See Memorandum to All 

Interested Parties from Barbara E. 

Tillman, Office Director, Office of AD/ 

CVD Operations 6, Re: Sunset Review of 

the Countervailing Duty Orders on Cut–

to-length carbon steel plate from the 

United Kingdom; Extension of time to 

file case and rebuttal briefs dated July 

31, 2006 and on file in CRU. 

On August 4, 2006, the European 

Union Delegation of the European 

Commission (EC) submitted its brief on 

the Department’s Preliminary Results. 

The Department noted that the case 

reference was incorrect and asked the 

EC to resubmit its brief with the proper 

case reference which it did on August 

7, 2006. Additionally on August 7, 2006, 

the Government of the United Kingdom 

(UKG) and Corus submitted their briefs. 

These briefs were rebutted by Mittal 

Steel USA ISG Inc. (Mittal), Nucor 

Corporation, IPSCO Steel Inc., and 

Oregon Steel Mills (collectively, 

petitioners) on August 14, 2006. Niagara 

LaSalle (UK) Limited (Niagara)3 did not 

submit comments on the Preliminary 

Results. 

On August 24, 2006, representatives 

from the EC and UKG met with 

representatives from the Department to 

discuss petitioners’ rebuttal brief. A 

memorandum recording this meeting 

was placed on the file August 25, 2006. 

See Memorandum to The File, Re: 

August 24, 2006 Meeting with the 

Government of the United Kingdom and 

the European Commission, dated 

August 30, 2006. 

On September 5 and 7, 2006, pursuant 

to section 351.104(a)(2) of the 

Department’s regulations, the 

Department rejected the briefs of the 

UKG, the EC and Corus because they 

contained new factual information 

submitted after the time limit for 

submitting new factual information had 

expired. The Department removed the 

submissions from the record, and 

requested each party to refile its briefs 

without the new factual information. 

See Letters from Barbara E. Tillman, 

Director, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement 

6 to James Hughes, First Secretary of 

Trade for the Embassy of the United 

Kingdom dated September 5, 2006; to 

Nikolaos Zaimis, Counselor - Head of 

Trade Section for the Delegation of the 

European Commission dated September 

7, 2006; and to Gregory McCue, Esq., 

Representative of Corus Group plc. 

dated September 7, 2006, on file in 

CRU. 

On September 8 and September 13, 

2006, the EC and the UKG submitted 

letters to the Department declining the 

Department’s invitation to resubmit 

their briefs. Because neither the EC’s nor 

the UKG’s August 7, 2006 submissions 

are on the record, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.104, we have not addressed any 

comments raised in those briefs in 

making our determination in these final 

results; we have, however, addressed 

the arguments made in their September 

8 and 13, 2006 letters. For a full 

discussion of these arguments, see the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum from 

Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, to 

James C. Leonard III, Acting Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, 

dated concurrently with this notice 

(Final Decision Memorandum); see also 

Memorandum to the File Re: Rejection 

of Submissions from the United 

Kingdom Government, the European 

Union Delegation of the European 

Commission and Corus Group plc from 

the Record of the Final Results of the 

Full Sunset Review of the 

Countervailing Duty Order on Cut–toLength Carbon Steel Plate from the 

United Kingdom, dated September 27, 

2006. Corus submitted an amended brief 

on September 11, 2006. 

Scope Of The Order 

The products covered by this 

countervailing duty order are certain 

cut–to-length carbon steel plates from 

the United Kingdom, including hot–

rolled carbon steel universal mill plates 

(i.e., flat–rolled products rolled on four 

faces or in a closed box pass, of a width 

exceeding 150 millimeters but not 

exceeding 1,250 millimeters and of a 

thickness of not less than 4 millimeters, 

not in coils and without patterns in 

relief), of rectangular shape, neither 

clad, plated nor coated with metal, 

whether or not painted, varnished, or 

coated with plastics or other 

nonmetallic substances; and certain 

hot–rolled carbon steel flat–rolled 

products in straight lengths, of 

rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 4, 2006 / Notices 58589 

4See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate 

from Finland, Germany and the United Kingdom: 

Final Results of Changed Circumstances 

Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty 

Reviews, and Revocation of Orders in Part, 64 FR 

46343 (August 25, 1999) 

clad, plated, nor coated with metal, 

whether or not painted, varnished, or 

coated with plastics or other 

nonmetallic substances, 4.75 

millimeters or more in thickness and of 

a width which exceeds 150 millimeters 

and measures at least twice the 

thickness, as currently classifiable in the 

United States Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule (HTSUS) under item numbers 

7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 

7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 

7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 

7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 

7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 

7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 

7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000, 

7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and 

7212.50.0000. Included are flat–rolled 

products of non–rectangular crosssection where such cross-section is 

achieved subsequent to the rolling 

process (i.e., products which have been 

‘‘worked after rolling’’) – for example, 

products which have been beveled or 

rounded at the edges. Excluded is grade 

X–70 plate. These HTSUS item numbers 

are provided for convenience and 

customs purposes. The written 

description remains dispositive. As a 

result of a changed circumstances 

review4, the order excludes certain cut–

to-length carbon steel plate with a 

maximum thickness of 80 mm in steel 

grades BS 7191, 355 EM and 355 EMZ, 

as amended by Sable Offshore Energy 

Project specification XB MOO Y 15 

0001, types 1 and 2. 

Analysis Of Comments Received 

All issues raised in this review are 

addressed in the Final Decision 

Memorandum, dated concurrently with 

this notice and which is hereby adopted 

by this notice. The issues discussed in 

the Final Decision Memorandum 

include the rejection of untimely 

submitted new factual information, the 

likelihood of continuation or recurrence 

a countervailable subsidy and the net 

countervailable subsidy likely to 

prevail. Parties can find a complete 

discussion of all issues raised in this 

review and the corresponding 

recommendation in this public 

memorandum which is on file in CRU. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Final Decision Memorandum can be 

accessed directly on the Web at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Final Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Final Results Of Review 

The Department determines that 

revocation of the CVD order would not 

be likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of a countervailable subsidy. 

As we recognized in the Preliminary 

Results, three of the six programs 

previously found to be countervailable 

have been terminated. For one of the 

remaining programs, the UK Regional 

Development Grants (RDG) program, the 

Department now determines that there 

is no likelihood that subsidization will 

continue or recur. In light of the change 

in our likelihood determination for the 

RDG program, we have re–examined our 

preliminary findings for the European 

Regional Development Fund (ERDF) Aid 

and the European Coal and Steel 

Community (ECSC) Article 54 Loans/ 

Interest Rebates programs, the only 

remaining subsidies that provide a basis 

for our likelihood determination. As we 

noted in the Preliminary Results, the 

combined benefits from those programs 

have never been above zero. Therefore, 

we find that there would be no 

likelihood of continuation or recurrence 

of a countervailable subsidy were the 

order to be revoked. See e.g., Final 

Results of Full Sunset Review: Brass 

Sheet and Strip from France, 71 FR 

10651 (March 2, 2006), and 

accompanying Issues and Decisions 

Memorandum. Our full analysis is 

included in the Final Decision 

Memorandum. 

As a result, we are revoking this order 

effective December 15, 2005, the fifth 

anniversary of the date of publication in 

the Federal Register of the notice of 

continuation of the CVD order on CTL 

plate from the UK. See Notice of 

Continuation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Orders on Certain 

Carbon Steel Products from Australia, 

Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, 

France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, 

Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, 

Sweden, Taiwan, and the United 

Kingdom, 65 FR 78469 (December 15, 

2000). We will notify the International 

Trade Commission of these results. 

Furthermore, within 15 days of the 

publication of this notice, we will 

instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection to terminate suspension of 

liquidation, effective December 15, 

2005. 

Notification Regarding Administrative 

Protective Order 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective orders (APO) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 of the 

Department’s regulations. Timely 

notification of the return or destruction 

of APO materials or conversion to 

judicial protective order is hereby 

requested. Failure to comply with the 

regulations and terms of an APO is a 

violation which is subject to sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

final results and notice in accordance 

with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) 

of the Act. 

Dated: September 27, 2006. 

James C. Leonard III, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E6–16393 Filed 10–3–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control 

Program: Approval Decision on New 

York Coastal Nonpoint Pollution 

Control Program 

AGENCY: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, 

Commerce, and the Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to approve the 

New York Coastal Nonpoint Program. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the 

intent to fully approve the New York 

Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control 

Program (coastal nonpoint program) and 

of the availability of the draft Approval 

Decisions on conditions for the New 

York coastal nonpoint program. Section 

6217 of the Coastal Zone Act 

Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA), 

16 U.S.C. 1455b, requires States and 

Territories with coastal zone 

management programs that have 

received approval under section 306 of 

the Coastal Zone Management Act to 

develop and implement coastal 

nonpoint programs. Coastal States and 

Territories were required to submit their 

coastal nonpoint programs to the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) and the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

for approval in July 1995. NOAA and 

EPA conditionally approved the New 

York coastal nonpoint program on 

November 18, 1997. NOAA and EPA 

have drafted approval decisions 

describing how New York has satisfied 

the conditions placed on its program 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 204 / Monday, October 23, 2006 / Notices 62121 

Description of Respondents: 

Individuals, small businesses, large 

corporations. 

Estimated Completion Time: 10 

minutes for 3000–2 and 2 hours for 

3200–9. 

Annual Responses: 2,128 (2,116 for 

form 3000–2 and 12 for form 3200–9). 

Filing Fee Per Response: 0. 

Annual Burden Hours: 377. 

Bureau Clearance Officer: Ted 

Hudson, (202) 452–5033. 

Dated: October 18, 2006. 

Ted R. Hudson, 

Bureau of Land Management, Information 

Collection Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. 06–8826 Filed 10–20–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–84–M 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 701–TA–328 (Second 

Review)] 

Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From 

the United Kingdom 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Termination of review. 

SUMMARY: On October 4, 2006, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘Commerce’’) 

published notice in the Federal Register 

of its determination that revocation of 

the countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) order 

on cut-to-length (‘‘CTL’’) carbon steel 

plate from the United Kingdom would 

not be likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of a countervailable subsidy. 

Commerce further stated that it was 

revoking the CVD order on CTL carbon 

steel plate from the United Kingdom (71 

FR 58587). Accordingly, pursuant to 

section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 

(19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), the five-year review 

of the countervailing duty order 

concerning CTL carbon steel plate from 

the United Kingdom (investigation No. 

701–TA–328 (Second Review)) is 

terminated. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 4, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Szustakowski (202–205–3188), 

Office of Investigations, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. 

Hearing-impaired individuals are 

advised that information on this matter 

can be obtained by contacting the 

Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

this review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

Authority: This five-year review is being 

terminated under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.69 of the 

Commission’s rules (19 CFR 207.69). 

Issued: October 16, 2006. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E6–17621 Filed 10–20–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined not to 

review an initial determination (‘‘ID’’) 

(Order No. 7) of the presiding 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) 

granting motion of Acclaim Innovations, 

LLC (‘‘Acclaim’’) to intervene as cocomplainant in the above-captioned 

investigation under section 337 of the 

Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Clint Gerdine, Esq., telephone 202–708–

2310, Office of the General Counsel, 

U.S. International Trade Commission, 

500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20436. Copies of all nonconfidential 

documents filed in connection with this 

investigation are or will be available for 

inspection during official business 

hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the 

Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, 

telephone 202–205–2000. General 

information concerning the Commission 

may also be obtained by accessing its 

Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). 

The public record for this investigation 

may be viewed on the Commission’s 

electronic docket (EDIS) at http:// 

edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired 

persons are advised that information on 

the matter can be obtained by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission instituted this investigation 

on May 16, 2006, based on a complaint 

filed on April 11, 2006, by Lexar Media, 

Inc. (‘‘Lexar’’) of Fremont, California. 71 

FR 28387. The complaint alleges 

violations of section 337 in the 

importation into the United States, the 

sale for importation, and the sale within 

the United States after importation of 

certain flash memory chips, flash 

memory systems, and products 

containing same by reason of 

infringement of claims 1 and 2 of U.S. 

Patent No. 6,801,979; claims 1–7 of U.S. 

Patent No. 6,397,314; and claims 1–13, 

15, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 6,978,342. 

The complaint named three 

respondents: Toshiba Corporation of 

Japan; Toshiba America, Inc. of New 

York, New York; and Toshiba America 

Electronic Components, Inc. of Irvine, 

California (collectively the 

‘‘respondents’’). The complaint further 

alleged that an industry in the United 

States exists as required by subsection 

(a)(2) of section 337. 

On July 31, 2006, Acclaim moved to 

intervene as co-complainant on the 

basis of assignment of the three 

identified patents-at-issue from Lexar to 

Acclaim on June 20, 2006. No party 

opposed having Acclaim intervene as 

co-complainant. 

The ALJ issued the subject ID on 

August 15, 2006, granting the motion to 

intervene. No party petitioned for 

review of the ID pursuant to 19 CFR 

210.43(a), and the Commission found no 

basis for ordering a review on its own 

initiative pursuant to 19 CFR 210.44. 

The authority for the Commission’s 

determination is contained in section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in 

sections 210.19 and 210.42(h)(3) of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure. 

Issued: August 31, 2006, (F.R.: October 17, 

2006). 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E6–17721 Filed 10–20–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

mstockstill on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES


1

 See 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(5)(D); 63 Fed. Reg. 29372, 29374 (May 29, 1998). 

2

 These producers are Mittal Steel USA ISG, Inc., Nucor Corp., ISPAT Inland, Inc., and United

States Steel Corp. 

EXPLANATION OF COMMISSION DETERMINATIONS ON ADEQUACY

in

Certain Carbon Steel Products from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany,

Japan, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom, Inv. Nos.

AA1921-197 (Second Review), 701-TA-319, 320, 325-328, 348 and 350 (Second Review), 731-TA-573,

574, 576, 578, 582-587, 612, and 614-618 (Second Review)

On February 6, 2006, the Commission determined that it should proceed to full reviews in the

subject five-year reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(5)). 

The Commission, in consultation with the Department of Commerce, grouped these reviews because they

involve similar domestic like products.1

Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan,

and Korea, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-348, 350, 731-TA-612, 614-618 (Second Review)

With respect to the reviews on corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products (“corrosion-resistant

steel”), the Commission determined that the domestic interested party group response to its notice of

institution was adequate. The Commission received a consolidated response from four domestic

producers of corrosion-resistant steel.2

 The Commission found the individual response of each of the four

domestic corrosion-resistant steel producers, which contained company-specific data, adequate. 

The Commission found that the respondent interested party group responses were adequate with

respect to the orders on corrosion-resistant steel from Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and

Korea because respondents from each of these countries accounted for a significant share of the

production of subject merchandise in their respective countries. 

The Commission received an adequate individual response from BlueScope Steel, an Australian

producer and exporter of subject merchandise. It also received separate adequate individual responses

from Dofasco Inc. and Sorevco Inc., and Stelco Inc., Canadian producers and exporters of subject

merchandise. With respect to the reviews of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on

corrosion-resistant steel from France, the Commission received an adequate joint response from Duferco

Coating SA and Sorral SA, French producers and exporters of subject merchandise, and Duferco Steel,

Inc., a U.S. importer of subject merchandise, and adequate responses from French producers Sollac

Atlantique and Sollac Lorraine, and exporter Arcelor FCS Commercial, as well as from Arcelor

International America, LLC, an importer of French subject merchandise. The Commission also received

an adequate joint response regarding the order on corrosion-resistant steel from Germany from Salzgitter

Flachstahl and ThyssenKrupp Steel AG, producers of the subject merchandise in Germany, and

ThyssenKrupp Steel N.A. Inc., and ThyssenKrupp Materials N.A. Inc., U.S. importers of subject

merchandise, as well as an adequate joint response from German producers Stahlwerke Bremen and Eko

Stahl Gmbh and exporter Arcelor FCS Commercial, and an adequate individual response from importer

Arcelor International America, LLC. The Commission found adequate a joint response concerning the

order on corrosion-resistant steel from Japan, filed by JFE Steel Corporation, Kobe Steel, Ltd., Nippon

Steel Corporation, Nisshin Steel Co., Ltd., and Sumitomo Metal Industries, Ltd., Japanese producers of

corrosion-resistant steel. Finally, with respect to the reviews of the antidumping and countervailing duty
3 These producers are Mittal Steel USA ISG Inc., Nucor Corp., Oregon Steel Mills, Inc., and

IPSCO Inc.

orders on corrosion-resistant steel from Korea, the Commission received an adequate joint response from

Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd., HYSCO, Pohang Coated Steel Co., and Union Steel Manufacturing Co. Ltd.,

Korean producers and exporters of corrosion-resistant steel.

Because the group and individual responses from both domestic interested parties and respondent

interested parties were adequate in the reviews of the orders concerning corrosion-resistant steel from all

subject countries (Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and Korea), the Commission determined to

conduct full reviews in these proceedings.

Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland,

Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom, Inv. Nos., AA1921-197 (Second

Review), 701-TA-319, 320, 325-328, 731-TA-573, 574, 576, 578, 582-587 (Second Review)

With respect to the orders concerning cut-to-length carbon steel plate (“CTL plate”) from Taiwan,

Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom,

the Commission determined that the domestic interested party group response was adequate. The

Commission received a consolidated response from four domestic producers that account for a significant

percentage of domestic production of CTL plate.3

 The Commission found the individual response of each

of the four domestic CTL plate producers, which contained company-specific data, adequate.

The Commission found that the respondent interested party group responses were adequate with

respect to the orders on CTL plate from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, and the

United Kingdom because respondents from each of these countries accounted for a significant share of

the production of subject merchandise in their respective countries. 

The Commission received an adequate joint response concerning the orders on CTL plate from

Belgium filed by Duferco Clabecq S.A., a Belgian producer and exporter of CTL plate, and Duferco

Steel, Inc., a U.S. importer. With respect to the reviews of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders

on CTL plate from Brazil, the Commission received an adequate joint response filed by Usinas

Siderurgicas de Minas Gerais SA and Companhia Siderurgica Paulista, each of which is a Brazilian

producer and exporter of subject merchandise. An adequate individual response concerning the order on

CTL plate from Finland was filed by RAUTARUUKKI OYJ, a Finnish producer and exporter of subject

merchandise. An adequate joint response concerning the order on CTL plate from Germany was filed by

AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke, Salzgitter AG Stahl und Technologie, and ThyssenKrupp Steel AG, each

of which is a German producer and exporter of subject merchandise. With respect to the reviews of the

antidumping and countervailing duty orders on CTL plate from Mexico, the Commission received an

adequate individual response filed by Altos Hornos de Mexico S.A. de C.V., a Mexican producer and

exporter of subject merchandise. An adequate joint response concerning the order on CTL plate from

Poland was filed by Huta Stali Czestochowa Sp. z.o.o., a Polish producer and exporter of subject

merchandise, and Duferco Steel Inc., a U.S. importer. Finally, with respect to the reviews of the

antidumping and countervailing duty orders on CTL plate from the United Kingdom, the Commission

received three individual adequate responses, the first filed by Corus Group plc., a British producer and

exporter of subject merchandise, the second filed by Niagara LaSalle (UK) Limited, a British producer
4 UK Steel is a foreign trade association whose member companies include Spartan UK Ltd.,

Celsa Steel UK Ltd, Niagara LaSalle (UK) Limited, and Corus Group plc.

and exporter of subject merchandise, and the third filed by UK Steel4 on behalf of Spartan UK Ltd., and

Celsa Steel UK Ltd., both British producers and exporters of the subject merchandise.

Because the group and individual responses from both domestic interested parties and respondent

interested parties were adequate in the reviews of the orders concerning CTL plate from Belgium, Brazil,

Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, and the United Kingdom, the Commission determined to conduct full

reviews in these proceedings.

The Commission did not receive a response from any respondent interested parties in the reviews

concerning subject imports from Taiwan, Romania, Spain, and Sweden, and therefore determined that the

respondent interested party group responses for these countries were not adequate. The Commission

nevertheless voted to conduct full reviews concerning subject imports from Taiwan, Romania, Spain, and

Sweden to promote administrative efficiency in light of the Commission’s determination to conduct full

reviews of the majority of orders in these grouped reviews. Moreover, changes in conditions of

competition – such as modifications to the composition of the domestic industry – also supported

conducting full reviews. 

A record of the Commissioners’ votes is available from the Office of the Secretary and on the

Commission’s website (http://www.usitc.gov).

B-1

APPENDIX B

HEARING WITNESSES

B-3

CALENDAR OF PUBLIC HEARING

Those listed below appeared as witnesses at the United States International Trade

Commission’s hearing:

Subject: Certain Carbon Steel Products from Australia, Belgium,

Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea,

Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the

United Kingdom (Corrosion-Resistant Steel)

Inv. Nos.: AA1921-197; 701-TA-319, 320, 325-327, 348, and 350; and

731-TA-573, 574, 576, 578, 582-587, 612, and 614-618

(Second Review)

Date and Time: October 17, 2006 - 9:30 a.m.

Sessions were held in connection with these reviews in the Main Hearing Room (room 101),

500 E Street, SW, Washington, D.C.

CONGRESSIONAL APPEARANCES:

The Honorable Arlen Specter, United State Senator, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

The Honorable John D. Rockefeller, IV, United States Senator, State of West Virginia

The Honorable John P. Murtha, U.S. Representative, 12th District, Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania

The Honorable Alan B. Mollohan, U.S. Representative, 1st District, State of West Virginia

The Honorable Peter J. Visclosky, U.S. Representative, 1st District, State of Indiana

The Honorable Joseph “Joe” Knollenberg, U.S. Representative, 9th District, State of

Michigan

The Honorable Phil English, U.S. Representative, 3rd District, Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania

The Honorable Mike Doyle, U.S. Representative, 14th District, Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania

The Honorable Mike Rogers, U.S. Representative, 8th District, State of Michigan
B-4

CONGRESSIONAL APPEARANCES (continued):

The Honorable Henry E. Brown, Jr., U.S. Representative, 1st District, State of South

Carolina

The Honorable G.K. Butterfield, U.S. Representative, 1st District, State of North Carolina

STATE GOVERNMENT APPEARANCES:

The Honorable Bill H. Stovall, III, Speaker of the House, State of Arkansas House of

Representatives

The Honorable Walter H. Dalton, State Senator, 46th District, State of North Carolina

The Honorable Ed Clemente, State Representative, 14th District, State of Michigan, House

of Representatives

The Honorable Chuck Blasdel, Speaker Pro Tempore, 1st House District, The Ohio House

of Representatives

The Honorable Sandy Layman, Commissioner, Iron Range Resources, State of Minnesota

OPENING REMARKS:

In Support of Continuation of Orders (Terence P. Stewart,

Stewart and Stewart)

In Opposition to Continuation of Orders (William Silverman,

Hunton & Williams LLP)
B-5

In Support of the Continuation of

 Countervailing Duty and

 Antidumping Duty Orders:

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

United States Steel Corporation (“U.S. Steel”)

AK Steel Corporation (“AK Steel”)

John H. Goodish, Chief Operating Officer and

Executive Vice President, U.S. Steel

Joseph R. Scherrbaum, Jr., Vice President, Sales,

U.S. Steel

Peter J. Alvarado, General Manager, Automotive,

U.S. Steel

Michael N. Meyers, Director, Industry Marketing,

U.S. Steel

Douglas W. Gant, Vice President, Sales &

Customer Service, AK Steel

David Riker, Principal, CRA International, Inc.

Robert A. Korajczyk, Principal, Chicago Partners, LLC

Robert E. Lighthizer )

James C. Hecht )

) – OF COUNSEL

Stephen P. Vaughn )

Stephen J. Narkin )
B-6

In Support of the Continuation of

 Countervailing Duty and

 Antidumping Duty Orders (continued):

Stewart and Stewart

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Mittal Steel USA Inc. (“Mittal Steel USA”)

United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber,

Manufacturing, Energy, Allied

Industrial and Service Workers

International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC (“USW”)

Leo W. Gerard, International President, USW

Louis L. Schorsch, CEO, Flat Products, Americas,

Arcelor Mittal

Roy Platz, Director of Marketing, Sales and

Marketing, Mittal Steel USA

Elizabeth Drake, Trade Consultant, Stewart and

Stewart

Terence P. Stewart )

Patrick J. McDonough )– OF COUNSEL

Sarah V. Stewart )

Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Nucor Corporation (“Nucor”)

Steel Dynamics, Inc. (“SDI”)

Daniel R. DiMicco, Chairman, President, and CEO,

Nucor

Rick Blume, National Sales and Marketing

Manager, Sheet Mill Group, Nucor
B-7

In Support of the Continuation of

 Countervailing Duty and

 Antidumping Duty Orders (continued):

John W. Nolan, Vice President and Manager,

Sales and Marketing, SDI

John Bates, Sr., Chief Executive Officer and Owner,

Heidtman Steel Products

Peter Morici, Professor of Economics, University

of Maryland

Alan H. Price )

) – OF COUNSEL

M. William Schisa )

In Opposition to the Continuation of

 Countervailing Duty and

 Antidumping Duty Orders:

Hogan & Hartson LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

DaimlerChrysler Corporation

Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc.

Ford Motor Company

General Motors Corporation

Honda of America Mfg., Inc.

Honda Trading America Corporation

Nissan North America, Inc.

Toyota Motor North America, Inc.

(collectively “Auto Producers”)

Allan M. Huss, Senior Counsel, Antitrust/Regulatory

Affairs, DaimlerChrysler Corporation
B-8

In Opposition to the Continuation of

 Countervailing Duty and

 Antidumping Duty Orders (continued):

Daniel K. Kelly, Supplier Quality Manager,

DaimlerChrysler Corporation

Susan DeSandre, Director of Body & Chassis

Purchasing North America, Ford Motor

Company

Lisa King, Manager, Steel, Paints, Sealers Purchasing,

Ford Motor Company

Richard Cover, Commodity Manager, Steel, General

Motors Corporation

G. Mustafa Mohatarem, Chief Economist, General

Motors Corporation

Larry Jutte, Senior Vice President and General

Manager, Purchasing, Honda of America Mfg. Inc.

Randall P. Luther, Assistant Manager, North American

Purchasing, Honda of America Mfg. Inc.

Cal Vickers, Senior Director, Purchasing, Nissan North

America

Johnny Brown, Buyer, Purchasing, Production Materials,

Nissan North America

Chris Nielsen, General Manager, Purchasing, Toyota

Motor Engineering and Manufacturing North

America, Inc.

Steve Cochran, Specialist, Purchasing, Vehicle Parts

& Materials: Electrical & Body, Toyota Motor

Engineering and Manufacturing North America, Inc.

Mark S. McConnell )

Lewis E. Leibowitz, ) – OF COUNSEL

T. Clark Weymouth )
B-9

In Opposition to the Continuation of

 Countervailing Duty and

 Antidumping Duty Orders (continued):

Hunton & Williams LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Dofasco Inc.

Sorevco Inc.

Bradley L. Davey, General Manager, Marketing,

Dofasco Inc.

W. Donald Kenny, Director, Automotive Business,

Dofasco Inc.

Christy C. Towers, Corporate Account Manager, Ford,

Dofasco Inc.

Henry T. Wegiel, Manager, Government and Trade

Relations, Dofasco Inc.

Bruce Malashevich, President, Economic Consulting

Services, Inc.

William Silverman )

Douglas J. Heffner ) – OF COUNSEL

Richard P. Ferrin )

Kaye Scholer LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd.

Hyundai HYSCO

Pohang Coated Steel Co.

Pohang Iron and Steel Co., Ltd.

Union Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

POSCO America Corp.

Steven Kim, Manager, Union Steel Manufacturing

Co., Ltd.
B-10

In Opposition to the Continuation of

 Countervailing Duty and

 Antidumping Duty Orders (continued):

Se-Yong Chun, Manager, Marketing, POSCO 

America Corp.

Donald B. Cameron )

) – OF COUNSEL

Julie C. Mendoza )

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

JFE Steel Corp.

Kobe Steel, Ltd.

Sumitomo Metal Industries, Ltd.

Nippon Steel Corp.

Nisshin Steel Co., Ltd.

Yoichi Furuta, Executive Vice President and

General Manager, Nippon Steel U.S.A., Inc.

Heiki Miki, Vice President, Marketing, JFE

Steel America, Inc.

J. Christopher Wood ) – OF COUNSEL

Sharretts, Paley, Carter & Blauvelt, P.C.

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

ThyssenKrupp Steel AG

Saltzgitter AG Stahl und Technologie

ThyssenKrupp Steel N.A. Inc.

ThyssenKrupp Steel Services

ThyssenKrupp Materials N.A. Inc.

Stefan Gruenhage, Senior Manager, Corporate

Planning/Systems Order Management,

ThyssenKrupp Steel AG
B-11

In Opposition to the Continuation of

 Countervailing Duty and

 Antidumping Duty Orders (continued):

Johan Wesslen, Senior Manager, Customs &

Trade Affairs, ThyssenKrupp Steel N.A. Inc.

Gail T. Cumins )

Beatrice A. Brickell ) – OF COUNSEL

Sara Nordin )

Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Australian Respondents

Leonard Shambon ) – OF COUNSEL

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

TCC Steel

Henry Chang, Managing Director, Marketing Division,

 TCC Steel

Lisa W. Ross ) – OF COUNSEL
B-12

In Opposition to the Continuation of

 Countervailing Duty and

 Antidumping Duty Orders (continued):

Shearman & Sterling LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Sollac Atlantique

Sollac Lorraine

Arcelor FCS Commercial

Arcelor International America, LLC

Robert S. LaRussa )

) – OF COUNSEL

Ryan A.T. Trapani )

REBUTTAL/CLOSING REMARKS:

In Support of Continuation of Orders (James C. Hecht, Skadden, Arps, Slate, 

Meagher & Flom LLP)

In Opposition to Continuation of Orders (Mark S. McConnell, Hogan & Hartson LLP)
B-13

CALENDAR OF PUBLIC HEARING

 Those listed below appeared as witnesses at the United States International 

Trade Commission’s hearing:

 Subject: Certain Carbon Steel Products from Australia, Belgium,

Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea,

Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the

United Kingdom (Cut-to-Length Plate)

Inv. Nos.: AA1921-197; 701-TA-319, 320, 325-327, 348, and 350; and

731-TA-573, 574, 576, 578, 582-587, 612, and 614-618

(Second Review)

Date and Time: October 19, 2006 - 9:30 a.m.

Sessions were held in connection with these reviews in the Main Hearing Room (room 101),

500 E Street, SW, Washington, D.C.

CONGRESSIONAL APPEARANCES:

The Honorable Peter J. Visclosky, U.S. Representative, 1st District, State of Indiana

The Honorable Jo Bonner, U.S. Representative, 1st District, State of Alabama

STATE GOVERNMENT APPEARANCE:

Office of the Governor of Oregon

Salem, OR

Sarah Bittleman, Director, Washington, D.C. Office of the Governor of Oregon, on

behalf of the Honorable Theodore Kulongoski, Governor of Oregon

EMBASSY APPEARANCES:

The Embassy of Mexico

Washington, D.C.

Kenneth Smith Ramos, Director General for International Trade Negotiations,

Undersecretary for International Trade Negotiations, Secretary of the Economy

Adriana Diaz Ortiz, Director of International Assistance for Mexican Exporters, Unit for

International Commercial Practices, Secretary of the Economy
B-14

OPENING REMARKS:

In Support of Continuation of Orders (Roger B. Schagrin,

Schagrin Associates)

In Opposition to Continuation of Orders (Kenneth J. Pierce,

Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP)

In Support of the Continuation of

 Countervailing Duty and

 Antidumping Duty Orders:

Stewart & Stewart

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Mittal Steel USA Inc. (“Mittal Steel USA”)

United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber,

Manufacturing, Energy, Allied

Industrial and Service Workers

International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC (“USW”)

Thomas Conway, International Vice President

(Administration), USW

Robert W. Insetta, Director, Plate Products, Sales

and Markets, Mittal Steel USA

Lawrence F. Fabina, Manager, Continuous

Improvement, Burns Harbor Plant, Mittal

Steel USA

Matthew Habenicht, Plate Commercial Product

Manager, Mittal Steel USA

Terence P. Stewart )

Sarah V. Stewart ) – OF COUNSEL

Elizabeth A. Argenti )
B-15

In Support of the Continuation of

 Countervailing Duty and

 Antidumping Duty Orders (continued):

Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Nucor Corporation (“Nucor”)

Patrick J. McFadden, National Sales and Marketing

Manager, Plate Products, Nucor

Frank Ruane, Director, Corporate Purchasing,

Olympic Steel

David A. Riker, Principal, CRA International, Inc.

Alan H. Price )

) – OF COUNSEL

Timothy C. Brightbill )

Schagrin Associates

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

IPSCO Steel Inc.

Oregon Steel Mills

John Tulloch, Senior Vice President and Chief

Commercial Officer, IPSCO Steel Inc.

Glenn Gilmore, Trade Supervisor, IPSCO Steel Inc.

Scott Montross, Vice President, Sales and Marketing,

Oregon Steel Mills

Kent Thies, National Marketing Director, Oregon

Steel Mills

Tom Ballou, Director, Plate and Flat-Rolled Products,

O’Neal Steel

Robert Heltzel, Jr., President, Kenilworth Steel
B-16

In Support of the Continuation of

 Countervailing Duty and

 Antidumping Duty Orders (continued):

Robert Scott, Economist, Schagrin Associates and

the Economic Policy Institute

Roger B. Schagrin ) – OF COUNSEL

In Opposition to the Continuation of

 Countervailing Duty and

 Antidumping Duty Orders:

deKieffer & Horgan

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke

Salzgitter AG Stahl und Technologie

ThyssenKrupp Steel AG

Marc E. Montalbine ) – OF COUNSEL

Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Companhia Siderurgica Paulista (“COSIPA”)

Usinas Siderurgicas de Minas Gerais SA (“USIMINAS”)

Christopher Dunn ) – OF COUNSEL

Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Altos Hornos de Mexico S.A. de C.V. (“AHMSA”)

Juan Castillo Ramirez, Director, Government

Relations, AHMSA

Luis A. Landois Garza, Director, Sales, AHMSA
B-17

In Opposition to the Continuation of

 Countervailing Duty and

 Antidumping Duty Orders (continued):

Federico J. Reyes Villarreal, Manager, Corporate

Finance, AHMSA

Luis Guillermo Valdes Portales, Assistant Manager,

Corporate, AHMSA

Thomas J. Prusa, Professor of Economics,

Rutgers University

Bruce Malashevich, President, Economic

Consulting Services, LLC

Jim Dougan, Economist, Economic Consulting

Services, LLC

Mark David Davis, Counsel, Davis & Leiman P.C.

Alexander W. Sierck, Counsel, Cameron &

Hornbostel, LLP

Kenneth J. Pierce )

Matthew P. McCullough ) – OF COUNSEL

David T. Hardin )

Steptoe & Johnson LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Corus Group plc

Richard White, General Manager, Sales and Marketing,

Sections & Plates, Corus U.K. Ltd.

Paul Parkins, Sales Manager, Energy International,

Corus U.K. Ltd.

Peter J. Joyce, Sales Manager, Americas, Corus

America Inc.
B-18

In Opposition to the Continuation of

 Countervailing Duty and

 Antidumping Duty Orders (continued):

Patrick J. Boyle, President of the Houston Office,

Murray International Metals, a division of

Edgen Carbon Products Group LLC

Bruce Malashevich, President, Economic Consulting

Services LLC

Jim Dougan, Economist, Economic Consulting

Services LLC

Richard O. Cunningham )

Gregory S. McCue )

) – OF COUNSEL

William G. Isasi )

Michael Pass )

Sidley Austin LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Caterpillar Inc. (“Caterpillar”)

Dennis Kunka, Steel Plate Commodity Manager,

Global Purchasing, Caterpillar

Johna Purcell, Corporate Attorney, Caterpillar

Cheryl D. Ivey, Senior Legal Assistant, Caterpillar

Maria DiGiulian ) – OF COUNSEL
B-19

In Opposition to the Continuation of

 Countervailing Duty and

 Antidumping Duty Orders (continued):

White & Case LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Duferco Clabecq S.A.

Duferco Steel, Inc.

Jay C. Campbell )

) – OF COUNSEL

Emily Lawson )

REBUTTAL/CLOSING REMARKS:

In Support of Continuation of Orders (Timothy C. Brightbill,

Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP; Roger B. Schagrin, Schagrin 

Associates; and David A. Riker, CRA International, Inc.)

In Opposition to Continuation of Orders (Richard O. Cunningham,

Steptoe & Johnson LLP)

C-1

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA

Table C-1

CTL plate: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

(Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-June Jan.-June

Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 2000-05 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,814,613 6,234,474 6,539,570 6,354,810 6,978,552 7,281,971 3,646,154 4,434,283 6.9 -8.5 4.9 -2.8 9.8 4.3 21.6

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . 89.7 89.7 91.6 95.1 92.3 90.9 90.6 87.2 1.1 -0.0 1.8 3.5 -2.8 -1.4 -3.4

 Importers' share (1):

 Belgium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 -0.0 0.1

 Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0

 Finland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0

 Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 -0.1 -0.1 0.6 -0.6 0.3 -0.3 0.3

 Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0

 Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0

 Romania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.1 0.7 1.1 1.6 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.6 0.4 0.5 -0.9 -0.1

 Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0

 Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0

 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4 0.4 1.5 1.2 2.1 0.9 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.0 1.1 -0.3 0.9 -1.2 0.3

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . 9.8 9.8 6.9 3.7 5.6 8.2 9.1 12.3 -1.6 -0.0 -2.9 -3.2 1.9 2.6 3.2

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3 10.3 8.4 4.9 7.7 9.1 9.4 12.8 -1.1 0.0 -1.8 -3.5 2.8 1.4 3.4

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,454,787 2,101,040 2,229,060 2,268,951 4,347,057 5,131,625 2,688,288 3,091,851 109.0 -14.4 6.1 1.8 91.6 18.0 15.0

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . 91.3 90.9 92.0 95.4 93.1 91.3 91.2 88.8 -0.0 -0.4 1.1 3.4 -2.3 -1.8 -2.5

 Importers' share (1):

 Belgium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1

 Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.0 0.0 0.1 -0.1

 Finland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0

 Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 -0.1 -0.2 0.8 -0.7 0.2 -0.2 0.5

 Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0

 Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0

 Romania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.9 1.3 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.4 -0.7 -0.1

 Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0

 Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0

 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 0.5 1.6 1.1 1.8 0.9 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.0 1.1 -0.5 0.7 -0.9 0.4

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . 8.1 8.6 6.4 3.5 5.1 7.8 8.5 10.5 -0.3 0.4 -2.1 -3.0 1.6 2.7 2.1

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.7 9.1 8.0 4.6 6.9 8.7 8.8 11.2 0.0 0.4 -1.1 -3.4 2.3 1.8 2.5

U.S. imports from:

 Belgium:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,614 16,575 11,615 6,226 10,271 10,388 2,767 6,853 -33.5 6.1 -29.9 -46.4 65.0 1.1 147.6

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,458 6,511 4,951 3,086 7,023 8,923 1,976 5,904 38.2 0.8 -24.0 -37.7 127.6 27.0 198.7

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $414 $393 $426 $496 $684 $859 $714 $862 107.7 -5.0 8.5 16.3 37.9 25.6 20.6

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Brazil:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,243 2,978 1,477 0 18 2,460 1,961 420 -24.1 -8.2 -50.4 -100.0 (2) 13,360.3 -78.6

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,546 1,386 288 0 7 3,138 2,714 323 103.0 -10.3 -79.2 -100.0 (2) 46,865.1 -88.1

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $477 $465 $195 (2) $366 $1,276 $1,384 $769 167.6 -2.4 -58.0 (2) (2) 248.9 -44.4

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Finland:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 19 0 0 1,290 0 0 0 (2) (2) -100.0 (2) (2) -100.0 (2)

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 10 0 0 1,112 0 0 0 (2) (2) -100.0 (2) (2) -100.0 (2)

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) $537 (2) (2) $862 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Germany:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,783 129 40,536 2,647 23,413 2,078 1,491 15,671 -76.3 -98.5 31,358.2 -93.5 784.6 -91.1 950.7

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,030 92 17,028 1,688 10,641 1,440 980 15,574 -64.3 -97.7 18,505.1 -90.1 530.6 -86.5 1,489.4

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $459 $710 $420 $638 $454 $693 $657 $994 51.0 54.8 -40.9 51.8 -28.7 52.5 51.3

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Mexico:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 271 273 308 1,083 440 379 168 188.1 77.5 0.8 12.8 251.7 -59.4 -55.5

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 141 81 123 570 271 244 79 314.1 116.1 -42.4 51.7 362.1 -52.5 -67.5

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $428 $521 $298 $400 $526 $615 $645 $472 43.8 21.7 -42.9 34.5 31.4 16.9 -26.9

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Poland:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 386 0 0 45 61 61 0 1,774.3 11,718.8 -100.0 (2) (2) 36.7 -100.0

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 95 0 0 23 36 36 0 778.4 2,199.4 -100.0 (2) (2) 61.2 -100.0

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,270 $247 (2) (2) $505 $595 $595 (2) -53.1 -80.5 (2) (2) (2) 17.9 (2)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Romania:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5,981 44,339 69,552 109,969 49,813 3,014 0 803,561.0 96,393.7 641.3 56.9 58.1 -54.7 -100.0

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1,433 12,627 20,706 58,584 31,292 2,084 0 567,087.1 25,871.5 781.2 64.0 182.9 -46.6 -100.0

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $890 $240 $285 $298 $533 $628 $691 (2) -29.4 -73.1 18.9 4.5 78.9 17.9 (2)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 *** *** 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) *** (2)

 Spain:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (2) -100.0 (2) (2) (2)

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (2) -100.0 (2) (2) (2)

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $444 (2) $358 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Sweden:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354 1,312 198 0 280 182 182 50 -48.7 270.9 -84.9 -100.0 (2) -35.1 -72.4

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 1,095 192 0 131 108 108 33 -45.4 453.6 -82.4 -100.0 (2) -17.9 -69.3

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $559 $835 $970 (2) $470 $595 $595 $663 6.4 49.3 16.3 (2) (2) 26.6 11.5

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Taiwan:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 66 226 0 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -11.1 240.8 -100.0 (2) (2) (2)

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 20 270 0 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -22.2 1216.5 -100.0 (2) (2) (2)

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $353 $309 $1,194 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) -12.5 286.4 (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 United Kingdom:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 847 125 79 23 8 17 0 19 -97.9 -85.3 -37.1 -71.0 -64.5 115.2 (2)

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246 88 49 7 3 6 0 6 -97.6 -64.1 -44.6 -85.8 -56.5 97.0 (2)

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $291 $708 $624 $305 $374 $342 (2) $338 17.8 143.6 -11.9 -51.0 22.5 -8.5 (2)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Subtotal:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,083 27,842 98,749 78,755 146,377 65,439 9,856 23,181 125.0 -4.3 254.7 -20.2 85.9 -55.3 135.2

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,581 10,873 35,489 25,610 78,094 45,214 8,143 21,920 259.4 -13.6 226.4 -27.8 204.9 -42.1 169.2

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $433 $391 $359 $325 $534 $691 $826 $946 59.7 -9.7 -8.0 -9.5 64.1 29.5 14.4

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 *** *** 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) *** (2)

C-3
Table C-1--Continued

CTL plate: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

(Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-June Jan.-June

Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 2000-05 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

U.S. imports from:

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 669,666 611,424 452,321 234,670 390,123 598,444 331,866 545,050 -10.6 -8.7 -26.0 -48.1 66.2 53.4 64.2

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199,956 180,362 143,493 78,892 221,897 400,852 227,169 325,305 100.5 -9.8 -20.4 -45.0 181.3 80.6 43.2

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $299 $295 $317 $336 $569 $670 $685 $597 124.3 -1.2 7.5 6.0 69.2 17.8 -12.8

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 3,605 2,257 1,557 905 *** *** 2,663 2,758 *** -37.4 -31.0 -41.9 *** *** 3.6

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 698,749 639,266 551,069 313,425 536,500 663,883 341,722 568,231 -5.0 -8.5 -13.8 -43.1 71.2 23.7 66.3

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212,537 191,235 178,982 104,501 299,990 446,065 235,312 347,225 109.9 -10.0 -6.4 -41.6 187.1 48.7 47.6

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $304 $299 $325 $333 $559 $672 $689 $611 120.9 -1.7 8.6 2.7 67.7 20.2 -11.3

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 3,605 2,257 1,557 905 20,148 7,756 2,663 2,758 115.1 -37.4 -31.0 -41.9 2,126.3 -61.5 3.6

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . 10,086,195 10,382,440 10,600,470 11,138,353 10,629,073 10,793,425 5,370,412 5,524,993 7.0 2.9 2.1 5.1 -4.6 1.5 2.9

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . 6,322,806 5,676,017 6,089,710 6,286,468 6,883,546 7,119,199 3,453,719 4,184,481 12.6 -10.2 7.3 3.2 9.5 3.4 21.2

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . 62.7 54.7 57.4 56.4 64.7 65.7 64.1 75.5 3.0 -8.0 2.8 -1.0 8.3 1.0 11.5

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,115,864 5,595,208 5,988,501 6,041,385 6,442,052 6,618,088 3,304,432 3,866,052 8.2 -8.5 7.0 0.9 6.6 2.7 17.0

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,242,250 1,909,806 2,050,077 2,164,450 4,047,066 4,685,560 2,452,976 2,744,626 109.0 -14.8 7.3 5.6 87.0 15.8 11.9

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $367 $341 $342 $358 $628 $708 $742 $710 93.1 -6.9 0.3 4.7 75.3 12.7 -4.4

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233,283 146,677 197,405 306,342 425,436 435,382 154,323 298,047 86.6 -37.1 34.6 55.2 38.9 2.3 93.1

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86,689 49,835 65,408 107,006 279,701 314,340 115,086 210,273 262.6 -42.5 31.2 63.6 161.4 12.4 82.7

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $372 $340 $331 $349 $657 $722 $746 $706 94.3 -8.6 -2.5 5.4 88.2 9.8 -5.4

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . 698,145 609,687 564,800 573,515 546,697 526,917 481,010 521,320 -24.5 -12.7 -7.4 1.5 -4.7 -3.6 8.4

 Inventories/total shipments (1) 11.0 10.6 9.1 9.0 8.0 7.5 7.0 6.3 -3.5 -0.4 -1.5 -0.1 -1.1 -0.5 -0.7

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . 5,547 4,869 4,477 4,317 3,973 3,928 3,802 4,212 -29.2 -12.2 -8.1 -3.6 -8.0 -1.1 10.8

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . 12,515 10,928 10,241 9,762 9,191 9,192 4,702 5,402 -26.6 -12.7 -6.3 -4.7 -5.9 0.0 14.9

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . 268,471 233,945 218,022 213,011 201,105 208,286 103,535 124,368 -22.4 -12.9 -6.8 -2.3 -5.6 3.6 20.1

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . $21.45 $21.41 $21.29 $21.82 $21.88 $22.66 $22.02 $23.02 5.6 -0.2 -0.5 2.5 0.3 3.6 4.6

 Productivity (tons/1,000 hours) 456.6 469.8 536.6 581.8 673.6 700.8 658.6 708.1 53.5 2.9 14.2 8.4 15.8 4.0 7.5

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . $46.98 $45.57 $39.68 $37.51 $32.48 $32.34 $33.43 $32.52 -31.2 -3.0 -12.9 -5.5 -13.4 -0.5 -2.7

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,830,187 4,367,368 4,745,921 5,297,394 5,638,486 5,672,541 2,802,305 3,379,555 17.4 -9.6 8.7 11.6 6.4 0.6 20.6

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,758,271 1,477,637 1,609,886 1,915,063 3,530,933 4,070,019 2,119,953 2,437,411 131.5 -16.0 9.0 19.0 84.4 15.3 15.0

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $364 $338 $339 $362 $626 $717 $757 $721 97.1 -7.1 0.3 6.6 73.2 14.6 -4.7

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . 1,800,011 1,572,475 1,628,547 1,908,344 2,692,538 2,967,611 1,517,442 1,769,847 64.9 -12.6 3.6 17.2 41.1 10.2 16.6

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . (41,740) (94,838) (18,661) 6,719 838,395 1,102,408 602,511 667,564 (3) -127.2 80.3 (3) 12,378.0 31.5 10.8

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . 111,600 105,252 96,529 137,155 104,222 120,100 56,963 69,429 7.6 -5.7 -8.3 42.1 -24.0 15.2 21.9

 Operating income or (loss) . . . (153,340) (200,090) (115,190) (130,436) 734,173 982,308 545,548 598,136 (3) -30.5 42.4 -13.2 (3) 33.8 9.6

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . *** *** 38,505 20,630 23,063 86,056 20,612 43,030 *** *** *** -46.4 11.8 273.1 108.8

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $373 $360 $343 $360 $478 $523 $541 $524 40.4 -3.4 -4.7 5.0 32.6 9.6 -3.3

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . $23 $24 $20 $26 $18 $21 $20 $21 -8.4 4.3 -15.6 27.3 -28.6 14.5 1.1

 Unit operating income or (loss) ($32) ($46) ($24) ($25) $130 $173 $195 $177 (3) -44.3 47.0 -1.4 (3) 33.0 -9.1

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . 102.4 106.4 101.2 99.6 76.3 72.9 71.6 72.6 -29.5 4.0 -5.3 -1.5 -23.4 -3.3 1.0

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8.7) (13.5) (7.2) (6.8) 20.8 24.1 25.7 24.5 32.9 -4.8 6.4 0.3 27.6 3.3 -1.2

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Not applicable.

 (3) Undefined.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics.

C-4
Table C-1a

CTL plate: Summary data concerning U.S. mills, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

(Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-June Jan.-June

Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 2000-05 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

U.S. mills':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . 6,774,534 7,060,778 7,345,648 7,655,505 6,965,258 7,010,214 3,486,757 3,614,334 3.5 4.2 4.0 4.2 -9.0 0.6 3.7

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . 4,773,196 4,258,879 4,659,396 4,792,977 5,223,946 5,303,735 2,579,213 3,164,204 11.1 -10.8 9.4 2.9 9.0 1.5 22.7

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . 70.5 60.3 63.4 62.6 75.0 75.6 74.0 87.5 5.2 -10.2 3.1 -0.8 12.4 0.6 13.6

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,523,603 4,116,122 4,525,293 4,553,612 4,802,967 4,835,809 2,439,606 2,881,544 6.9 -9.0 9.9 0.6 5.5 0.7 18.1

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,650,282 1,393,840 1,518,214 1,613,308 2,957,378 3,488,723 1,855,163 2,080,370 111.4 -15.5 8.9 6.3 83.3 18.0 12.1

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $365 $339 $335 $354 $616 $721 $760 $722 97.8 -7.2 -0.9 5.6 73.8 17.2 -5.1

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . 390,589 345,891 283,241 283,975 253,668 287,549 239,469 270,957 -26.4 -11.4 -18.1 0.3 -10.7 13.4 13.1

 Inventories/total shipments (1) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . 4,775 4,141 3,759 3,547 3,148 3,054 2,930 3,286 -36.0 -13.3 -9.2 -5.6 -11.2 -3.0 12.2

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . 10,864 9,415 8,729 8,245 7,520 7,364 3,806 4,396 -32.2 -13.3 -7.3 -5.5 -8.8 -2.1 15.5

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . 243,504 211,192 194,416 188,440 173,295 177,086 88,387 106,928 -27.3 -13.3 -7.9 -3.1 -8.0 2.2 21.0

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . $22.41 $22.43 $22.27 $22.86 $23.04 $24.05 $23.22 $24.33 7.3 0.1 -0.7 2.6 0.8 4.4 4.7

 Productivity (tons/1,000 hours) 437.9 451.2 532.9 580.9 693.7 719.8 677.7 719.8 64.4 3.1 18.1 9.0 19.4 3.8 6.2

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . $51.19 $49.71 $41.79 $39.34 $33.22 $33.41 $34.27 $33.79 -34.7 -2.9 -15.9 -5.9 -15.6 0.6 -1.4

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,452,976 4,020,355 4,438,109 4,760,308 5,034,023 4,944,371 2,461,385 2,955,954 11.0 -9.7 10.4 7.3 5.7 -1.8 20.1

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,635,844 1,374,725 1,498,332 1,680,868 3,089,599 3,547,505 1,857,218 2,128,474 116.9 -16.0 9.0 12.2 83.8 14.8 14.6

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $367 $342 $338 $353 $614 $717 $755 $720 95.3 -6.9 -1.3 4.6 73.8 16.9 -4.6

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . 1,683,451 1,479,179 1,524,786 1,701,983 2,307,283 2,488,925 1,270,233 1,490,106 47.8 -12.1 3.1 11.6 35.6 7.9 17.3

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . (47,607) (104,454) (26,454) (21,115) 782,316 1,058,580 586,985 638,368 (2) -119.4 74.7 20.2 (2) 35.3 8.8

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . 108,073 101,438 92,150 126,779 91,553 106,366 50,986 61,072 -1.6 -6.1 -9.2 37.6 -27.8 16.2 19.8

 Operating income or (loss) . . . (155,680) (205,892) (118,604) (147,894) 690,763 952,214 535,999 577,297 (2) -32.3 42.4 -24.7 (2) 37.8 7.7

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $378 $368 $344 $358 $458 $503 $516 $504 33.2 -2.7 -6.6 4.1 28.2 9.8 -2.3

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . $24 $25 $21 $27 $18 $22 $21 $21 -11.4 4.0 -17.7 28.3 -31.7 18.3 -0.3

 Unit operating income or (loss) ($35) ($51) ($27) ($31) $137 $193 $218 $195 (2) -46.5 47.8 -16.3 (2) 40.3 -10.3

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . 102.9 107.6 101.8 101.3 74.7 70.2 68.4 70.0 -32.8 4.7 -5.8 -0.5 -26.6 -4.5 1.6

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (9.5) (15.0) (7.9) (8.8) 22.4 26.8 28.9 27.1 36.4 -5.5 7.1 -0.9 31.2 4.5 -1.7

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Undefined.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

C-5
Table C-1b

CTL plate: Summary data concerning U.S. processors, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

(Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-June Jan.-June

Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 2000-05 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

U.S. processors':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . 3,311,661 3,321,662 3,254,822 3,482,848 3,663,815 3,783,211 1,883,655 1,910,659 14.2 0.3 -2.0 7.0 5.2 3.3 1.4

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . 1,549,610 1,417,138 1,430,314 1,493,491 1,659,600 1,815,464 874,506 1,020,277 17.2 -8.5 0.9 4.4 11.1 9.4 16.7

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . 46.8 42.7 43.9 42.9 45.3 47.4 45.8 52.9 0.6 -4.1 1.3 -1.1 2.4 2.1 7.1

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,592,261 1,479,086 1,463,208 1,487,773 1,639,085 1,782,279 864,826 984,508 11.9 -7.1 -1.1 1.7 10.2 8.7 13.8

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 591,968 515,966 531,863 551,142 1,089,688 1,196,837 597,813 664,257 102.2 -12.8 3.1 3.6 97.7 9.8 11.1

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $372 $349 $363 $370 $665 $672 $691 $675 80.6 -6.2 4.2 1.9 79.5 1.0 -2.4

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . 307,556 263,796 281,559 289,540 293,029 239,368 241,541 250,363 -22.2 -14.2 6.7 2.8 1.2 -18.3 3.7

 Inventories/total shipments (1) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . 772 728 718 770 825 874 872 926 13.2 -5.7 -1.4 7.2 7.1 5.9 6.2

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . 1,651 1,513 1,512 1,517 1,671 1,828 896 1,006 10.7 -8.4 -0.1 0.4 10.1 9.4 12.3

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . 24,967 22,753 23,606 24,571 27,810 31,200 15,148 17,440 25.0 -8.9 3.8 4.1 13.2 12.2 15.1

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . $15.12 $15.04 $15.62 $16.19 $16.64 $17.07 $16.91 $17.34 12.9 -0.6 3.9 3.7 2.8 2.6 2.5

 Productivity (tons/1,000 hours) 579.8 585.2 557.4 586.5 583.2 624.0 577.5 656.6 7.6 0.9 -4.7 5.2 -0.6 7.0 13.7

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . $26.08 $25.70 $28.02 $27.61 $28.54 $27.36 $29.27 $26.40 4.9 -1.5 9.0 -1.5 3.4 -4.1 -9.8

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377,211 347,013 307,812 537,086 604,463 728,170 340,920 423,601 93.0 -8.0 -11.3 74.5 12.5 20.5 24.3

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122,427 102,912 111,554 234,195 441,334 522,514 262,735 308,937 326.8 -15.9 8.4 109.9 88.4 18.4 17.6

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $325 $297 $362 $436 $730 $718 $771 $729 121.1 -8.6 22.2 20.3 67.4 -1.7 -5.4

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . 116,560 93,296 103,761 206,361 385,255 478,686 247,209 279,741 310.7 -20.0 11.2 98.9 86.7 24.3 13.2

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . 5,867 9,616 7,793 27,834 56,079 43,828 15,526 29,196 647.0 63.9 -19.0 257.2 101.5 -21.8 88.0

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . 3,527 3,814 4,379 10,376 12,669 13,734 5,977 8,357 289.4 8.1 14.8 136.9 22.1 8.4 39.8

 Operating income or (loss) . . . 2,340 5,802 3,414 17,458 43,410 30,094 9,549 20,839 1,186.1 147.9 -41.2 411.4 148.7 -30.7 118.2

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $309 $269 $337 $384 $637 $657 $725 $660 112.7 -13.0 25.4 14.0 65.9 3.1 -8.9

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . $9 $11 $14 $19 $21 $19 $18 $20 101.7 17.5 29.4 35.8 8.5 -10.0 12.5

 Unit operating income or (loss) $6 $17 $11 $33 $72 $41 $28 $49 566.2 169.5 -33.7 193.1 120.9 -42.5 75.6

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . 95.2 90.7 93.0 88.1 87.3 91.6 94.1 90.5 -3.6 -4.6 2.4 -4.9 -0.8 4.3 -3.5

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.9 5.6 3.1 7.5 9.8 5.8 3.6 6.7 3.8 3.7 -2.6 4.4 2.4 -4.1 3.1

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Not applicable.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

C-6
Table C-2

Carbon and micro-alloy CTL plate: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

(Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-June Jan.-June

Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 2000-05 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,726,898 7,119,402 7,466,684 7,267,857 8,273,182 8,589,875 4,309,826 5,184,837 11.2 -7.9 4.9 -2.7 13.8 3.8 20.3

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . 90.3 90.5 92.2 95.3 92.9 91.1 91.2 88.3 0.7 0.2 1.7 3.0 -2.4 -1.8 -2.9

 Importers' share (1):

 Belgium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 -0.0 0.1

 Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0

 Finland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0

 Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 -0.1 -0.1 0.5 -0.5 0.2 -0.3 0.3

 Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0

 Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0

 Romania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.1 0.6 1.0 1.3 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.4 -0.7 -0.1

 Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0

 Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0

 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4 0.4 1.3 1.1 1.8 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.9 -0.2 0.7 -1.0 0.2

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . 9.3 9.1 6.5 3.7 5.4 8.1 8.6 11.2 -1.1 -0.2 -2.6 -2.8 1.7 2.8 2.6

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.7 9.5 7.8 4.7 7.1 8.9 8.8 11.7 -0.7 -0.2 -1.7 -3.0 2.4 1.8 2.9

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,879,948 2,514,333 2,623,071 2,659,110 5,219,653 6,304,256 3,276,085 3,753,311 118.9 -12.7 4.3 1.4 96.3 20.8 14.6

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . 91.9 91.7 92.7 95.6 93.5 91.2 91.6 89.7 -0.6 -0.2 1.0 2.9 -2.1 -2.3 -1.9

 Importers' share (1):

 Belgium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1

 Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1

 Finland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0

 Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 -0.1 -0.1 0.6 -0.6 0.1 -0.2 0.4

 Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0

 Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0

 Romania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.8 1.1 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.3 -0.6 -0.1

 Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0

 Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0

 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4 0.4 1.4 1.0 1.5 0.7 0.2 0.6 0.3 -0.0 0.9 -0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.3

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . 7.7 7.9 6.0 3.5 5.0 8.0 8.1 9.7 0.3 0.2 -1.9 -2.5 1.5 3.0 1.6

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1 8.3 7.3 4.4 6.5 8.8 8.4 10.3 0.6 0.2 -1.0 -2.9 2.1 2.3 1.9

U.S. imports from:

 Belgium:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,614 16,575 11,615 6,226 10,271 10,388 2,767 6,853 -33.5 6.1 -29.9 -46.4 65.0 1.1 147.6

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,458 6,511 4,951 3,086 7,023 8,923 1,976 5,904 38.2 0.8 -24.0 -37.7 127.6 27.0 198.7

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $414 $393 $426 $496 $684 $859 $714 $862 107.7 -5.0 8.5 16.3 37.9 25.6 20.6

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Brazil:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,243 2,978 1,477 0 18 2,460 1,961 420 -24.1 -8.2 -50.4 -100.0 (2) 13,360.3 -78.6

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,546 1,386 288 0 7 3,138 2,714 323 103.0 -10.3 -79.2 -100.0 (2) 46,865.1 -88.1

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $477 $465 $195 (2) $366 $1,276 $1,384 $769 167.6 -2.4 -58.0 (2) (2) 248.9 -44.4

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Finland:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 19 0 0 1,290 0 0 0 (2) (2) -100.0 (2) (2) -100.0 (2)

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 10 0 0 1,112 0 0 0 (2) (2) -100.0 (2) (2) -100.0 (2)

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) $537 (2) (2) $862 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Germany:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,783 129 40,536 2,647 23,413 2,078 1,491 15,671 -76.3 -98.5 31,358.2 -93.5 784.6 -91.1 950.7

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,030 92 17,028 1,688 10,641 1,440 980 15,574 -64.3 -97.7 18,505.1 -90.1 530.6 -86.5 1,489.4

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $459 $710 $420 $638 $454 $693 $657 $994 51.0 54.8 -40.9 51.8 -28.7 52.5 51.3

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Mexico:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 271 273 308 1,083 440 379 168 188.1 77.5 0.8 12.8 251.7 -59.4 -55.5

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 141 81 123 570 271 244 79 314.1 116.1 -42.4 51.7 362.1 -52.5 -67.5

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $428 $521 $298 $400 $526 $615 $645 $472 43.8 21.7 -42.9 34.5 31.4 16.9 -26.9

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Poland:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 386 0 0 45 61 61 0 1,774.3 11,718.8 -100.0 (2) (2) 36.7 -100.0

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 95 0 0 23 36 36 0 778.4 2199.4 -100.0 (2) (2) 61.2 -100.0

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,270 $247 (2) (2) $505 $595 $595 (2) -53.1 -80.5 (2) (2) (2) 17.9 (2)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Romania:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5,981 44,339 69,552 109,969 49,813 3,014 0 803,561.0 96,393.7 641.3 56.9 58.1 -54.7 -100.0

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1,433 12,627 20,706 58,584 31,292 2,084 0 567,087.1 25,871.5 781.2 64.0 182.9 -46.6 -100.0

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $890 $240 $285 $298 $533 $628 $691 (2) -29.4 -73.1 18.9 4.5 78.9 17.9 (2)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 *** *** 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) *** (2)

 Spain:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (2) -100.0 (2) (2) (2)

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (2) -100.0 (2) (2) (2)

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $444 (2) $358 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Sweden:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354 1,312 198 0 280 182 182 50 -48.7 270.9 -84.9 -100.0 (2) -35.1 -72.4

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 1,095 192 0 131 108 108 33 -45.4 453.6 -82.4 -100.0 (2) -17.9 -69.3

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $559 $835 $970 (2) $470 $595 $595 $663 6.4 49.3 16.3 (2) (2) 26.6 11.5

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Taiwan:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 66 226 0 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -11.1 240.8 -100.0 (2) (2) (2)

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 20 270 0 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -22.2 1216.5 -100.0 (2) (2) (2)

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $353 $309 $1,194 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) -12.5 286.4 (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 United Kingdom:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 847 125 79 23 8 17 0 19 -97.9 -85.3 -37.1 -71.0 -64.5 115.2 (2)

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246 88 49 7 3 6 0 6 -97.6 -64.1 -44.6 -85.8 -56.5 97.0 (2)

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $291 $708 $624 $305 $374 $342 (2) $338 17.8 143.6 -11.9 -51.0 22.5 -8.5 (2)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Subtotal:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,083 27,842 98,749 78,755 146,377 65,439 9,856 23,181 125.0 -4.3 254.7 -20.2 85.9 -55.3 135.2

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,581 10,873 35,489 25,610 78,094 45,214 8,143 21,920 259.4 -13.6 226.4 -27.8 204.9 -42.1 169.2

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $433 $391 $359 $325 $534 $691 $826 $946 59.7 -9.7 -8.0 -9.5 64.1 29.5 14.4

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 *** *** 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) *** (2)

C-7
Table C-2--Continued

Carbon and micro-alloy CTL plate: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

(Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-June Jan.-June

Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 2000-05 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

U.S. imports from:

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 717,087 646,703 481,859 266,359 443,279 699,830 371,267 583,090 -2.4 -9.8 -25.5 -44.7 66.4 57.9 57.1

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221,888 197,774 156,735 92,251 261,397 507,408 265,948 363,167 128.7 -10.9 -20.8 -41.1 183.4 94.1 36.6

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $309 $306 $325 $346 $590 $725 $716 $623 134.3 -1.2 6.4 6.5 70.3 23.0 -13.1

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 3,605 2,257 1,557 905 *** *** 2,663 2,758 *** -37.4 -31.0 -41.9 *** *** 3.6

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 746,170 674,545 580,607 345,114 589,656 765,269 381,123 606,271 2.6 -9.6 -13.9 -40.6 70.9 29.8 59.1

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234,469 208,647 192,224 117,860 339,490 552,621 274,091 385,087 135.7 -11.0 -7.9 -38.7 188.0 62.8 40.5

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $314 $309 $331 $342 $576 $722 $719 $635 129.8 -1.6 7.0 3.2 68.6 25.4 -11.7

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 3,605 2,257 1,557 905 20,148 7,756 2,663 2,758 115.1 -37.4 -31.0 -41.9 2126.3 -61.5 3.6

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . 11,339,998 11,738,263 12,135,197 12,529,308 12,241,278 12,499,426 6,234,411 6,448,141 10.2 3.5 3.4 3.2 -2.3 2.1 3.4

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . 7,224,280 6,572,641 7,042,099 7,232,492 8,201,826 8,370,365 4,099,001 4,920,022 15.9 -9.0 7.1 2.7 13.4 2.1 20.0

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . 63.7 56.0 58.0 57.7 67.0 67.0 65.7 76.3 3.3 -7.7 2.0 -0.3 9.3 -0.0 10.6

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,980,728 6,444,857 6,886,077 6,922,743 7,683,526 7,824,606 3,928,703 4,578,566 12.1 -7.7 6.8 0.5 11.0 1.8 16.5

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,645,479 2,305,687 2,430,846 2,541,250 4,880,162 5,751,635 3,001,994 3,368,224 117.4 -12.8 5.4 4.5 92.0 17.9 12.2

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $379 $358 $353 $367 $635 $735 $764 $736 94.0 -5.6 -1.3 4.0 73.0 15.7 -3.7

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270,078 183,343 240,603 327,192 459,436 464,353 167,024 313,815 71.9 -32.1 31.2 36.0 40.4 1.1 87.9

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103,316 69,401 85,462 116,670 310,026 347,563 129,812 227,775 236.4 -32.8 23.1 36.5 165.7 12.1 75.5

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $383 $379 $355 $357 $675 $748 $777 $726 95.7 -1.0 -6.2 0.4 89.2 10.9 -6.6

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . 758,262 680,113 646,841 681,424 668,377 583,788 541,806 578,472 -23.0 -10.3 -4.9 5.3 -1.9 -12.7 6.8

 Inventories/total shipments (1) 10.5 10.3 9.1 9.4 8.2 7.0 6.6 5.9 -3.4 -0.2 -1.2 0.3 -1.2 -1.2 -0.7

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . 6,618 6,341 5,979 5,565 5,484 5,535 5,426 5,777 -16.4 -4.2 -5.7 -6.9 -1.5 0.9 6.5

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . 15,006 13,582 12,899 11,652 11,791 12,235 6,189 7,056 -18.5 -9.5 -5.0 -9.7 1.2 3.8 14.0

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . 327,335 298,700 285,101 257,170 262,698 273,818 138,741 164,346 -16.3 -8.7 -4.6 -9.8 2.1 4.2 18.5

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . $21.81 $21.99 $22.10 $22.07 $22.28 $22.38 $22.42 $23.29 2.6 0.8 0.5 -0.2 1.0 0.5 3.9

 Productivity (tons/1,000 hours) 481.4 483.9 546.0 620.7 695.6 684.2 662.3 697.3 42.1 0.5 12.8 13.7 12.1 -1.6 5.3

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . $45.31 $45.45 $40.49 $35.56 $32.03 $32.71 $33.85 $33.40 -27.8 0.3 -10.9 -12.2 -9.9 2.1 -1.3

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,731,845 5,257,684 5,586,697 6,199,509 6,913,384 6,994,327 3,481,322 4,178,568 22.0 -8.3 6.3 11.0 11.5 1.2 20.0

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,178,126 1,873,085 2,010,708 2,301,527 4,384,354 5,199,792 2,699,698 3,087,073 138.7 -14.0 7.3 14.5 90.5 18.6 14.3

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $380 $356 $360 $371 $634 $743 $775 $739 95.6 -6.2 1.0 3.1 70.8 17.2 -4.7

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . 2,178,264 1,931,241 1,994,298 2,254,945 3,350,935 3,768,555 1,925,424 2,207,745 73.0 -11.3 3.3 13.1 48.6 12.5 14.7

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . (138) (58,156) 16,410 46,582 1,033,419 1,431,237 774,274 879,328 (3) -42042.0 (3) 183.9 2,118.5 38.5 13.6

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . 135,143 128,179 117,287 161,165 131,976 154,532 75,850 85,268 14.3 -5.2 -8.5 37.4 -18.1 17.1 12.4

 Operating income or (loss) . . . (135,281) (186,335) (100,877) (114,583) 901,443 1,276,705 698,424 794,061 (3) -37.7 45.9 -13.6 (3) 41.6 13.7

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $380 $367 $357 $364 $485 $539 $553 $528 41.8 -3.3 -2.8 1.9 33.3 11.2 -4.5

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . $24 $24 $21 $26 $19 $22 $22 $20 -6.3 3.4 -13.9 23.8 -26.6 15.7 -6.3

 Unit operating income or (loss) ($24) ($35) ($18) ($18) $130 $183 $201 $190 (3) -50.2 49.1 -2.4 (3) 40.0 -5.3

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 103.1 99.2 98.0 76.4 72.5 71.3 71.5 -27.5 3.1 -3.9 -1.2 -21.5 -4.0 0.2

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6.2) (9.9) (5.0) (5.0) 20.6 24.6 25.9 25.7 30.8 -3.7 4.9 0.0 25.5 4.0 -0.1

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Not applicable.

 (3) Undefined.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics.

C-8
Table C-2a

Carbon and micro-alloy CTL plate: Summary data concerning U.S. mills, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

(Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-June Jan.-June

Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 2000-05 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Inventories/total shipments (1) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Productivity (tons/1,000 hours) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss) . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit operating income or (loss) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Undefined.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

C-9
Table C-2b

Carbon and micro-alloy CTL plate: Summary data concerning U.S. processors, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

(Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-June Jan.-June

Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 2000-05 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Inventories/total shipments (1) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Productivity (tons/1,000 hours) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss) . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit operating income or (loss) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Not applicable.

 (3) Undefined.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

C-10
Table C-3

CTL plate other than wide flat bar: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

(Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-June Jan.-June

Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 2000-05 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,511,204 5,934,095 6,125,552 5,864,742 6,413,199 6,672,671 3,367,744 4,101,220 2.5 -8.9 3.2 -4.3 9.4 4.0 21.8

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . 89.3 89.3 91.0 94.7 91.7 90.1 89.9 86.2 0.8 0.0 1.7 3.7 -3.1 -1.6 -3.7

 Importers' share (1):

 Belgium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 0.1 -0.0 0.1

 Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0

 Finland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0

 Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 -0.1 -0.1 0.7 -0.6 0.3 -0.3 0.3

 Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0

 Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0

 Romania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.1 0.7 1.2 1.7 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.6 0.5 0.5 -1.0 -0.1

 Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0

 Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0

 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4 0.5 1.6 1.3 2.3 1.0 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.0 1.1 -0.3 0.9 -1.3 0.3

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . 10.2 10.2 7.3 3.9 6.1 8.9 9.8 13.3 -1.3 -0.0 -2.9 -3.4 2.2 2.9 3.4

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.7 10.7 9.0 5.3 8.3 9.9 10.1 13.8 -0.8 -0.0 -1.7 -3.7 3.1 1.6 3.7

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,341,847 2,005,920 2,104,471 2,096,824 4,052,633 4,790,575 2,535,869 2,891,827 104.6 -14.3 4.9 -0.4 93.3 18.2 14.0

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . 91.0 90.6 91.5 95.1 92.6 90.7 90.8 88.0 -0.3 -0.4 1.0 3.5 -2.5 -1.9 -2.7

 Importers' share (1):

 Belgium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1

 Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.0 0.0 0.1 -0.1

 Finland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0

 Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 -0.1 -0.2 0.8 -0.7 0.2 -0.2 0.5

 Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0

 Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0

 Romania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.1 0.6 1.0 1.4 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.5 -0.8 -0.1

 Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0

 Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0

 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 0.5 1.7 1.2 1.9 0.9 0.3 0.8 0.4 0.0 1.1 -0.5 0.7 -1.0 0.4

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . 8.5 8.9 6.8 3.7 5.5 8.3 8.9 11.2 -0.1 0.4 -2.1 -3.1 1.8 2.9 2.3

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.0 9.4 8.5 4.9 7.4 9.3 9.2 12.0 0.3 0.4 -1.0 -3.5 2.5 1.9 2.7

U.S. imports from:

 Belgium:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,614 16,575 11,615 6,226 10,271 10,388 2,767 6,853 -33.5 6.1 -29.9 -46.4 65.0 1.1 147.6

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,458 6,511 4,951 3,086 7,023 8,923 1,976 5,904 38.2 0.8 -24.0 -37.7 127.6 27.0 198.7

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $414 $393 $426 $496 $684 $859 $714 $862 107.7 -5.0 8.5 16.3 37.9 25.6 20.6

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Brazil:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,243 2,978 1,477 0 18 2,460 1,961 420 -24.1 -8.2 -50.4 -100.0 (2) 13,360.3 -78.6

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,546 1,386 288 0 7 3,138 2,714 323 103.0 -10.3 -79.2 -100.0 (2) 46,865.1 -88.1

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $477 $465 $195 (2) $366 $1,276 $1,384 $769 167.6 -2.4 -58.0 (2) (2) 248.9 -44.4

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Finland:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 19 0 0 1,290 0 0 0 (2) (2) -100.0 (2) (2) -100.0 (2)

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 10 0 0 1,112 0 0 0 (2) (2) -100.0 (2) (2) -100.0 (2)

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) $537 (2) (2) $862 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Germany:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,783 125 40,536 2,647 23,226 2,078 1,491 15,671 -76.3 -98.6 32,242.5 -93.5 777.5 -91.1 950.7

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,030 89 17,028 1,688 10,546 1,440 980 15,574 -64.3 -97.8 18,984.0 -90.1 524.9 -86.3 1,489.4

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $459 $712 $420 $638 $454 $693 $657 $994 51.0 55.1 -41.0 51.8 -28.8 52.7 51.3

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Mexico:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 271 273 308 1,005 440 379 168 223.4 99.2 0.8 12.8 226.2 -56.2 -55.5

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 141 81 123 534 271 244 79 367.1 143.7 -42.4 51.7 333.1 -49.3 -67.5

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $426 $521 $298 $400 $532 $615 $645 $472 44.4 22.3 -42.9 34.5 32.8 15.7 -26.9

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Poland:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 386 0 0 45 61 61 0 1,774.3 11,718.8 -100.0 (2) (2) 36.7 -100.0

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 95 0 0 23 36 36 0 778.4 2199.4 -100.0 (2) (2) 61.2 -100.0

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,270 $247 (2) (2) $505 $595 $595 (2) -53.1 -80.5 (2) (2) (2) 17.9 (2)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Romania:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5,981 44,339 69,552 109,969 49,813 3,014 0 803,561.0 96,393.7 641.3 56.9 58.1 -54.7 -100.0

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1,433 12,627 20,706 58,584 31,292 2,084 0 567,087.1 25,871.5 781.2 64.0 182.9 -46.6 -100.0

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $890 $240 $285 $298 $533 $628 $691 (2) -29.4 -73.1 18.9 4.5 78.9 17.9 (2)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 *** *** 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) *** (2)

 Spain:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (2) -100.0 (2) (2) (2)

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (2) -100.0 (2) (2) (2)

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $444 (2) $358 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Sweden:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333 1,312 198 0 280 182 182 50 -45.5 294.3 -84.9 -100.0 (2) -35.1 -72.4

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 1,095 192 0 131 108 108 33 -42.7 480.9 -82.4 -100.0 (2) -17.9 -69.3

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $566 $835 $970 (2) $470 $595 $595 $663 5.0 47.3 16.3 (2) (2) 26.6 11.5

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Taiwan:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 66 226 0 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -11.1 240.8 -100.0 (2) (2) (2)

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 20 270 0 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -22.2 1216.5 -100.0 (2) (2) (2)

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $353 $309 $1,194 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) -12.5 286.4 (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 United Kingdom:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 847 125 79 23 8 17 0 19 -97.9 -85.3 -37.1 -71.0 -64.5 115.2 (2)

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246 88 49 7 3 6 0 6 -97.6 -64.1 -44.6 -85.8 -56.5 97.0 (2)

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $291 $708 $624 $305 $374 $342 (2) $338 17.8 143.6 -11.9 -51.0 22.5 -8.5 (2)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Subtotal:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,045 27,838 98,749 78,755 146,112 65,439 9,856 23,181 125.3 -4.2 254.7 -20.2 85.5 -55.2 135.2

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,565 10,870 35,489 25,610 77,962 45,214 8,143 21,920 259.8 -13.5 226.5 -27.8 204.4 -42.0 169.2

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $433 $390 $359 $325 $534 $691 $826 $946 59.7 -9.7 -8.0 -9.5 64.1 29.5 14.4

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 *** *** 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) *** (2)

C-11
Table C-3--Continued

CTL plate other than wide flat bar: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

(Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-June Jan.-June

Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 2000-05 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

U.S. imports from:

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 666,605 606,083 450,109 229,770 389,385 597,036 331,000 543,826 -10.4 -9.1 -25.7 -49.0 69.5 53.3 64.3

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198,740 178,523 142,588 77,496 221,448 399,731 226,424 324,630 101.1 -10.2 -20.1 -45.7 185.8 80.5 43.4

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $298 $295 $317 $337 $569 $670 $684 $597 124.6 -1.2 7.5 6.5 68.6 17.7 -12.7

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 3,605 2,257 1,557 905 *** *** 2,663 2,758 *** -37.4 -31.0 -41.9 *** *** 3.6

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 695,650 633,921 548,858 308,525 535,497 662,475 340,856 567,008 -4.8 -8.9 -13.4 -43.8 73.6 23.7 66.3

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211,304 189,393 178,077 103,105 299,410 444,944 234,567 346,550 110.6 -10.4 -6.0 -42.1 190.4 48.6 47.7

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $304 $299 $324 $334 $559 $672 $688 $611 121.1 -1.6 8.6 3.0 67.3 20.1 -11.2

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 3,605 2,257 1,557 905 20,148 7,756 2,663 2,758 115.1 -37.4 -31.0 -41.9 2126.3 -61.5 3.6

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . 9,417,685 9,681,335 9,772,444 10,272,203 9,560,857 9,679,509 4,824,805 4,958,083 2.8 2.8 0.9 5.1 -6.9 1.2 2.8

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . 6,002,281 5,388,829 5,654,499 5,785,238 6,298,458 6,500,286 3,182,764 3,850,369 8.3 -10.2 4.9 2.3 8.9 3.2 21.0

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . 63.7 55.7 57.9 56.3 65.9 67.2 66.0 77.7 3.4 -8.1 2.2 -1.5 9.6 1.3 11.7

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,815,554 5,300,174 5,576,694 5,556,217 5,877,702 6,010,196 3,026,888 3,534,212 3.3 -8.9 5.2 -0.4 5.8 2.3 16.8

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,130,543 1,816,527 1,926,394 1,993,719 3,753,222 4,345,631 2,301,302 2,545,277 104.0 -14.7 6.0 3.5 88.3 15.8 10.6

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $366 $343 $345 $359 $639 $723 $760 $720 97.4 -6.4 0.8 3.9 78.0 13.2 -5.3

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . 634,924 570,547 519,685 523,442 491,418 483,171 441,129 489,559 -23.9 -10.1 -8.9 0.7 -6.1 -1.7 11.0

 Inventories/total shipments (1) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . 5,208 4,567 4,089 3,920 3,380 3,381 3,253 3,666 -35.1 -12.3 -10.5 -4.1 -13.8 0.0 12.7

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . 11,809 10,307 9,398 8,759 7,856 7,980 4,100 4,753 -32.4 -12.7 -8.8 -6.8 -10.3 1.6 15.9

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . 250,669 217,864 197,950 191,396 172,374 177,747 88,448 107,992 -29.1 -13.1 -9.1 -3.3 -9.9 3.1 22.1

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . $21.23 $21.14 $21.06 $21.85 $21.94 $22.27 $21.57 $22.72 4.9 -0.4 -0.4 3.7 0.4 1.5 5.3

 Productivity (tons/1,000 hours) 508.3 522.9 601.7 660.5 801.7 814.6 776.2 810.1 60.3 2.9 15.1 9.8 21.4 1.6 4.4

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . $41.76 $40.43 $35.01 $33.08 $27.37 $27.34 $27.79 $28.05 -34.5 -3.2 -13.4 -5.5 -17.3 -0.1 0.9

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,585,235 4,149,421 4,425,972 4,922,641 5,222,184 5,219,720 2,597,690 3,126,176 13.8 -9.5 6.7 11.2 6.1 -0.0 20.3

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,664,811 1,406,324 1,512,659 1,782,211 3,316,741 3,819,106 2,009,427 2,285,829 129.4 -15.5 7.6 17.8 86.1 15.1 13.8

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $363 $339 $342 $362 $635 $732 $774 $731 101.5 -6.7 0.8 5.9 75.4 15.2 -5.5

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . 1,725,769 1,509,602 1,540,350 1,794,110 2,513,703 2,770,950 1,429,768 1,653,719 60.6 -12.5 2.0 16.5 40.1 10.2 15.7

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . (60,958) (103,278) (27,691) (11,900) 803,038 1,048,156 579,659 632,109 (3) -69.4 73.2 57.0 (3) 30.5 9.0

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . 107,151 101,336 92,235 132,328 97,994 112,993 53,554 65,383 5.5 -5.4 -9.0 43.5 -25.9 15.3 22.1

 Operating income or (loss) . . . (168,109) (204,614) (119,926) (144,227) 705,044 935,163 526,105 566,726 (3) -21.7 41.4 -20.3 (3) 32.6 7.7

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $376 $364 $348 $364 $481 $531 $550 $529 41.0 -3.3 -4.3 4.7 32.1 10.3 -3.9

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . $23 $24 $21 $27 $19 $22 $21 $21 -7.4 4.5 -14.7 29.0 -30.2 15.4 1.4

 Unit operating income or (loss) ($37) ($49) ($27) ($29) $135 $179 $203 $181 (3) -34.5 45.1 -8.1 (3) 32.7 -10.5

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . 103.7 107.3 101.8 100.7 75.8 72.6 71.2 72.3 -31.1 3.7 -5.5 -1.2 -24.9 -3.2 1.2

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (10.1) (14.5) (7.9) (8.1) 21.3 24.5 26.2 24.8 34.6 -4.5 6.6 -0.2 29.3 3.2 -1.4

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Not applicable.

 (3) Undefined.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics.

C-12
Table C-4

Carbon and micro-alloy CTL plate other than wide flat bar: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

(Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-June Jan.-June

Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 2000-05 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers' share (1):

 Belgium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Finland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Romania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers' share (1):

 Belgium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Finland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Romania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from:

 Belgium:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,614 16,575 11,615 6,226 10,271 10,388 2,767 6,853 -33.5 6.1 -29.9 -46.4 65.0 1.1 147.6

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,458 6,511 4,951 3,086 7,023 8,923 1,976 5,904 38.2 0.8 -24.0 -37.7 127.6 27.0 198.7

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414 393 426 496 684 859 714 862 107.7 -5.0 8.5 16.3 37.9 25.6 20.6

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Brazil:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,243 2,978 1,477 0 18 2,460 1,961 420 -24.1 -8.2 -50.4 -100.0 (2) 13,360.3 -78.6

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,546 1,386 288 0 7 3,138 2,714 323 103.0 -10.3 -79.2 -100.0 (2) 46,865.1 -88.1

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 477 465 195 (2) 366 1,276 1,384 769 167.6 -2.4 -58.0 (2) (2) 248.9 -44.4

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Finland:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 19 0 0 1,290 0 0 0 (2) (2) -100.0 (2) (2) -100.0 (2)

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 10 0 0 1,112 0 0 0 (2) (2) -100.0 (2) (2) -100.0 (2)

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) 537 (2) (2) 862 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Germany:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,783 125 40,536 2,647 23,226 2,078 1,491 15,671 -76.3 -98.6 32,242.5 -93.5 777.5 -91.1 950.7

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,030 89 17,028 1,688 10,546 1,440 980 15,574 -64.3 -97.8 18,984.0 -90.1 524.9 -86.3 1,489.4

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $459 $712 $420 $638 $454 $693 $657 $994 51.0 55.1 -41.0 51.8 -28.8 52.7 51.3

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Mexico:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 271 273 308 1,005 440 379 168 223.4 99.2 0.8 12.8 226.2 -56.2 -55.5

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 141 81 123 534 271 244 79 367.1 143.7 -42.4 51.7 333.1 -49.3 -67.5

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $426 $521 $298 $400 $532 $615 $645 $472 44.4 22.3 -42.9 34.5 32.8 15.7 -26.9

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Poland:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 386 0 0 45 61 61 0 1774.3 11718.8 -100.0 (2) (2) 36.7 -100.0

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 95 0 0 23 36 36 0 778.4 2199.4 -100.0 (2) (2) 61.2 -100.0

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,270 247 (2) (2) 505 595 595 (2) -53.1 -80.5 (2) (2) (2) 17.9 (2)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Romania:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5,981 44,339 69,552 109,969 49,813 3,014 0 803,561.0 96,393.7 641.3 56.9 58.1 -54.7 -100.0

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1,433 12,627 20,706 58,584 31,292 2,084 0 567,087.1 25,871.5 781.2 64.0 182.9 -46.6 -100.0

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 890 240 285 298 533 628 691 (2) -29.4 -73.1 18.9 4.5 78.9 17.9 (2)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 *** *** 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) *** (2)

 Spain:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (2) -100.0 (2) (2) (2)

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (2) -100.0 (2) (2) (2)

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444 (2) 358 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Sweden:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333 1,312 198 0 280 182 182 50 -45.5 294.3 -84.9 -100.0 (2) -35.1 -72.4

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 1,095 192 0 131 108 108 33 -42.7 480.9 -82.4 -100.0 (2) -17.9 -69.3

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $566 $835 $970 (2) $470 $595 $595 $663 5.0 47.3 16.3 (2) (2) 26.6 11.5

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Taiwan:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 66 226 0 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -11.1 240.8 -100.0 (2) (2) (2)

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 20 270 0 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -22.2 1216.5 -100.0 (2) (2) (2)

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353 309 1,194 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) -12.5 286.4 (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 United Kingdom:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 847 125 79 23 8 17 0 19 -97.9 -85.3 -37.1 -71.0 -64.5 115.2 (2)

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246 88 49 7 3 6 0 6 -97.6 -64.1 -44.6 -85.8 -56.5 97.0 (2)

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291 708 624 305 374 342 (2) 338 17.8 143.6 -11.9 -51.0 22.5 -8.5 (2)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Subtotal:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,045 27,838 98,749 78,755 146,112 65,439 9,856 23,181 125.3 -4.2 254.7 -20.2 85.5 -55.2 135.2

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,565 10,870 35,489 25,610 77,962 45,214 8,143 21,920 259.8 -13.5 226.5 -27.8 204.4 -42.0 169.2

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $433 $390 $359 $325 $534 $691 $826 $946 59.7 -9.7 -8.0 -9.5 64.1 29.5 14.4

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 *** *** 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) *** (2)

C-13
Table C-4--Continued

Carbon and micro-alloy CTL plate other than wide flat bar: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

(Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-June Jan.-June

Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 2000-05 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

U.S. imports from:

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 714,026 641,362 479,647 261,459 442,541 698,422 370,401 581,866 -2.2 -10.2 -25.2 -45.5 69.3 57.8 57.1

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220,672 195,935 155,830 90,855 260,948 506,287 265,203 362,492 129.4 -11.2 -20.5 -41.7 187.2 94.0 36.7

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $309 $305 $325 $347 $590 $725 $716 $623 134.6 -1.2 6.3 7.0 69.7 22.9 -13.0

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 3,605 2,257 1,557 905 *** *** 2,663 2,758 *** -37.4 -31.0 -41.9 *** *** 3.6

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 743,071 669,200 578,396 340,214 588,653 763,861 380,257 605,048 2.8 -9.9 -13.6 -41.2 73.0 29.8 59.1

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233,236 206,805 191,319 116,464 338,910 551,500 273,346 384,412 136.5 -11.3 -7.5 -39.1 191.0 62.7 40.6

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $314 $309 $331 $342 $576 $722 $719 $635 130.0 -1.5 7.0 3.5 68.2 25.4 -11.6

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 3,605 2,257 1,557 905 20,148 7,756 2,663 2,758 115.1 -37.4 -31.0 -41.9 2,126.3 -61.5 3.6

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Inventories/total shipments (1) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Productivity (tons/1,000 hours) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss) . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit operating income or (loss) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Not applicable.

 (3) Undefined.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics.

C-14
Table C-5

Wide flat bar: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

(Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-June Jan.-June

Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 2000-05 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303,409 300,379 414,019 490,068 565,353 609,300 278,410 333,064 100.8 -1.0 37.8 18.4 15.4 7.8 19.6

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . 99.0 98.2 99.5 99.0 99.8 99.8 99.7 99.6 0.8 -0.8 1.2 -0.5 0.8 -0.1 -0.1

 Importers' share (1):

 Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0

 Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0

 Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 1.8 0.5 1.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 -0.8 0.8 -1.2 0.5 -0.9 0.1 0.1

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 1.8 0.5 1.0 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 -0.8 0.8 -1.2 0.5 -0.8 0.1 0.1

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112,940 95,120 124,588 172,127 294,424 341,050 152,419 200,024 202.0 -15.8 31.0 38.2 71.1 15.8 31.2

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . 98.9 98.1 99.3 99.2 99.8 99.7 99.5 99.7 0.8 -0.8 1.2 -0.1 0.6 -0.1 0.2

 Importers' share (1):

 Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0

 Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0

 Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 1.9 0.7 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.3 -0.7 0.9 -1.2 0.1 -0.7 0.2 -0.2

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 1.9 0.7 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.3 -0.8 0.8 -1.2 0.1 -0.6 0.1 -0.2

U.S. imports from:

 Germany:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 4 0 0 187 0 0 0 (2) (2) -100.0 (2) (2) -100.0 (2)

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 2 0 0 95 0 0 0 (2) (2) -100.0 (2) (2) -100.0 (2)

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) $652 (2) (2) $510 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Mexico:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 0 0 0 79 0 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (2) (2) (2) -100.0 (2)

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 0 0 0 36 0 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (2) (2) (2) -100.0 (2)

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $444 (2) (2) (2) $455 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Sweden:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $444 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 United Kingdom:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Subtotal:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 4 0 0 265 0 0 0 -100.0 -90.6 -100.0 (2) (2) -100.0 (2)

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 2 0 0 131 0 0 0 -100.0 -86.3 -100.0 (2) (2) -100.0 (2)

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $444 $652 (2) (2) $494 (2) (2) (2) (2) 46.9 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,061 5,341 2,212 4,900 738 1,408 866 1,224 -54.0 74.5 -58.6 121.6 -84.9 90.8 41.3

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,216 1,839 905 1,396 449 1,121 745 675 -7.8 51.2 -50.8 54.2 -67.8 149.6 -9.4

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $397 $344 $409 $285 $609 $796 $861 $552 100.5 -13.3 18.9 -30.4 113.7 30.8 -35.9

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,099 5,345 2,212 4,900 1,003 1,408 866 1,224 -54.6 72.5 -58.6 121.6 -79.5 40.4 41.3

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,233 1,842 905 1,396 580 1,121 745 675 -9.1 49.4 -50.8 54.2 -58.4 93.2 -9.4

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $398 $345 $409 $285 $578 $796 $861 $552 100.2 -13.4 18.8 -30.4 103.0 37.7 -35.9

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . 668,510 701,105 828,026 866,150 1,068,216 1,113,916 545,607 566,910 66.6 4.9 18.1 4.6 23.3 4.3 3.9

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . 320,525 287,188 435,211 501,230 585,088 618,913 270,955 334,112 93.1 -10.4 51.5 15.2 16.7 5.8 23.3

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . 47.9 40.8 52.5 57.8 54.5 55.3 49.7 58.9 7.4 -7.1 11.7 5.3 -3.2 0.7 9.3

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300,310 295,034 411,807 485,168 564,350 607,892 277,544 331,840 102.4 -1.8 39.6 17.8 16.3 7.7 19.6

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111,708 93,278 123,683 170,731 293,844 339,929 151,674 199,349 204.3 -16.5 32.6 38.0 72.1 15.7 31.4

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 372 316 300 352 521 559 546 601 50.3 -15.0 -5.0 17.2 48.0 7.4 9.9

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . 63,221 39,140 45,115 50,073 55,279 43,746 39,881 31,761 -30.8 -38.1 15.3 11.0 10.4 -20.9 -20.4

 Inventories/total shipments (1) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . 339 302 388 397 593 547 549 546 61.4 -10.9 28.5 2.3 49.4 -7.8 -0.5

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . 706 622 843 1,004 1,335 1,211 602 649 71.6 -11.9 35.6 19.1 33.0 -9.2 7.9

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . 17,802 16,081 20,073 21,615 28,732 30,539 15,087 16,376 71.6 -9.7 24.8 7.7 32.9 6.3 8.5

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $25.22 $25.87 $23.82 $21.54 $21.53 $25.21 $25.08 $25.23 -0.0 2.6 -7.9 -9.6 -0.1 17.1 0.6

 Productivity (tons/1,000 hours) 454.0 460.0 516.0 498.7 436.5 508.4 450.4 514.8 12.0 1.3 12.2 -3.4 -12.5 16.5 14.3

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . $55.55 $56.23 $46.15 $43.19 $49.32 $49.59 $55.68 $49.01 -10.7 1.2 -17.9 -6.4 14.2 0.5 -12.0

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244,952 217,947 319,949 374,753 416,302 452,821 204,615 253,379 84.9 -11.0 46.8 17.1 11.1 8.8 23.8

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93,460 71,313 97,227 132,852 214,192 250,913 110,526 151,583 168.5 -23.7 36.3 36.6 61.2 17.1 37.1

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $382 $327 $304 $355 $515 $554 $540 $598 45.2 -14.2 -7.1 16.7 45.1 7.7 10.8

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . 74,242 62,873 88,197 114,234 178,835 196,662 87,674 116,128 164.9 -15.3 40.3 29.5 56.6 10.0 32.5

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . 19,218 8,440 9,030 18,619 35,357 54,251 22,852 35,455 182.3 -56.1 7.0 106.2 89.9 53.4 55.1

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . 4,449 3,916 4,294 4,827 6,229 7,107 3,409 4,045 59.7 -12.0 9.6 12.4 29.0 14.1 18.7

 Operating income or (loss) . . . 14,769 4,524 4,736 13,791 29,129 47,145 19,444 31,410 219.2 -69.4 4.7 191.2 111.2 61.8 61.5

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $303 $288 $276 $305 $430 $434 $428 $458 43.3 -4.8 -4.4 10.6 40.9 1.1 7.0

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . $18 $18 $13 $13 $15 $16 $17 $16 -13.6 -1.1 -25.3 -4.0 16.2 4.9 -4.2

 Unit operating income or (loss) $60 $21 $15 $37 $70 $104 $95 $124 72.7 -65.6 -28.7 148.6 90.1 48.8 30.5

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . 79.4 88.2 90.7 86.0 83.5 78.4 79.3 76.6 -1.1 8.7 2.5 -4.7 -2.5 -5.1 -2.7

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.8 6.3 4.9 10.4 13.6 18.8 17.6 20.7 3.0 -9.5 -1.5 5.5 3.2 5.2 3.1

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Not applicable.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics.

C-15
Table C-6

Carbon and micro-alloy wide flat bar: Summary data concerning the U.S. market for flat bar, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

(Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-June Jan.-June

Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 2000-05 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers' share (1):

 Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers' share (1):

 Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from:

 Germany:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 4 0 0 187 0 0 0 (2) (2) -100.0 (2) (2) -100.0 (2)

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 2 0 0 95 0 0 0 (2) (2) -100.0 (2) (2) -100.0 (2)

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) $652 (2) (2) $510 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Mexico:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 0 0 0 79 0 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (2) (2) (2) -100.0 (2)

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 0 0 0 36 0 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (2) (2) (2) -100.0 (2)

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $444 (2) (2) (2) $455 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Sweden:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $444 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 United Kingdom:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Subtotal:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 4 0 0 265 0 0 0 -100.0 -90.6 -100.0 (2) (2) -100.0 (2)

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 2 0 0 131 0 0 0 -100.0 -86.3 -100.0 (2) (2) -100.0 (2)

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $444 $652 (2) (2) $494 (2) (2) (2) (2) 46.9 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,061 5,341 2,212 4,900 738 1,408 866 1,224 -54.0 74.5 -58.6 121.6 -84.9 90.8 41.3

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,216 1,839 905 1,396 449 1,121 745 675 -7.8 51.2 -50.8 54.2 -67.8 149.6 -9.4

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $397 $344 $409 $285 $609 $796 $861 $552 100.5 -13.3 18.9 -30.4 113.7 30.8 -35.9

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,099 5,345 2,212 4,900 1,003 1,408 866 1,224 -54.6 72.5 -58.6 121.6 -79.5 40.4 41.3

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,233 1,842 905 1,396 580 1,121 745 675 -9.1 49.4 -50.8 54.2 -58.4 93.2 -9.4

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $398 $345 $409 $285 $578 $796 $861 $552 100.2 -13.4 18.8 -30.4 103.0 37.7 -35.9

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Inventories/total shipments (1) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Productivity (tons/1,000 hours) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss) . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit operating income or (loss) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Not applicable.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics.

C-16
Table C-7

Corrosion-resistant steel: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

(Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-June Jan.-June

Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 2000-05 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21,948,820 20,478,057 22,680,025 21,693,361 25,012,571 22,686,343 11,453,980 13,128,631 3.4 -6.7 10.8 -4.4 15.3 -9.3 14.6

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . 92.6 92.4 90.5 92.3 87.2 88.4 87.3 85.0 -4.1 -0.1 -2.0 1.9 -5.1 1.3 -2.3

 Importers' share (1):

 Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0

 Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.7 1.6 2.3 2.5 2.1 2.4 2.5 2.2 0.7 -0.1 0.7 0.2 -0.4 0.3 -0.2

 France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0

 Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.1 -0.1 0.1 -0.1 -0.0 0.2 -0.3

 Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 -0.1 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0

 Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.5 0.8 1.5 1.6 2.1 0.3 -0.0 -0.2 -0.4 0.3 0.7 0.5

 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 3.0 3.7 3.3 3.1 4.3 4.6 4.5 1.0 -0.2 0.7 -0.3 -0.2 1.2 -0.0

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 4.6 5.8 4.3 9.7 7.3 8.1 10.5 3.1 0.4 1.3 -1.5 5.4 -2.4 2.3

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 7.6 9.5 7.7 12.8 11.6 12.7 15.0 4.1 0.1 2.0 -1.9 5.1 -1.3 2.3

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,997,978 10,138,475 11,839,622 11,817,862 17,324,558 16,414,341 8,560,180 9,538,913 36.8 -15.5 16.8 -0.2 46.6 -5.3 11.4

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . 92.6 92.6 90.4 91.8 86.4 87.6 86.3 85.5 -5.1 -0.0 -2.2 1.4 -5.4 1.1 -0.8

 Importers' share (1):

 Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0

 Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.7 1.7 2.5 2.8 2.0 2.4 2.4 2.3 0.7 -0.0 0.8 0.3 -0.8 0.5 -0.1

 France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0

 Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.1 -0.1 0.1 -0.1 -0.1 0.2 -0.2

 Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 -0.1 -0.0 0.1 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.0

 Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 1.2 1.0 0.7 0.9 1.7 1.8 2.2 0.6 0.0 -0.2 -0.4 0.3 0.8 0.3

 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 3.3 4.1 3.8 3.1 4.6 4.8 4.8 1.2 -0.1 0.8 -0.3 -0.7 1.5 0.0

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . 4.0 4.2 5.5 4.4 10.4 7.8 8.9 9.7 3.8 0.1 1.3 -1.1 6.1 -2.6 0.8

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 7.4 9.6 8.2 13.6 12.4 13.7 14.5 5.1 0.0 2.2 -1.4 5.4 -1.1 0.8

U.S. imports from:

 Australia:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 176 275 297 119 16 16 3 -92.6 -20.0 56.1 7.8 -60.1 -86.3 -82.8

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 228 260 262 123 22 22 4 -89.9 5.5 14.1 0.7 -53.0 -82.3 -79.7

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $981 $1,292 $945 $883 $1,039 $1,348 $1,348 $1,596 37.5 31.8 -26.9 -6.6 17.7 29.8 18.4

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 00000000 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Canada:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380,490 331,774 530,248 552,434 524,711 547,326 281,944 291,356 43.8 -12.8 59.8 4.2 -5.0 4.3 3.3

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208,645 173,957 292,684 331,067 341,546 398,538 207,943 221,845 91.0 -16.6 68.3 13.1 3.2 16.7 6.7

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $548 $524 $552 $599 $651 $728 $738 $761 32.8 -4.4 5.3 8.6 8.6 11.9 3.2

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 France:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,608 9,302 15,753 6,530 4,613 1,778 1,728 190 -50.7 157.8 69.4 -58.5 -29.4 -61.5 -89.0

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,543 3,944 8,601 3,848 3,268 1,949 1,745 379 26.3 155.5 118.1 -55.3 -15.1 -40.4 -78.3

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $428 $424 $546 $589 $708 $1,096 $1,010 $1,996 156.3 -0.9 28.8 7.9 20.3 54.7 97.6

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 00000000 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Germany:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46,453 23,557 53,479 34,530 31,191 75,941 48,977 20,939 63.5 -49.3 127.0 -35.4 -9.7 143.5 -57.2

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28,221 13,955 30,585 20,312 17,999 48,634 31,540 14,718 72.3 -50.6 119.2 -33.6 -11.4 170.2 -53.3

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $608 $592 $572 $588 $577 $640 $644 $703 5.4 -2.5 -3.5 2.9 -1.9 11.0 9.2

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Japan:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,543 17,338 24,304 18,570 19,628 16,762 8,693 11,012 -39.1 -37.1 40.2 -23.6 5.7 -14.6 26.7

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23,072 15,273 30,092 20,206 19,464 19,054 9,959 13,684 -17.4 -33.8 97.0 -32.9 -3.7 -2.1 37.4

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $838 $881 $1,238 $1,088 $992 $1,137 $1,146 $1,243 35.7 5.2 40.6 -12.1 -8.9 14.6 8.5

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Korea:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253,528 235,041 212,413 113,810 201,002 330,858 181,205 272,592 30.5 -7.3 -9.6 -46.4 76.6 64.6 50.4

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140,605 123,305 122,919 77,195 156,934 285,156 157,308 206,273 102.8 -12.3 -0.3 -37.2 103.3 81.7 31.1

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $555 $525 $579 $678 $781 $862 $868 $757 55.4 -5.4 10.3 17.2 15.1 10.4 -12.8

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 711,842 617,188 836,473 726,171 781,264 972,681 522,563 596,092 36.6 -13.3 35.5 -13.2 7.6 24.5 14.1

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 402,301 330,662 485,142 452,890 539,333 753,352 408,519 456,903 87.3 -17.8 46.7 -6.6 19.1 39.7 11.8

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $565 $536 $580 $624 $690 $775 $782 $766 37.0 -5.2 8.3 7.5 10.7 12.2 -2.0

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 919,625 933,033 1,325,751 936,741 2,424,153 1,647,998 932,153 1,372,961 79.2 1.5 42.1 -29.3 158.8 -32.0 47.3

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 481,017 420,783 647,862 515,137 1,808,700 1,286,429 763,351 926,215 167.4 -12.5 54.0 -20.5 251.1 -28.9 21.3

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $523 $451 $489 $550 $746 $781 $819 $675 49.2 -13.8 8.4 12.5 35.7 4.6 -17.6

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,631,467 1,550,221 2,162,224 1,662,911 3,205,416 2,620,679 1,454,716 1,969,053 60.6 -5.0 39.5 -23.1 92.8 -18.2 35.4

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 883,318 751,445 1,133,004 968,027 2,348,033 2,039,782 1,171,870 1,383,118 130.9 -14.9 50.8 -14.6 142.6 -13.1 18.0

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $541 $485 $524 $582 $733 $778 $806 $702 43.8 -10.5 8.1 11.1 25.8 6.3 -12.8

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 59,018 56,126 85,214 50,224 95,595 111,759 104,022 112,265 89.4 -4.9 51.8 -41.1 90.3 16.9 7.9

C-17
Contains Business Proprietary Information

Table C-7--Continued

Corrosion-resistant steel: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

(Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-June Jan.-June

Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 2000-05 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . 26,321,105 25,698,401 26,161,576 25,663,099 26,283,125 26,280,223 13,109,626 13,615,055 -0.2 -2.4 1.8 -1.9 2.4 -0.0 3.9

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . 21,213,322 19,537,128 21,289,304 20,455,321 22,392,513 20,889,145 10,373,291 11,573,948 -1.5 -7.9 9.0 -3.9 9.5 -6.7 11.6

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . 80.6 76.0 81.4 79.7 85.2 79.5 79.1 85.0 -1.1 -4.6 5.4 -1.7 5.5 -5.7 5.9

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,317,353 18,927,836 20,517,801 20,030,450 21,807,155 20,065,664 9,999,264 11,159,578 -1.2 -6.8 8.4 -2.4 8.9 -8.0 11.6

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,114,660 9,387,030 10,706,618 10,849,835 14,976,525 14,374,559 7,388,310 8,155,795 29.3 -15.5 14.1 1.3 38.0 -4.0 10.4

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $547 $496 $522 $542 $687 $716 $739 $731 31.0 -9.3 5.2 3.8 26.8 4.3 -1.1

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 768,345 773,824 773,777 743,837 732,528 868,101 417,280 564,989 13.0 0.7 -0.0 -3.9 -1.5 18.5 35.4

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493,852 484,797 480,139 470,735 490,781 592,133 291,424 390,806 19.9 -1.8 -1.0 -2.0 4.3 20.7 34.1

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $643 $626 $621 $633 $670 $682 $698 $692 6.1 -2.5 -1.0 2.0 5.9 1.8 -1.0

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . 2,086,296 1,900,994 1,939,320 1,855,669 1,745,399 1,701,618 1,682,752 1,543,810 -18.4 -8.9 2.0 -4.3 -5.9 -2.5 -8.3

 Inventories/total shipments (1) 9.9 9.6 9.1 8.9 7.7 8.1 8.1 6.6 -1.8 -0.2 -0.5 -0.2 -1.2 0.4 -1.5

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . 24,546 24,568 20,868 15,211 13,999 13,348 13,248 12,765 -45.6 0.1 -15.1 -27.1 -8.0 -4.7 -3.6

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . 50,757 44,888 41,018 32,512 31,531 29,927 15,071 15,368 -41.0 -11.6 -8.6 -20.7 -3.0 -5.1 2.0

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . 1,351,324 1,239,246 1,169,095 953,944 1,006,506 960,111 496,212 482,091 -29.0 -8.3 -5.7 -18.4 5.5 -4.6 -2.8

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $26.50 $27.43 $28.27 $29.06 $31.56 $31.70 $32.54 $30.99 19.7 3.5 3.1 2.8 8.6 0.4 -4.8

 Productivity (tons/1,000 hours) 410.1 424.8 506.3 613.4 692.7 681.0 670.2 730.6 66.1 3.6 19.2 21.2 12.9 -1.7 9.0

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . $63.83 $63.55 $55.01 $46.72 $45.03 $46.06 $47.96 $41.74 -27.9 -0.4 -13.4 -15.1 -3.6 2.3 -13.0

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,141,105 19,629,769 20,954,676 19,537,241 22,276,759 20,679,606 10,283,775 11,534,931 2.7 -2.5 6.7 -6.8 14.0 -7.2 12.2

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,091,856 9,797,243 10,989,071 10,474,476 15,186,936 14,712,596 7,577,331 8,392,791 32.6 -11.7 12.2 -4.7 45.0 -3.1 10.8

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $551 $499 $524 $536 $682 $711 $737 $728 29.2 -9.4 5.1 2.2 27.2 4.4 -1.3

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . 10,514,307 9,868,736 10,726,907 9,911,144 13,047,722 13,466,769 6,734,611 7,706,522 28.1 -6.1 8.7 -7.6 31.6 3.2 14.4

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . 577,549 (71,493) 262,164 563,332 2,139,214 1,245,827 842,720 686,269 115.7 (3) (3) 114.9 279.7 -41.8 -18.6

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . 425,968 413,626 435,988 489,043 494,894 528,038 263,114 253,582 24.0 -2.9 5.4 12.2 1.2 6.7 -3.6

 Operating income or (loss) . . . 151,581 (485,119) (173,824) 74,289 1,644,320 717,789 579,606 432,687 373.5 (3) 64.2 (3) 2,113.4 -56.3 -25.3

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . 295,331 147,966 123,107 256,994 243,622 428,147 175,737 153,316 45.0 -49.9 -16.8 108.8 -5.2 75.7 -12.8

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $522 $503 $512 $507 $586 $651 $655 $668 24.7 -3.7 1.8 -0.9 15.5 11.2 2.0

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . $21 $21 $21 $25 $22 $26 $26 $22 20.7 -0.4 -1.3 20.3 -11.2 14.9 -14.1

 Unit operating income or (loss) $8 ($25) ($8) $4 $74 $35 $56 $38 361.2 (3) 66.4 (3) 1,841.2 -53.0 -33.4

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . 94.8 100.7 97.6 94.6 85.9 91.5 88.9 91.8 -3.3 5.9 -3.1 -3.0 -8.7 5.6 2.9

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 (5.0) (1.6) 0.7 10.8 4.9 7.6 5.2 3.5 -6.3 3.4 2.3 10.1 -5.9 -2.5

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Not applicable.

 (3) Undefined.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics.

C-18
Table C-8

Corrosion-resistant (including micro-alloy) steel: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

(Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-June Jan.-June

Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 2000-05 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers' share (1):

 Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers' share (1):

 Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from:

 Australia:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 176 275 297 119 16 16 3 -92.6 -20.0 56.1 7.8 -60.1 -86.3 -82.8

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 228 260 262 123 22 22 4 -89.9 5.5 14.1 0.7 -53.0 -82.3 -79.7

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $981 $1,292 $945 $883 $1,039 $1,348 $1,348 $1,596 37.5 31.8 -26.9 -6.6 17.7 29.8 18.4

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Canada:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380,490 331,774 530,248 552,434 524,711 547,326 281,944 291,356 43.8 -12.8 59.8 4.2 -5.0 4.3 3.3

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208,645 173,957 292,684 331,067 341,546 398,538 207,943 221,845 91.0 -16.6 68.3 13.1 3.2 16.7 6.7

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $548 $524 $552 $599 $651 $728 $738 $761 32.8 -4.4 5.3 8.6 8.6 11.9 3.2

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 France:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,608 9,302 15,753 6,530 4,613 1,778 1,728 190 -50.7 157.8 69.4 -58.5 -29.4 -61.5 -89.0

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,543 3,944 8,601 3,848 3,268 1,949 1,745 379 26.3 155.5 118.1 -55.3 -15.1 -40.4 -78.3

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $428 $424 $546 $589 $708 $1,096 $1,010 $1,996 156.3 -0.9 28.8 7.9 20.3 54.7 97.6

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Germany:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46,453 23,557 53,479 34,530 31,191 75,941 48,977 20,939 63.5 -49.3 127.0 -35.4 -9.7 143.5 -57.2

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28,221 13,955 30,585 20,312 17,999 48,634 31,540 14,718 72.3 -50.6 119.2 -33.6 -11.4 170.2 -53.3

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $608 $592 $572 $588 $577 $640 $644 $703 5.4 -2.5 -3.5 2.9 -1.9 11.0 9.2

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Japan:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,543 17,338 24,304 18,570 19,628 16,762 8,693 11,012 -39.1 -37.1 40.2 -23.6 5.7 -14.6 26.7

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23,072 15,273 30,092 20,206 19,464 19,054 9,959 13,684 -17.4 -33.8 97.0 -32.9 -3.7 -2.1 37.4

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $838 $881 $1,238 $1,088 $992 $1,137 $1,146 $1,243 35.7 5.2 40.6 -12.1 -8.9 14.6 8.5

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Korea:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253,528 235,041 212,413 113,810 201,002 330,858 181,205 272,592 30.5 -7.3 -9.6 -46.4 76.6 64.6 50.4

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140,605 123,305 122,919 77,195 156,934 285,156 157,308 206,273 102.8 -12.3 -0.3 -37.2 103.3 81.7 31.1

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $555 $525 $579 $678 $781 $862 $868 $757 55.4 -5.4 10.3 17.2 15.1 10.4 -12.8

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 711,842 617,188 836,473 726,171 781,264 972,681 522,563 596,092 36.6 -13.3 35.5 -13.2 7.6 24.5 14.1

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 402,301 330,662 485,142 452,890 539,333 753,352 408,519 456,903 87.3 -17.8 46.7 -6.6 19.1 39.7 11.8

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $565 $536 $580 $624 $690 $775 $782 $766 37.0 -5.2 8.3 7.5 10.7 12.2 -2.0

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,338,019 1,111,926 1,670,274 1,208,461 2,691,600 1,967,511 1,100,135 1,548,218 47.0 -16.9 50.2 -27.6 122.7 -26.9 40.7

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 709,640 511,795 820,429 650,772 1,954,047 1,499,762 874,308 1,049,709 111.3 -27.9 60.3 -20.7 200.3 -23.2 20.1

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $530 $460 $491 $539 $726 $762 $795 $678 43.7 -13.2 6.7 9.6 34.8 5.0 -14.7

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,049,861 1,729,114 2,506,747 1,934,631 3,472,863 2,940,192 1,622,698 2,144,310 43.4 -15.6 45.0 -22.8 79.5 -15.3 32.1

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,111,941 842,457 1,305,571 1,103,662 2,493,380 2,253,115 1,282,827 1,506,612 102.6 -24.2 55.0 -15.5 125.9 -9.6 17.4

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $542 $487 $521 $570 $718 $766 $791 $703 41.3 -10.2 6.9 9.5 25.9 6.7 -11.1

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 193,053 134,946 153,321 105,416 144,771 167,208 169,435 146,115 -13.4 -30.1 13.6 -31.2 37.3 15.5 -13.8

C-19
Table C-8--Continued

Corrosion-resistant (including micro-alloy) steel: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

(Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-June Jan.-June

Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 2000-05 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Inventories/total shipments (1) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Productivity (tons/1,000 hours) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss) . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit operating income or (loss) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Not applicable.

 (3) Undefined.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics.

C-20
Table C-9

Corrosion-resistant steel (including nonrelated tolling): Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

(Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-June Jan.-June

Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 2000-05 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers' share (1):

 Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers' share (1):

 Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from:

 Australia:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 176 275 297 119 16 16 3 -92.6 -20.0 56.1 7.8 -60.1 -86.3 -82.8

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 228 260 262 123 22 22 4 -89.9 5.5 14.1 0.7 -53.0 -82.3 -79.7

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $981 $1,292 $945 $883 $1,039 $1,348 $1,348 $1,596 37.5 31.8 -26.9 -6.6 17.7 29.8 18.4

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Canada:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380,490 331,774 530,248 552,434 524,711 547,326 281,944 291,356 43.8 -12.8 59.8 4.2 -5.0 4.3 3.3

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208,645 173,957 292,684 331,067 341,546 398,538 207,943 221,845 91.0 -16.6 68.3 13.1 3.2 16.7 6.7

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $548 $524 $552 $599 $651 $728 $738 $761 32.8 -4.4 5.3 8.6 8.6 11.9 3.2

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 France:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,608 9,302 15,753 6,530 4,613 1,778 1,728 190 -50.7 157.8 69.4 -58.5 -29.4 -61.5 -89.0

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,543 3,944 8,601 3,848 3,268 1,949 1,745 379 26.3 155.5 118.1 -55.3 -15.1 -40.4 -78.3

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $428 $424 $546 $589 $708 $1,096 $1,010 $1,996 156.3 -0.9 28.8 7.9 20.3 54.7 97.6

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Germany:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46,453 23,557 53,479 34,530 31,191 75,941 48,977 20,939 63.5 -49.3 127.0 -35.4 -9.7 143.5 -57.2

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28,221 13,955 30,585 20,312 17,999 48,634 31,540 14,718 72.3 -50.6 119.2 -33.6 -11.4 170.2 -53.3

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $608 $592 $572 $588 $577 $640 $644 $703 5.4 -2.5 -3.5 2.9 -1.9 11.0 9.2

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Japan:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,543 17,338 24,304 18,570 19,628 16,762 8,693 11,012 -39.1 -37.1 40.2 -23.6 5.7 -14.6 26.7

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23,072 15,273 30,092 20,206 19,464 19,054 9,959 13,684 -17.4 -33.8 97.0 -32.9 -3.7 -2.1 37.4

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $838 $881 $1,238 $1,088 $992 $1,137 $1,146 $1,243 35.7 5.2 40.6 -12.1 -8.9 14.6 8.5

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Korea:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253,528 235,041 212,413 113,810 201,002 330,858 181,205 272,592 30.5 -7.3 -9.6 -46.4 76.6 64.6 50.4

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140,605 123,305 122,919 77,195 156,934 285,156 157,308 206,273 102.8 -12.3 -0.3 -37.2 103.3 81.7 31.1

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $555 $525 $579 $678 $781 $862 $868 $757 55.4 -5.4 10.3 17.2 15.1 10.4 -12.8

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 711,842 617,188 836,473 726,171 781,264 972,681 522,563 596,092 36.6 -13.3 35.5 -13.2 7.6 24.5 14.1

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 402,301 330,662 485,142 452,890 539,333 753,352 408,519 456,903 87.3 -17.8 46.7 -6.6 19.1 39.7 11.8

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $565 $536 $580 $624 $690 $775 $782 $766 37.0 -5.2 8.3 7.5 10.7 12.2 -2.0

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 919,625 933,033 1,325,751 936,741 2,424,153 1,647,998 932,153 1,372,961 79.2 1.5 42.1 -29.3 158.8 -32.0 47.3

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 481,017 420,783 647,862 515,137 1,808,700 1,286,429 763,351 926,215 167.4 -12.5 54.0 -20.5 251.1 -28.9 21.3

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $523 $451 $489 $550 $746 $781 $819 $675 49.2 -13.8 8.4 12.5 35.7 4.6 -17.6

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,631,467 1,550,221 2,162,224 1,662,911 3,205,416 2,620,679 1,454,716 1,969,053 60.6 -5.0 39.5 -23.1 92.8 -18.2 35.4

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 883,318 751,445 1,133,004 968,027 2,348,033 2,039,782 1,171,870 1,383,118 130.9 -14.9 50.8 -14.6 142.6 -13.1 18.0

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $541 $485 $524 $582 $733 $778 $806 $702 43.8 -10.5 8.1 11.1 25.8 6.3 -12.8

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 59,018 56,126 85,214 50,224 95,595 111,759 104,022 112,265 89.4 -4.9 51.8 -41.1 90.3 16.9 7.9

C-21
Table C-9--Continued

Corrosion-resistant steel (including nonrelated tolling): Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

(Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-June Jan.-June

Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 2000-05 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Inventories/total shipments (1) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Productivity (tons/1,000 hours) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss) . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit operating income or (loss) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Not applicable.

 (3) Undefined.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures. National Galvanizing was the only nonrelated (not jointly owned) toll producer to provide consistent data. Data for joint venture tolling operations

that tolled for related U.S. mills are already included in tables C-7 and C-8.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics.

C-22
Table C-10

Corrosion-resistant steel (including micro-alloy and nonrelated tolling): Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

(Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-June Jan.-June

Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 2000-05 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers' share (1):

 Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers' share (1):

 Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from:

 Australia:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 176 275 297 119 16 16 3 -92.6 -20.0 56.1 7.8 -60.1 -86.3 -82.8

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 228 260 262 123 22 22 4 -89.9 5.5 14.1 0.7 -53.0 -82.3 -79.7

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $981 $1,292 $945 $883 $1,039 $1,348 $1,348 $1,596 37.5 31.8 -26.9 -6.6 17.7 29.8 18.4

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Canada:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380,490 331,774 530,248 552,434 524,711 547,326 281,944 291,356 43.8 -12.8 59.8 4.2 -5.0 4.3 3.3

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208,645 173,957 292,684 331,067 341,546 398,538 207,943 221,845 91.0 -16.6 68.3 13.1 3.2 16.7 6.7

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $548 $524 $552 $599 $651 $728 $738 $761 32.8 -4.4 5.3 8.6 8.6 11.9 3.2

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 France:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,608 9,302 15,753 6,530 4,613 1,778 1,728 190 -50.7 157.8 69.4 -58.5 -29.4 -61.5 -89.0

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,543 3,944 8,601 3,848 3,268 1,949 1,745 379 26.3 155.5 118.1 -55.3 -15.1 -40.4 -78.3

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $428 $424 $546 $589 $708 $1,096 $1,010 $1,996 156.3 -0.9 28.8 7.9 20.3 54.7 97.6

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Germany:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46,453 23,557 53,479 34,530 31,191 75,941 48,977 20,939 63.5 -49.3 127.0 -35.4 -9.7 143.5 -57.2

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28,221 13,955 30,585 20,312 17,999 48,634 31,540 14,718 72.3 -50.6 119.2 -33.6 -11.4 170.2 -53.3

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $608 $592 $572 $588 $577 $640 $644 $703 5.4 -2.5 -3.5 2.9 -1.9 11.0 9.2

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Japan:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,543 17,338 24,304 18,570 19,628 16,762 8,693 11,012 -39.1 -37.1 40.2 -23.6 5.7 -14.6 26.7

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23,072 15,273 30,092 20,206 19,464 19,054 9,959 13,684 -17.4 -33.8 97.0 -32.9 -3.7 -2.1 37.4

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $838 $881 $1,238 $1,088 $992 $1,137 $1,146 $1,243 35.7 5.2 40.6 -12.1 -8.9 14.6 8.5

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Korea:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253,528 235,041 212,413 113,810 201,002 330,858 181,205 272,592 30.5 -7.3 -9.6 -46.4 76.6 64.6 50.4

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140,605 123,305 122,919 77,195 156,934 285,156 157,308 206,273 102.8 -12.3 -0.3 -37.2 103.3 81.7 31.1

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $555 $525 $579 $678 $781 $862 $868 $757 55.4 -5.4 10.3 17.2 15.1 10.4 -12.8

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 711,842 617,188 836,473 726,171 781,264 972,681 522,563 596,092 36.6 -13.3 35.5 -13.2 7.6 24.5 14.1

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 402,301 330,662 485,142 452,890 539,333 753,352 408,519 456,903 87.3 -17.8 46.7 -6.6 19.1 39.7 11.8

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $565 $536 $580 $624 $690 $775 $782 $766 37.0 -5.2 8.3 7.5 10.7 12.2 -2.0

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,338,019 1,111,926 1,670,274 1,208,461 2,691,600 1,967,511 1,100,135 1,548,218 47.0 -16.9 50.2 -27.6 122.7 -26.9 40.7

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 709,640 511,795 820,429 650,772 1,954,047 1,499,762 874,308 1,049,709 111.3 -27.9 60.3 -20.7 200.3 -23.2 20.1

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $530 $460 $491 $539 $726 $762 $795 $678 43.7 -13.2 6.7 9.6 34.8 5.0 -14.7

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,049,861 1,729,114 2,506,747 1,934,631 3,472,863 2,940,192 1,622,698 2,144,310 43.4 -15.6 45.0 -22.8 79.5 -15.3 32.1

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,111,941 842,457 1,305,571 1,103,662 2,493,380 2,253,115 1,282,827 1,506,612 102.6 -24.2 55.0 -15.5 125.9 -9.6 17.4

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $542 $487 $521 $570 $718 $766 $791 $703 41.3 -10.2 6.9 9.5 25.9 6.7 -11.1

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 193,053 134,946 153,321 105,416 144,771 167,208 169,435 146,115 -13.4 -30.1 13.6 -31.2 37.3 15.5 -13.8

C-23
Table C-10--Continued

Corrosion-resistant steel (including micro-alloy and nonrelated tolling): Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006

(Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-June Jan.-June

Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 2000-05 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Inventories/total shipments (1) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Productivity (tons/1,000 hours) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss) . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit operating income or (loss) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Not applicable.

 (3) Undefined.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures. National Galvanizing was the only nonrelated (not jointly owned) toll producer to provide consistent data. Data for joint venture tolling operations

that tolled for related U.S. mills are already included in tables C-7 and C-8.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics.

C-24
D-1

APPENDIX D

TREATMENT OF CTL PLATE AND 

CORROSION-RESISTANT STEEL IN THE HTSUS

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2006) – Supplement 1 (Rev. 1)

Annotated for Statistical Reporting Purposes

 XV

72-13

 Heading/ Stat. Unit Rates of Duty

 Subheading Suf- Article Description of 1 2

 fix Quantity General Special

7208 Flat-rolled products of iron or nonalloy steel, of a width of 

600 mm or more, hot-rolled, not clad, plated or coated:

7208.10 In coils, not further worked than hot-rolled, with patterns

in relief:

7208.10.15 00 Pickled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 0.4¢/kg +

 20% 

Other:

7208.10.30 00 Of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 20% 

7208.10.60 00 Of a thickness of less than 4.75 mm . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 20% 

Other, in coils, not further worked than hot-rolled, 

pickled:

7208.25 Of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more:

7208.25.30 00 Of high-strength steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 20% 

7208.25.60 00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 0.4¢/kg +

 20% 

7208.26.00 Of a thickness of 3 mm or more but less than

4.75 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 0.4¢/kg +

 20% 

 30 High-strength steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 60 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

7208.27.00 Of a thickness of less than 3 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 0.4¢/kg +

 20% 

 30 High-strength steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 60 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

Other, in coils, not further worked than hot-rolled:

7208.36.00 Of a thickness exceeding 10 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 20% 

 30 High-strength steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 60 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

7208.37.00 Of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more but not

exceeding 10 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 20% 

 30 High-strength steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 60 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

7208.38.00 Of a thickness of 3 mm or more but less than 

4.75 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 20% 

 15 High-strength steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

Other:

 30 With untrimmed edges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 90 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

7208.39.00 Of a thickness of less than 3 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 20% 

 15 High-strength steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

Other:

 30 With untrimmed edges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 90 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

7208.40 Not in coils, not further worked than hot-rolled, with 

patterns in relief:

7208.40.30 Of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 20%

 30 Of a thickness exceeding 10 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 60 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

7208.40.60 Of a thickness of less than 4.75 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 20%

 30 Of a thickness less than 3 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 60 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

Other, not in coils, not further worked than hot-rolled:

7208.51.00 Of a thickness exceeding 10 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 20%

 30 Universal mill plate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

Other:

 45 Of high-strength steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 60 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

7208.52.00 00 Of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more but not

exceeding 10 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 20%

7208.53.00 00 Of a thickness of 3 mm or more but less than 

4.75 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 20%

7208.54.00 00 Of a thickness of less than 3 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 20%

7208.90.00 00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 20%
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2006) – Supplement 1 (Rev. 1)

Annotated for Statistical Reporting Purposes

 XV

72-15

 Heading/ Stat. Unit Rates of Duty

 Subheading Suf- Article Description of 1 2

 fix Quantity General Special

7210 Flat-rolled products of iron or nonalloy steel, of a width of 

600 mm or more, clad, plated or coated:

Plated or coated with tin:

7210.11.00 00 Of a thickness of 0.5 mm or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 6% 

7210.12.00 00 Of a thickness of less than 0.5 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 6% 

7210.20.00 00 Plated or coated with lead, including terne-plate . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 6%

7210.30.00 Electrolytically plated or coated with zinc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 21.5%

 30 Of high-strength steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 60 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

Otherwise plated or coated with zinc:

7210.41.00 00 Corrugated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 21.5%

7210.49.00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 21.5%

 30 Of high-strength steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 90 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

7210.50.00 00 Plated or coated with chromium oxides or with

chromium and chromium oxides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 45% 

Plated or coated with aluminum:

7210.61.00 00 Plated or coated with aluminum-zinc alloys . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 21.5%

7210.69.00 00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 21.5%

7210.70 Painted, varnished or coated with plastics:

7210.70.30 00 Not coated or plated with metal and not clad . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 0.4¢/kg +

 20%

7210.70.60 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 21.5%

Zinc coated or plated:

 30 Electrolytically coated or plated . . . . . . . . . . kg

 60 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 90 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

7210.90 Other:

7210.90.10 00 Clad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 30%

Other:

7210.90.60 00 Electrolytically coated or plated with base 

metal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 45%

7210.90.90 00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 21.5%
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2006) – Supplement 1 (Rev. 1)

Annotated for Statistical Reporting Purposes

XV

72-16

 Heading/ Stat. Unit Rates of Duty

 Subheading Suf- Article Description of 1 2

 fix Quantity General Special

7211 Flat-rolled products of iron or nonalloy steel, of a width of 

less than 600 mm, not clad, plated or coated:

Not further worked than hot-rolled:

7211.13.00 00 Universal mill plate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 20% 

7211.14.00 Other, of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 20% 

 30 Of high-strength steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 Other:

 45 Not in coils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 90 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

7211.19 Other:

Of a width of less than 300 mm:

7211.19.15 00 Of high-strength steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 25%

Other:

7211.19.20 00 Of a thickness exceeding 1.25 mm . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 25%

7211.19.30 00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 25%

Other:

7211.19.45 00 Of high-strength steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 20%

Other:

7211.19.60 00 Pickled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 0.4¢/kg +

 20%

7211.19.75 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 20%

In coils:

 30 With untrimmed edges . . . . . . . . kg

 60 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 90 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

Not further worked than cold-rolled (cold-reduced):

7211.23 Containing by weight less than 0.25 percent of 

carbon:

Of a width of less than 300 mm:

Of a thickness exceeding 1.25 mm:

7211.23.15 00 Of high-strength steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 25%

7211.23.20 00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 25%

7211.23.30 00 Of a thickness exceeding

0.25 mm but not exceeding

1.25 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 25%

7211.23.45 00 Of a thickness not exceeding

0.25 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 25%

7211.23.60 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 0.4¢/kg +

 20%

 30 Of a thickness exceeding 1.25 mm . . . . . . . . kg

 60 Of a thickness exceeding 0.25 mm but not 

exceeding 1.25 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 Of a thickness not exceeding 0.25 mm:

 75 Of a kind for use in making aperture 

masks for cathode-ray tube video

displays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 85 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

7211.29 Other:

Of a width of less than 300 mm:

7211.29.20 Of a thickness exceeding 0.25 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 25%

 30 Of a width less than 51 mm, in coils . . . . kg

 90 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

7211.29.45 00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 25%

7211.29.60 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 0.4¢/kg +

 20%

 30 Of a thickness exceeding 1.25 mm . . . . . . . . kg

 80 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

7211.90.00 00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 20%
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2006) – Supplement 1 (Rev. 1)

Annotated for Statistical Reporting Purposes

 XV

72-17

 Heading/ Stat. Unit Rates of Duty

 Subheading Suf- Article Description of 1 2

 fix Quantity General Special

7212 Flat-rolled products of iron or nonalloy steel, of a width of 

less than 600 mm, clad, plated or coated:

7212.10.00 00 Plated or coated with tin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 6% 

7212.20.00 00 Electrolytically plated or coated with zinc . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 21.5%

7212.30 Otherwise plated or coated with zinc:

Of a width of less than 300 mm:

7212.30.10 Of a thickness exceeding 0.25 mm or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 25%

 30 Of a width less than 51 mm, in coils . . . . . . . kg

 90 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

7212.30.30 00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 25%

7212.30.50 00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 21.5%

7212.40 Painted, varnished or coated with plastics:

7212.40.10 00 Of a width of less than 300 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 25%

7212.40.50 00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 0.4¢/kg +

 20%

7212.50.00 00 Otherwise plated or coated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 21.5%

7212.60.00 00 Clad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 30%
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2006) – Supplement 1 (Rev. 1)

Annotated for Statistical Reporting Purposes

 XV

72-19

 Heading/ Stat. Unit Rates of Duty

 Subheading Suf- Article Description of 1 2

 fix Quantity General Special

7214 Other bars and rods of iron or nonalloy steel, not further 

worked than forged, hot-rolled, hot-drawn or hot-extruded, 

but including those twisted after rolling:

7214.10.00 00 Forged . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 20%

7214.20.00 00 Concrete reinforcing bars and rods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 20%

7214.30.00 Other, of free-cutting steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 20%

 10 Containing by weight 0.1% or more of lead . . . . . . . kg

 80 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

Other:

7214.91.00 Of rectangular (other than square) cross-section . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 20%

 15 Containing by weight less than 0.25 percent 

of carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 60 Containing by weight 0.25 percent or more but 

less than 0.6 percent of carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 90 Containing by weight more than 0.6 percent 

of carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

7214.99.00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 20%

Rounds:

 15 Containing by weight less than 0.25 percent

of carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 30 Containing by weight 0.25 percent or more 

but less than 0.6 percent of carbon . . . . . . . kg

 45 Containing by weight more than 0.6 percent

of carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

Other:

 60 Containing by weight less than 0.25 percent

of carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 75 Containing by weight 0.25 percent or more 

but less than 0.6 percent of carbon . . . . . . . kg

 90 Containing by weight more than 0.6 percent

of carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

7215 Other bars and rods of iron or nonalloy steel:

7215.10.00 Of free-cutting steel, not further worked than coldformed or cold-finished . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 0.3¢/kg +

 20%

 10 Containing by weight 0.1% or more of lead . . . . . . . kg

 80 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

7215.50.00 Other, not further worked than cold-formed or coldfinished . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 0.3¢/kg +

 20%

 15 Containing by weight less than 0.25 percent of 

carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 60 Containing by weight 0.25 percent or more but less 

than 0.6 percent of carbon kg

 90 Containing by weight more than 0.6 percent of 

carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

7215.90 Other:

Plated or coated with metal:

7215.90.10 00 Not cold-formed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 0.4¢/kg +

 20%

7215.90.30 00 Cold-formed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 0.3¢/kg +

 20%

7215.90.50 00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 0.3¢/kg +

 20%
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2006) – Supplement 1 (Rev. 1)

Annotated for Statistical Reporting Purposes

XV

72-22

 Heading/ Stat. Unit Rates of Duty

 Subheading Suf- Article Description of 1 2

 fix Quantity General Special

7217 (con.) Wire of iron or nonalloy steel (con.):

7217.20 Plated or coated with zinc:

7217.20.15 00 Flat wire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 26%

Round wire:

7217.20.30 00 With a diameter of 1.5 mm or more and containing by weight less than 0.25 percent of 

carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 7%

7217.20.45 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 25%

With a diameter of less than 1.0 mm:

 10 Containing by weight less than 0.25 

percent of carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 20 Containing by weight 0.25 percent or 

more but less than 0.6 percent of 

carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 30 Containing by weight 0.6 percent or 

more of carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

With a diameter of 1.0 mm or more but less

 than 1.5 mm:

 40 Containing by weight less than 0.25 

percent of carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 50 Containing by weight 0.25 percent or

more but less than 0.6 percent of 

carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 60 Containing by weight 0.6 percent or 

more of carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

With a diameter of 1.5 mm or more:

 70 Containing by weight 0.25 percent or 

more but less than 0.6 percent of 

carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 80 Containing by weight 0.6 percent or 

more of carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

Other:

7217.20.60 00 Containing by weight less than 0.25 percent of 

carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 25%

7217.20.75 00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 26%
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2006) – Supplement 1 (Rev. 1)

Annotated for Statistical Reporting Purposes

 XV

72-23

 Heading/ Stat. Unit Rates of Duty

 Subheading Suf- Article Description of 1 2

 fix Quantity General Special

7217 (con.) Wire of iron or nonalloy steel (con.):

7217.30 Plated or coated with other base metals:

7217.30.15 Flat wire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 26%

 30 Containing by weight 0.6 percent or more of 

carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 60 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

Round wire:

7217.30.30 00 With a diameter of 1.5 mm or more and containing by weight less than 0.25 percent of 

carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 7%

7217.30.45 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 25%

 04 Containing by weight less than 0.20 percent

of carbon, and suitable for electric arc 

welding . . . . . . . . kg

Other:

With a diameter of less than 1.0 mm:

 11 Containing by weight less than 0.25 

percent of carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 20 Containing by weight 0.25 percent 

or more but less than 0.6 percent

or carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 30 Containing by weight 0.6 percent or 

more of carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

With a diameter of 1.0 mm or more but

less than 1.5 mm:

 41 Containing by weight less than 0.25 

percent of carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 50 Containing by weight 0.25 percent

or more but less than 0.6 percent

of carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 60 Containing by weight 0.6 percent or 

more of carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 90 With a diameter of 1.5 mm or more . . . . kg

 Other:

7217.30.60 00 Containing by weight less than 0.25 percent of 

carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 25%

7217.30.75 00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 26%

7217.90 Other:

7217.90.10 00 Coated with plastics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 2%

7217.90.50 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 35%

 30 Containing by weight less than 0.25 percent of 

carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 60 Containing by weight 0.25 percent or more but 

less than 0.6 percent of carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 90 Containing by weight 0.6 percent or more of 

carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2006) – Supplement 1 (Rev. 1)

Annotated for Statistical Reporting Purposes

 XV

72-33

 Heading/ Stat. Unit Rates of Duty

 Subheading Suf- Article Description of 1 2

 fix Quantity General Special

IV. OTHER ALLOY STEEL; HOLLOW DRILL BARS AND

 RODS, OF ALLOY OR NONALLOY STEEL

7224 Other alloy steel in ingots or other primary forms; semifinished products of other alloy steel:

7224.10.00 Ingots and other primary forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 28%

 05 Of high-nickel alloy steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

Other:

 45 Of tool steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 75 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

7224.90.00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 28% 

 05 Of high-nickel alloy steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

Other:

Of tool steel:

Of rectangular (including square) cross 

section:

 15 Having a width less than four times the 

thickness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 25 Having a width at least four times the 

thickness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 35 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

Other:

Of rectangular (including square) cross 

section:

 45 Having a width less than four times the 

thickness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 55 Having a width at least four times the 

thickness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 65 Of circular cross section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 75 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

7225 Flat-rolled products of other alloy steel, of a width of 

600 mm or more:

 Of silicon electrical steel:

7225.11.00 00 Grain-oriented . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 28%

7225.19.00 00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 28% 

7225.20.00 00 Of high-speed steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 32%

7225.30 Other, not further worked than hot-rolled, in coils:

Of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more:

7225.30.10 00 Of tool steel (other than high-speed steel) . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 29%

7225.30.30 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 28% 

 05 Of high-nickel alloy steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 50 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

Of a thickness of less than 4.75 mm:

7225.30.50 Of tool steel (other than high-speed steel) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 29%

 30 Of ball-bearing steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 60 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

7225.30.70 00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 28%
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2006) – Supplement 1 (Rev. 1)

Annotated for Statistical Reporting Purposes

XV

72-34

 Heading/ Stat. Unit Rates of Duty

 Subheading Suf- Article Description of 1 2

 fix Quantity General Special

7225 (con.) Flat-rolled products of other alloy steel, of a width of 

600 mm or more (con.):

7225.40 Other, not further worked than hot-rolled, not in coils:

Of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more:

7225.40.10 Of tool steel (other than high-speed steel) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 29%

 15 Of ball-bearing steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 90 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

7225.40.30 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 28% 

 05 Of high-nickel alloy steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 50 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

Of a thickness of less than 4.75 mm:

7225.40.50 Of tool steel (other than high-speed steel) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 29%

 30 Of ball-bearing steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 60 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

7225.40.70 00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 28% 

7225.50 Other, not further worked than cold-rolled (coldreduced):

7225.50.10 Of tool steel (other than high-speed steel) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 29%

 30 Of ball-bearing steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 60 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

Other:

7225.50.60 00 Of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 28% 

Of a thickness of less than 4.75 mm:

7225.50.70 00 Heat-resisting steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 29%

7225.50.80 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 28% 

 10 Of high-nickel alloy steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 Other:

 15 Of a kind for use in making 

aperture masks for cathode-ray

tube video displays . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 85 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 Other:

7225.91.00 00 Electrolytically plated or coated with zinc . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 28% 

7225.92.00 00 Otherwise plated or coated with zinc . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 28% 

7225.99.00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 28%

 10 Of high-nickel alloy steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 90 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2006) – Supplement 1 (Rev. 1)

Annotated for Statistical Reporting Purposes

 XV

72-35

 Heading/ Stat. Unit Rates of Duty

 Subheading Suf- Article Description of 1 2

 fix Quantity General Special

7226 Flat-rolled products of other alloy steel, of a width of less 

than 600 mm:

Of silicon electrical steel:

7226.11 Grain-oriented:

7226.11.10 00 Of a width of 300 mm or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 28%

7226.11.90 Of a width of less than 300 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 33%

 30 Of thickness not exceeding 0.25 mm . . . . . . kg

 60 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

7226.19 Other:

7226.19.10 00 Of a width of 300 mm or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 28% 

7226.19.90 00 Of a width of less than 300 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 33% 

 

7226.20.00 00 Of high-speed steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 37%

Other:

7226.91 Not further worked than hot-rolled:

Of tool steel (other than high-speed steel):

7226.91.05 00 Of chipper knife steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 34%

Other:

7226.91.15 Of a width of 300 mm or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 29%

 30 Of ball-bearing steel . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 60 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

7226.91.25 Of a width of less than 300 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 34%

 30 Of ball-bearing steel . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 60 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

Other:

7226.91.50 00 Of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 28% 

Of a thickness of less than 4.75 mm:

7226.91.70 00 Of a width of 300 mm or more . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 28% 

7226.91.80 00 Of a width of less than 300 mm . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 33%

7226.92 Not further worked than cold-rolled (cold-reduced):

Of tool steel (other than high-speed steel):

7226.92.10 Of a width of 300 mm or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 0.4¢/kg +

 29%

 30 Of ball-bearing steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 60 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

7226.92.30 Of a width of less than 300 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 34%

 30 Of ball-bearing steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 60 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

Other:

7226.92.50 00 Of a width of 300 mm or more . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 0.4¢/kg +

 28% 

Of a width of less than 300 mm:

7226.92.70 Of a thickness not exceeding 

0.25 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 33% 

 05 Of high-nickel alloy

steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 50 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

7226.92.80 Of a thickness exceeding 0.25 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 33% 

 05 Of high-nickel alloy steel . . . . . . . . . kg

 50 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

7226.93.00 00 Electrolytically plated or coated with zinc . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 33% 

7226.94.00 00 Otherwise plated or coated with zinc . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 33% 

7226.99.00 00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 33% 
E-1

APPENDIX E

EXCLUDED FORMS OF CARBON STEEL PRODUCTS

 1 See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Finland, Germany, and United Kingdom: Final Results of

Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Reviews, and Revocation of Orders in Part, 64

FR 46343 (August 25, 1999). 

 2 See Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Reviews and

Revocation of Orders in Part: Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Germany, 64 FR

51292 (September 22, 1999).

E-3

EXCLUDED FORMS OF CARBON STEEL PRODUCTS

Cut-to-Length Plate

Belgium

As a result of a decision by the U.S. Court of International Trade (discussed in the Overview

section of this report), cut-to-length floor plate “with patterns in relief derived directly from the rolling

process” (floor plate) from Belgium is excluded from the scope of the antidumping duty order. 

Finland, Germany, and the United Kingdom

As a result of a changed circumstance review, the order was revoked with respect to carbon cutto-length steel plate with a maximum thickness of 80mm in steel grades BS 7191, 355 EM and 355 EMZ,

as amended by Sable Offshore Energy Project Specification XB MOO Y 15 0001, types 1 and 2.1

Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel

Germany

Commerce issued a partial revocation that applies to certain corrosion-resistant deep-drawing

carbon steel strip, roll-clad on both sides with aluminum (AlSi) foils in accordance with St3 LG as to EN

10139/10140. The merchandise's chemical composition encompasses a core material of U St 23

(continuous casting) in which carbon is less than 0.08 by weight; manganese is less than 0.30;

phosphorous is less than 0.20; sulfur is less than 0.015; aluminum is less than 0.01; and the cladding

material is a minimum of 99 percent aluminum with silicon/copper/iron of less than 1 percent. The

products are in strips with thicknesses of 0.07mm to 4.0mm (inclusive) and widths of 5mm to 800mm

(inclusive). The thickness ratio of aluminum on either side of steel may range from 3%/94%/3% to

10%/80%/10%.2

Japan

 Excluded are certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products meeting the following

specifications: (1) Widths ranging from 10 millimeters (0.394 inches) through 100 millimeters (3.94

inches); (2) thicknesses, including coatings, ranging from 0.11 millimeters (0.004 inches) through 0.60

millimeters (0.024 inches); and (3) a coating that is from 0.003 millimeters (0.00012 inches) through

0.005 millimeters (0.000196 inches) in thickness and that is comprised of either two evenly applied

layers, the first layer consisting of 99 percent zinc, 0.5 percent cobalt, and 0.5 percent molybdenum

followed by a layer consisting of chromate, and finally, a layer consisting of silicate. Also excluded are

certain electrolytic zinc-coated steel coiled rolls meeting the following specifications: widths ranging

from 10 millimeters (0.394 inches) through 100 millimeters (3.94 inches); thicknesses, including coatings,

ranging from 0.11 millimeters (0.004 inches) through 0.60 millimeters (0.024 inches); and a coating that
 3 See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan: Final Results of Changed

Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order, 62

FR 66848 (December 22, 1997).

 4 See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan: Final Results of Changed

Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order, 64

FR 14861 (March 29, 1999).

 5 See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan: Final Results of Changed

Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order, 64

FR 57032 (October 22, 1999).

E-4

is from 0.003 millimeters (0.00012 inches) through 0.005 millimeters (0.000196 inches) in thickness and

that is comprised of three evenly applied layers, the first layer consisting of 99 percent zinc, 0.5 percent

cobalt, and 0.5 percent molybdenum, followed by a layer consisting of chromate, and finally a layer

consisting of silicate.3

Also excluded are certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products meeting the following

specifications: (1) widths ranging from 10 millimeters (0.394 inches) through 100 millimeters (3.94

inches); (2) thicknesses, including coatings, ranging from 0.11 millimeters (0.004 inches) through 0.60

millimeters (0.024 inches); and (3) a coating that is from 0.003 millimeters (0.00012 inches) through

0.005 millimeters (0.000196 inches) in thickness and that is comprised of either two evenly applied

layers, the first layer consisting of 99 percent zinc, 0.5 percent cobalt, and 0.5 percent molybdenum,

followed by a layer consisting of chromate, or three evenly applied layers, the first layer consisting of 99

percent zinc, 0.5 percent cobalt, and 0.5 percent molybdenum followed by a layer consisting of chromate,

and finally a layer consisting of silicate. This steel has been used in the manufacture of rubber seals and

metal inserts for ball bearings.4

 

Also excluded are (1) certain products meeting the requirements of SAE standard 792 for bearing

and bushing alloys, and (2) certain products meeting the requirements of SAE standard 783 for bearing

and bushing alloys. This merchandise covers: 

C (1) carbon steel flat products measuring 1.84 mm in thickness and 43.6 mm or 16.1 mm in width

consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1008) clad with an aluminum alloy that is balance aluminum,

20 percent tin, 1 percent copper, 0.3 percent silicon, 0.15 percent nickel, less than 1 percent other

materials and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 783 for bearing and bushing alloys; and 

C (2) carbon steel flat products measuring 0.97 mm in thickness and 20 mm in width consisting of

carbon steel coil (SAE 1008) with a two-layer lining, the first layer consisting of a copper-lead

alloy powder that is balance copper, 9 percent to 11 percent tin, 9 percent to 11 percent lead, less

than 1 percent zinc, less than 1 percent other materials and meeting the requirements of SAE

standard 792 for bearing and bushing alloys, the second layer consisting of 45 percent to 55

percent lead, 38 percent to 50 percent PTFE, 3 percent to 5 percent molybdenum disulfide and

less than 2 percent other materials. The merchandise under review is currently classifiable under

subheading 7212.50.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).5

Also excluded from the scope of the order are imports of doctor blades meeting the following

specifications: carbon steel coil or strip, plated with nickel phosphorous, having a thickness of 0.1524

mm (0.006 inches), a width between 31.75 mm (1.25 inches) and 50.80 mm (2.00 inches), a core hardness

between 580 to 630 HV; the carbon steel coil or strip consists of the following elements identified in

percentage by weight: 0.90 percent to 1.05 percent carbon; 0.15 percent to 0.35 percent silicon; 0.30
 6 See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Final Results of Changed

Circumstances Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order, 65 FR 53983 (September 6, 2000).

 7 See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Final Results of Changed

Circumstances Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order, 66 FR 8778 (February 2, 2001).

 8 See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Notice of Final Results of Changed

Circumstances Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order, 66 FR 15075 (March 15, 2001).

 9 See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Notice of Final Results of Changed

Circumstances Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order, 66 FR 20967 (April 26, 2001).

E-5

percent to 0.50 percent manganese; less than or equal to 0.03 percent of phosphorous; less than or equal

to 0.006 percent of sulfur; other elements representing 0.24 percent; and the remainder of iron.6

Also excluded from the scope of the order are imports of carbon steel flat products meeting the

following specifications: carbon steel flat products measuring 1.64 mm in thickness and 19.5 mm in

width consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1008) with a lining clad with an aluminum alloy that is balance

aluminum; 10 to 15 percent tin; 1 to 3 percent lead; 0.7 to 1.3 percent copper; 1.8 to 3.5 percent silicon;

0.1 to 0.7 percent chromium, less than 1 percent other materials and meeting the requirements of SAE

standard 783 for bearing and bushing alloys.7

Also excluded from the scope of the order are carbon steel flat products meeting the following

specifications: 

C (1) carbon steel flat products measuring 0.975 mm in thickness and 8.8 mm in width consisting of

carbon steel coil (SAE 1012) clad with a two-layer lining, the first layer consisting of a copperlead alloy powder that is balance copper, 9 percent-11 percent tin, 9 percent-11 percent lead,

maximum 1 percent other materials and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 792 for

bearing and bushing alloys, the second layer consisting of 13 percent-17 percent carbon, 13

percent-17 percent aromatic polyester, with a balance (approx. 66 percent-74 percent) of

polytetrafluorethylene (“PTFE”); and 

C (2) carbon steel flat products measuring 1.02 mm in thickness and 10.7 mm in width consisting of

carbon steel coil (SAE 1008) with a two-layer lining, the first layer consisting of a copper-lead

alloy powder that is balance copper, 9 percent-11 percent tin, 9 percent-11 percent lead, less than

0.35 percent iron, and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 792 for bearing and bushing

alloys, the second layer consisting of 45 percent-55 percent lead, 3 percent-5 percent

molybdenum disulfide, with a balance (approx. 40 percent-52 percent) of PTFE.8

Also excluded from this order are products meeting the following specifications: carbon steel

coil or strip, measuring 1.93 mm or 2.75 mm (0.076 inches or 0.108 inches) in thickness, 87.3 mm or 99

mm (3.437 inches or 3.900 inches) in width, with a low carbon steel back comprised of: carbon under 8

percent, manganese under 0.4 percent, phosphorous under 0.04 percent, and sulfur under 0.05 percent;

clad with aluminum alloy comprised of: 0.7 percent copper, 12 percent tin, 1.7 percent lead, 0.3 percent

antimony, 2.5 percent silicon, 1 percent maximum total other (including iron), and remainder aluminum.

Also excluded from this order are products meeting the following specifications: carbon steel coil or

strip, clad with aluminum, measuring 1.75 mm (0.069 inches) in thickness, 89 mm or 94 mm (3.500

inches or 3.700 inches) in width, with a low carbon steel back comprised of: carbon under 8 percent,

manganese under 0.4 percent, phosphorous under 0.04 percent, and sulfur under 0.05 percent; clad with

aluminum alloy comprised of: 0.7 percent copper, 12 percent tin, 1.7 percent lead, 2.5 percent silicon, 0.3

percent antimony, 1 percent maximum total other (including iron), and remainder aluminum.9

Also excluded from this order are products meeting the following specifications: carbon steel

coil or strip, measuring a minimum of and including 1.10 mm to a maximum of and including 4.90 mm in

overall thickness, a minimum of and including 76.00 mm to a maximum of and including 250.00 mm in
 10 See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Notice of Final Results of Changed

Circumstances Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order, 67 FR 7356 (February 19, 2002). 

E-6

overall width, with a low carbon steel back comprised of: carbon under 0.10 percent, manganese under

0.40 percent, phosphorous under 0.04 percent, sulfur under 0.05 percent, and silicon under 0.05 percent;

clad with aluminum alloy comprised of: under 2.51 percent copper, under 15.10 percent tin, and

remainder aluminum as listed on the mill specification sheet.10

Also excluded from this order are products meeting the following specifications: (1) Diffusion

annealed, non-alloy nickel-plated carbon products, with a substrate of cold-rolled battery grade sheet

(“CRBG”) with both sides of the CRBG initially electrolytically plated with pure, unalloyed nickel and

subsequently annealed to create a diffusion between the nickel and iron substrate, with the nickel plated

coating having a thickness of 0-5 microns per side with one side equaling at least 2 microns; and with the

nickel carbon sheet having a thickness of from 0.004'' (0.10 mm) to 0.030'' (0.762 mm) and conforming to

the following chemical specifications (in percent): C <= 0.08; Mn <= 0.45; P <= 0.02; S <= 0.02; Al <=

0.15; and Si <= 0.10; and the following physical specifications: Tensile = 65 KSI maximum; Yield = 32 -

55 KSI; Elongation = 18 percent minimum (aim 34 percent); Hardness = 85 - 150 Vickers; Grain Type =

Equiaxed or Pancake; Grain Size (ASTM) = 7-12; Delta r value = aim less than +/- 0.2; Lankford value

<= 1.2.; and (2) next generation diffusion-annealed nickel plate meeting the following specifications: 

C (a) nickel-graphite plated, diffusion annealed, tin-nickel plated carbon products, with a natural

composition mixture of nickel and graphite electrolytically plated to the top side of diffusion

annealed tin-nickel plated carbon steel strip with a cold rolled or tin mill black plate base metal

conforming to chemical requirements based on AISI 1006; having both sides of the cold rolled

substrate electrolytically plated with natural nickel, with the top side of the nickel plated strip

electrolytically plated with tin and then annealed to create a diffusion between the nickel and tin

layers in which a nickel-tin alloy is created, and an additional layer of mixture of natural nickel

and graphite then electrolytically plated on the top side of the strip of the nickel-tin alloy; having

a coating thickness: top side: nickel-graphite, tin-nickel layer <= 1.0 micrometers; tin layer only

<= 0.05 micrometers, nickel-graphite layer only <= 0.2 micrometers, and bottom side: nickel

layer <= 1.0 micrometers; 

C (b) nickel-graphite, diffusion annealed, nickel plated carbon products, having a natural

composition mixture of nickel and graphite electrolytically plated to the top side of diffusion

annealed nickel plated steel strip with a cold rolled or tin mill black plate base metal conforming

to chemical requirements based on AISI 1006; with both sides of the cold rolled base metal

initially electrolytically plated with natural nickel, and the material then annealed to create a

diffusion between the nickel and the iron substrate; with an additional layer of natural nickelgraphite then electrolytically plated on the top side of the strip of the nickel plated steel strip; with

the nickel-graphite, nickel plated material sufficiently ductile and adherent to the substrate to

permit forming without cracking, flaking, peeling, or any other evidence of separation; having a

coating thickness: top side: nickel-graphite, tin-nickel layer <= 1.0 micrometers; nickel-graphite

layer <= 0.5 micrometers; bottom side: nickel layer <= 1.0 micrometers; 

C (c) diffusion annealed nickel-graphite plated products, which are cold-rolled or tin mill black

plate base metal conforming to the chemical requirements based on AISI 1006; having the bottom

side of the base metal first electrolytically plated with natural nickel, and the top side of the strip

then plated with a nickel-graphite composition; with the strip then annealed to create a diffusion

of the nickel-graphite and the iron substrate on the bottom side; with the nickel-graphite and

nickel plated material sufficiently ductile and adherent to the substrate to permit forming without
 11 See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Notice of Final Results of Changed

Circumstances Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order, 67 FR 47768 (July 22, 2002).

 12 See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Notice of Final Results of Changed

Circumstances Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order, 67 FR 57208 (September 9, 2002).

E-7

cracking, flaking, peeling, or any other evidence of separation; having coating thickness: top

side: nickel-graphite layer <= 1.0 micrometers; bottom side: nickel layer <= 1.0 micrometers; 

C (d) nickel-phosphorous plated diffusion annealed nickel plated carbon product, having a natural

composition mixture of nickel and phosphorus electrolytically plated to the top side of a diffusion

annealed nickel plated steel strip with a cold rolled or tin mill black plate base metal conforming

to the chemical requirements based on AISI 1006; with both sides of the base metal initially

electrolytically plated with natural nickel, and the material then annealed to create a diffusion of

the nickel and iron substrate; another layer of the natural nickel-phosphorous then electrolytically

plated on the top side of the nickel plated steel strip; with the nickel-phosphorous, nickel plated

material sufficiently ductile and adherent to the substrate to permit forming without cracking,

flaking, peeling or any other evidence of separation; having a coating thickness: top side: nickelphosphorous, nickel layer <= 1.0 micrometers; nickel-phosphorous layer <= 0.1 micrometers;

bottom side: nickel layer <= 1.0 micrometers; 

C (e) diffusion annealed, tin-nickel plated products, electrolytically plated with natural nickel to the

top side of a diffusion annealed tin-nickel plated cold rolled or tin mill black plate base metal

conforming to the chemical requirements based on AISI 1006; with both sides of the cold rolled

strip initially electrolytically plated with natural nickel, with the top side of the nickel plated strip

electrolytically plated with tin and then annealed to create a diffusion between the nickel and tin

layers in which a nickel-tin alloy is created, and an additional layer of natural nickel then

electrolytically plated on the top side of the strip of the nickel-tin alloy; sufficiently ductile and

adherent to the substrate to permit forming without cracking, flaking, peeling or any other

evidence of separation; having coating thickness: top side: nickel-tin-nickel combination layer

<= 1.0 micrometers; tin layer only <= 0.05 micrometers; bottom side: nickel layer <= 1.0

micrometers; and 

C (f) tin mill products for battery containers, tin and nickel plated on a cold rolled or tin mill black

plate base metal conforming to chemical requirements based on AISI 1006; having both sides of

the cold rolled substrate electrolytically plated with natural nickel; then annealed to create a

diffusion of the nickel and iron substrate; then an additional layer of natural tin electrolytically

plated on the top side; and again annealed to create a diffusion of the tin and nickel alloys; with

the tin-nickel, nickel plated material sufficiently ductile and adherent to the substrate to permit

forming without cracking, flaking, peeling or any other evidence of separation; having a coating

thickness: top side: nickel-tin layer <= 1 micrometer; tin layer alone <= 0.05 micrometers;

bottom side: nickel layer <= 1.0 micrometer.11

Also excluded from this order are products meeting the following specifications: (1) Widths

ranging from 10 mm (0.394 inches) through 100 mm (3.94 inches); (2) thicknesses, including coatings,

ranging from 0.11 mm (0.004 inches) through 0.60 mm (0.024 inches); and (3) a coating that is from

0.003 mm (0.00012 inches) through 0.005 mm (0.000196 inches) in thickness and that is comprised of

either two evenly applied layers, the first layer consisting of 99 percent zinc, 0.5 percent cobalt, and 0.5

percent molybdenum, followed by a layer consisting of phosphate, or three evenly applied layers, the first

layer consisting of 99 percent zinc, 0.5 percent cobalt, and 0.5 percent molybdenum followed by a layer

consisting of phosphate, and finally a layer consisting of silicate.12
 13 See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Notice of Final Results of Changed

Circumstances Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order, 68 FR 19970 (April 23, 2003).

E-8

Also excluded from this order are products meeting the following specifications: (1) Flat-rolled

products (provided for in HTSUS subheading 7210.49.00), other than of high-strength steel, known as

“ASE Iron Flash” and either:

C (A) having a base layer of zinc-based zinc-iron alloy applied by hot-dipping and a surface layer

of iron-zinc alloy applied by electrolytic process, the weight of the coating and plating not over

40 percent by weight of zinc; or 

C (B) two-layer-coated corrosion-resistant steel with a coating composed of (a) a base coating layer

of zinc-based zinc-iron alloy by hot-dip galvanizing process, and (b) a surface coating layer of

iron-zinc alloy by electro-galvanizing process, having an effective amount of zinc up to 40

percent by weight, and

(2) corrosion resistant continuously annealed flat-rolled products, continuous cast, the foregoing with

chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon not over 0.06 percent by weight, manganese 0.20 or

more but not over 0.40, phosphorus not over 0.02, sulfur not over 0.023, silicon not over 0.03, aluminum

0.03 or more but not over 0.08, arsenic not over 0.02, copper not over 0.08 and nitrogen 0.003 or more

but not over 0.008; and meeting the characteristics described below: 

C (A) Products with one side coated with a nickel-iron-diffused layer which is less than 1

micrometer in thickness and the other side coated with a two-layer coating composed of a base

nickel-iron-diffused coating layer and a surface coating layer of annealed and softened pure

nickel, with total coating thickness for both layers of more than 2 micrometers; surface roughness

(RA-microns) 0.18 or less; with scanning electron microscope (SEM) not revealing oxides greater

than 1 micron; and inclusion groups or clusters shall not exceed 5 microns in length; 

C (B) products having one side coated with a nickel-iron-diffused layer which is less than 1

micrometer in thickness and the other side coated with a four-layer coating composed of a base

nickel-iron-diffused coating layer; with an inner middle coating layer of annealed and softened

pure nickel, an outer middle surface coating layer of hard nickel and a topmost nickelphosphorus-plated layer; with combined coating thickness for the four layers of more than 2

micrometers; surface roughness (RA-microns) 0.18 or less; with SEM not revealing oxides

greater than 1 micron; and inclusion groups or clusters shall not exceed 5 microns in length; 

C (C) products having one side coated with a nickel-iron-diffused layer which is less than 1

micrometer in thickness and the other side coated with a three-layer coating composed of a base

nickel-iron-diffused coating layer, with a middle coating layer of annealed and softened pure

nickel and a surface coating layer of hard, luster-agent-added nickel which is not heat-treated;

with combined coating thickness for all three layers of more than 2 micrometers; surface

roughness (RA-microns) 0.18 or less; with SEM not revealing oxides greater than 1 micron; and

inclusion groups or clusters shall not exceed 5 microns in length; or 

C (D) products having one side coated with a nickel-iron-diffused layer which is less than 1

micrometer in thickness and the other side coated with a three-layer coating composed of a base

nickel-iron-diffused coating layer, with a middle coating layer of annealed and softened pure

nickel and a surface coating layer of hard, pure nickel which is not heat-treated; with combined

coating thickness for all three layers of more than 2 micrometers; surface roughness (RAmicrons) 0.18 or less; SEM not revealing oxides greater than 1 micron; and inclusion groups or

clusters shall not exceed 5 microns in length.13
 14 See Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review and Revocation, in Part: Certain CorrosionResistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan, 70 FR 2608 (January 14, 2005).

E-9

Also excluded from the scope of this order is merchandise meeting the following specifications: 

(1) Base metal: Aluminum Killed, Continuous Cast, Carbon Steel SAE 1008, (2) Chemical composition: 

Carbon 0.08 percent max., Silicon 0.03 percent max., Manganese 0.40 percent max., Phosphorus 0.02

percent max., Sulfur 0.02 percent max., (3) Nominal thickness of 0.054 mm, (4) Thickness tolerance

minimum 0.0513 mm, maximum 0.0567 mm, (5) Width of 600 mm or greater, and (7) Nickel plate min.

2.45 microns per side.14

Also excluded from the scope of this order are the following 24 separate corrosion-resistant

carbon steel coil products meeting the following specifications: 

C product 1 - Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 1.625 mm to 1.655

mm in thickness and 19.3 mm to 19.7 mm in width, consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1010)

with a lining clad with an aluminum alloy containing by weight 10 percent or more but not more

than 15 percent of tin, 1 percent or more but not more than 3 percent of lead, 0.7 percent or more

but not more than 1.3 percent of copper, 1.8 percent or more but not more than 3.5 percent of

silicon, 0.1 percent or more but not more than 0.7 percent of chromium and less than or equal to 1

percent of other materials, and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 788 for bearing and

bushing alloys. 

C product 2 - Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 0.955 mm to 0.985

mm in thickness and 8.6 mm to 9.0 mm in width, consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1012) clad

with a two-layer lining, the first layer consisting of a copper-lead alloy powder that contains by

weight 9 percent or more but not more than 11 percent of tin, 9 percent or more but not more than

11 percent of lead, less than 0.05 percent phosphorus, less than 0.35 percent iron and less than or

equal to 1 percent other materials, and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 797 for bearing

and bushing alloys, with the second layer containing by weight 13 percent or more but not more

than 17 percent of carbon, 13 percent or more but not more than 17 percent of aromatic polyester,

and the remainder (approx. 66-74 percent) of PTFE. 

C product 3 - Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 1.01 mm to 1.03

mm in thickness and 10.5 mm to 10.9 mm in width, consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1010)

with a two-layer lining, the first layer consisting of a copper-lead alloy powder that contains by

weight 9 percent or more but not more than 11 percent of tin, 9 percent or more but not more than

11 percent of lead, less than 1 percent zinc and less than or equal to 1 percent other materials, and

meeting the requirements of SAE standard 797 for bearing and bushing alloys, with the second

layer containing by weight 45 percent or more but not more than 55 percent of lead, 3 percent or

more but not more than 5 percent of molybdenum disulfide, and the remainder made up of PTFE

(approximately 38 percent to 52 percent) and less than 2 percent in the aggregate of other

materials.

C product 4 - Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 1.8 mm to 1.88

mm in thickness and 43.4 mm to 43.8 mm or 16.1 mm to 1.65 mm in width, consisting of carbon

steel coil (SAE 1010) clad with an aluminum alloy that contains by weight 19 percent to 20

percent tin, 1 percent to 1.2 percent copper, less than 0.3 percent silicon, 0.15 percent nickel and

less than 1 percent in the aggregate other materials and meeting the requirements of SAE standard

783 for bearing and bushing alloys.

C product 5 - Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 0.95 mm to 0.98

mm in thickness and 19.95 mm to 20 mm in width, consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1010)

with a two-layer lining, the first layer consisting of a copper-lead alloy powder that contains by

weight 9 percent or more but not more than 11 percent of tin, 9 percent or more but not more than
E-10

11 percent of lead, less than 1 percent of zinc and less than or equal to 1 percent in the aggregate

of other materials and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 797 for bearing and bushing

alloys, with the second layer consisting by weight of 45 percent or more but not more than 55

percent of lead, 3 percent or more but not more than 5 percent of molybdenum disulfide and with

the remainder made up of PTFE (approximately 38 percent to 52 percent) and up to 2 percent in

the aggregate of other materials. 

C product 6 - Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 0.96 mm to 0.98

mm in thickness and 18.75 mm to 18.95 mm in width; base of SAE 1010 steel with a two-layer

lining, the first layer consisting of copper-base alloy powder with chemical composition (percent

by weight): tin 9 to 11, lead 9 to 11, phosphorus less than 0.05, ferrous group less than 0.35, and

other materials less than 1 percent; meeting the requirements of SAE standard 797 for bearing

and bushing alloys; the second layer consisting of lead 33 to 37 percent, aromatic polyester 28 to

32 percent, and other materials less than 2 percent with a balance of PTFE.

C product 7 - Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 1.21 mm to 1.25

mm in thickness and 19.4 mm to 19.6 mm in width; base of SAE 1012 steel with lining of copper

base alloy with chemical composition (percent by weight): tin 9 to 11, lead 9 to 11, phosphorus

less than 0.05, ferrous group less than 0.35 and other materials less than 1 percent; meeting the

requirements of SAE standard 797 for bearing and bushing alloys. 

C product 8 - Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 0.96 mm to 0.98

mm in thickness and 21.5 mm to 21.7 mm in width; base of SAE 1010 steel with a two-layer

lining, the first layer consisting of copper-base alloy powder with chemical composition (percent

by weight): tin 9 to 11, lead 9 to 11, phosphorus less than 0.05 percent, ferrous group less than

0.35 and other materials less than 1; meeting the requirements of SAE standard 797 for bearing

and bushing alloys; the second layer consisting of (percent by weight) lead 33 to 37, aromatic

polyester 28 to 32 and other materials less than 2 with a balance of PTFE. 

C product 9 - Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 0.96 mm to 0.99

mm in thickness and 7.65 mm to 7.85 mm in width; base of SAE 1012 steel with a two-layer

lining, the first layer consisting of copper-based alloy powder with chemical composition (percent

by weight): tin 9 to 11, lead 9 to 11, phosphorus less than 0.05, ferrous group less than 0.35 and

other materials less than 1; meeting the requirements of SAE standard 797 for bearing and

bushing alloys; the second layer consisting of (percent by weight) carbon 13 to 17 and aromatic

polyester 13 to 17, with a balance of PTFE

C product 10 - Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 0.955 mm to

0.985 mm in thickness and 13.6 mm to 14 mm in width; base of SAE 1012 steel with a two-layer

lining, the first layer consisting of copper-based alloy powder with chemical composition (percent

by weight): tin 9 to 11, lead 9 to 11, phosphorus less than 0.05, ferrous group less than 0.35 and

other materials less than 1; meeting the requirements of SAE standard 797 for bearing and

bushing alloys; the second layer consisting of (percent by weight) carbon 13 to 17, aromatic

polyester 13 to 17, with a balance (approximately 66 to 74) of PTFE. 

C product 11 - Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 1.2 mm to 1.24

mm in thickness; 20 mm to 20.4 mm in width; consisting of carbon steel coils (SAE 1012) with a

lining of sintered phosphorus bronze alloy with chemical composition (percent by weight): tin

5.5 to 7; phosphorus 0.03 to 0.35; lead less than 1 and other non- copper materials less than 1. 

C product 12 - Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 1.8 mm to 1.88

mm in thickness and 43.3 mm to 43.7 mm in width; base of SAE 1010 steel with a lining of

aluminum based alloy with chemical composition (percent by weight: tin 10 to 15, lead 1 to 3,

copper 0.7 to 1.3, silicon 1.8 to 3.5, chromium 0.1 to 0.7 and other materials less than 1; meeting

the requirements of SAE standard 788 for bearing and bushing alloys. 

C product 13 - Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 1.8 mm to 1.88

mm in thickness and 24.2 mm to 24.6 mm in width; base of SAE 1010 steel with a lining of
E-11

aluminum alloy with chemical composition (percent by weight): tin 10 to 15, lead 1 to 3, copper

0.7 to 1.3, silicon 1.8 to 3.5, chromium 0.1 to 0.7 and other materials less than 1; meeting the

requirements of SAE standard 788 for bearing and bushing alloys. 

C product 14 - Flat-rolled coated SAE 1009 steel in coils, with thickness not less than 0.915 mm but

not over 0.965 mm, width not less than 19.75 mm or more but not over 20.35 mm; with a twolayer coating; the first layer consisting of tin 9 to 11 percent, lead 9 to 11 percent, zinc less than 1

percent, other materials (other than copper) not over 1 percent and balance copper; the second

layer consisting of lead 45 to 55 percent, molybdenum disulfide (MoS2) 3 to 5 percent, other

materials not over 2 percent, balance PTFE. 

C product 15 - Flat-rolled coated SAE 1009 steel in coils with thickness not less than 0.915 mm or

more but not over 0.965 mm; width not less than 18.65 mm or more but not over19.25 mm; with

a two-layer coating; the first layer consisting of tin 9 to 11 percent, lead 9 to 11 percent, zinc less

than 1 percent, other materials (other than copper) not over 1 percent, balance copper; the second

layer consisting of lead 33 to 37 percent, aromatic polyester 13 to 17 percent, other materials

other than PTFE less than 2 percent, balance PTFE. 

C product 16 - Flat-rolled coated SAE 1009 steel in coils with thickness not less than 0.920 mm or

more but not over 0.970 mm; width not less than 21.35 mm or more but not over 21.95 mm; with

a two-layer coating; the first layer consisting of tin 9 to 11 percent, lead 9 to 11 percent, zinc less

than 1 percent, other materials (other than copper) not over 1 percent, balance copper; the second

layer consisting of lead 33 to 37 percent, aromatic polyester 13 to 17 percent, other materials

(other than PTFE) less than 2 percent, balance PTFE. 

C product 17 - Flat-rolled coated SAE 1009 steel in coils with thickness not less than 1.80 mm or

more but not over 1.85 mm, width not less than 14.7 mm or more but not over 15.3 mm; with a

lining consisting of tin 2.5 to 4.5 percent, lead 21.0 to 25.0 percent, zinc less than 3 percent, iron

less than 0.35 percent, other materials (other than copper) less than 1 percent, balance copper. 

C product 18 - Flat-rolled coated SAE 1009 steel in coils with thickness 1.59 mm or more but not

over 1.64 mm; width 14.5 mm or more but not over 15.1 mm; with a lining consisting of tin 2.3

to 4.2 percent, lead 20 to 25 percent, iron 1.5 to 4.5 percent, phosphorus 0.2 to 2.0 percent, other

materials (other than copper) less than 1 percent, balance copper. 

C product 19 - Flat-rolled coated SAE 1009 steel in coils with thickness not less than 1.75 mm or

more but not over 1.8 mm; width not less than 18.0 mm or more but not over 18.6 mm; with a

lining consisting of tin 2.3 to 4.2 percent, lead 20 to 25 percent, iron 1.5 to 4.5 percent,

phosphorus 0.2 to 2.0 percent, other materials (other than copper) less than 1 percent, balance

copper. 

C product 20 - Flat-rolled coated SAE 1009 steel in coils with thickness 1.59 mm or more but not

over 1.64 mm; width 13.6 mm or more but not over14.2 mm; with a lining consisting of tin 2.3 to

4.2 percent, lead 20 to 25 percent, iron 1.5 to 4.5 percent, phosphorus 0.2 to 2.0 percent, other

materials (other than copper) less than 1 percent, with a balance copper. 

C product 21 - Flat-rolled coated SAE 1009 steel in coils with thickness 1.59 mm or more but not

over 1.64 mm; width 11.5 mm or more but not over 12.1 mm; with a lining consisting of tin 2.3

to 4.2 percent, lead 20 to 25 percent, iron 1.5 to 4.5 percent, phosphorus 0.2 to 2.0 percent, other

materials (other than copper) less than 1 percent, balance copper. 

C product 22 - Flat-rolled coated SAE 1009 steel in coils with thickness 1.59 mm or more but not

over 1.64 mm; width 11.2 mm or more but not over 11.8 mm, with a lining consisting of copper

0.7 to 1.3 percent, tin 17.5 to 22.5 percent, silicon less than 0.3 percent, nickel less than 0.15

percent, other materials less than 1 percent, balance aluminum. 

C product 23 - Flat-rolled coated SAE 1009 steel in coils with thickness 1.59 mm or more but not

over 1.64 mm; width 7.2 mm or more but not over 7.8 mm; with a lining consisting of copper 0.7

to 1.3 percent, tin 17.5 to 22.5 percent, silicon less than 0.3 percent, nickel less than 0.15 percent,

other materials (other than copper) less than 1 percent, balance copper. 
 15 See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review and Revocation, In Part: 

Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan, 70 FR 5137 (February 1, 2005).

E-12

C product 24 - Flat-rolled coated SAE 1009 steel in coils with thickness 1.72 mm or more but not

over 1.77 mm; width 7.7 mm or more but not over 8.3 mm; with a lining consisting of copper 0.7

to 1.3 percent, tin 17.5 to 22.5 percent, silicon less than 0.3 percent, nickel less than 0.15 percent,

other materials (other than copper) less than 1 percent, balance copper.15
F-1

APPENDIX F

COMMENTS BY U.S. PRODUCERS, IMPORTERS, PURCHASERS, AND

FOREIGN PRODUCERS REGARDING FLAT BAR AND OTHER FORMS OF

CTL PLATE

F-3

U.S. PRODUCERS OF CUT-TO-LENGTH PLATE

Characteristics and Uses

***

“Used as stiffeners, base plates, joiners, liners, caps, and produced in a number of different yield, tensile,

hardness, toughness physical characteristics and chemical characteristics for use in bridges, containers,

trailers, buildings, equipment, etc.”

***

“No differences are significant.”

***

“Parts are machined directly from wide flat bar, but parts are made from plate by either: 1) plate could be

cut into bars and then machined, or 2) plate could be plasma cut to a near part configuration, then

machine finished.”

***

“Wide bar flats are rolled on both the width and thickness dimensions. Cut-to-length plates are not;

Cut-to-length plates are only rolled on the width dimension. Both products can have the same width and

thickness with similar tolerances. Wide bar flats can be cold drawn, cut-to-length plates cannot.

Cut-to-length plates can be machined by grinding and/or milling to make a product that can compete with

a cold drawn bar made from wide bar flats.”

***

“General characteristics are the same as compared to comparable CTL plate - end uses can be similar as

well.”

Interchangeability

***

“Very interchangeable unless edge quality is critical. Driver/decider if all else is equal is generally price

and availability.”

***

“No differences are significant.”

***

“In certain aerospace or high temperature applications, the preferred product would be wide flat bar. 

Otherwise, the products are readily interchangeable.”

***

“Wide bar products can be used in all end applications, but cut-to-length plates cannot be cold drawn. 

However, cut-to-length plates can be machined, milled or ground, on all sides such that they can be sold

in direct competition with cold drawn wide bar flats.”

***

“Interchangeability is dependent on specific customer end uses.”
F-4

Manufacturing Processes

***

“Melting process essentially the same. Hot rolled to either exact width needed (bar mill) or rolled in wide

plates, strip and slit or burned to required width.”

***

“BOF-based has lower residuals than EAF-based; minor differences.”

***

“Both products are usually hot rolled. Wide flat bar may be drawn after annealing to reduce machining

costs and achieve higher hardness.”

***

“Wide bar flats are produced with vertical and horizontal rolls to produce the width and thickness

dimensions, or in a closed or box pass (all four dimensions are shaped) that controls the width and

thickness dimensions. Cut-to-length plates are rolled with horizontal rolls and the width and length are

burned or sheared to size. The skilled labor is similar, but the equipment designed is different. Both

products are shaped in rolling mills; but the equipment is not interchangeable.”

***

—

Channels of Distribution

***

“Same.”

***

“No significant differences.”

***

“Service centers or OEMs.”

***

“Both wide bar flats and cut-to-length plate can be forged, rolled, welded and machined in many different

end manufacturing and/or fabricating applications, however, cut-to-length plates cannot be cold drawn.

Both products can and are sold directly to forgers, fabricators, ship building, railroad car building, heavy

original equipment manufacturers, bridge builders, and service centers.”

***

“Construction and agricultural are some of the possible end uses. Material is available mill direct or thru

service centers.” 

Customer and Producer Perception

***

“Edge quality is far better on bar mill rolled product. However, customer/producer will opt for best

price/delivery unless edge quality critical.”
F-5

***

“No significant differences.”

***

“Unknown.”

***

“Cut-to-length plates cannot be used for cold drawing of the width and thickness. Wide bar flats also

have very narrow width and thickness tolerances along with superior straightness tolerances that cannot

be maintained sustained with cut-to-length plate, however, machined plate can compete favorably with

cold drawn bars made from wide bar flats.”

***

“Based upon end use, we do not believe customers perceive a difference.”

Price

***

“None.”

***

“No significant differences.”

***

“Unknown.”

***

“Wide bar flats can be up to $***/NT more expensive than cut-to-length plate that has not been further

machined.”

***

“Wide flat bar is normally sold at a discount to CTL plate.”

IMPORTERS OF CUT-TO-LENGTH PLATE

Characteristics and Uses

***

“Flats can be substituted in certain applications where plate would have to be cut to narrow widths (e.g.,

abrasion-resistant parts for mining equipment).”

***

“Flats can be substituted in certain applications where plate would have to be cut to narrow width (e.g.

abrasion-resistant parts for mining equipment).”

***

“None of our business could use wide flat bar versus plate.”
F-6

***

“General characteristics are the same as compared to a comparable CTL plate - end uses can be similar as

well.”

Interchangeability

***

“Only for a limited range of applications, and then only if the price differential is significant (with flats

underselling plates).”

***

“Only for a limited range of applications.”

***

“Not at all.”

***

“Interchangeability is dependent on specific customer end use.”

Channels of Distribution

***

“Some plate distributors–not all of them–also carry flats.”

***

“Some plate distributors–very few–also carry flats.”

***

“We sell to plate burners and distribution customers. The distribution customers may also sell flat bar.”

***

“Construction and agricultural are some of the possible end uses. Material is available mill direct or

through service centers.”

Customer and Producer Perception

***

“Plate is generally preferred for quality.”

***

“Plate is generally preferred for quality.”

***

“No idea.”

***

“Based upon end use, we do not believe customers perceive a difference.”
F-7

Price

***

“Flats are much cheaper.”

***

“Flats are less expensive than plates.”

***

“No idea - not active in flat bar.”

***

“Wide flat bar is normally sold at a discount to CTL plate.”

PURCHASERS OF CUT-TO-LENGTH PLATE

Characteristics and Uses

***

--

***

“Characteristics are the same. Uses differ. CTL plate for us is a minimum 48" wide. Wide flat bar (U.M.

Plate) maximum is 12" wide.”

***

“Characteristics and uses are similar.”

***

“Bars in some cases have better edges and flatter.”

***

“ASTM standards.”

***

“Metric dimensions. U.S. flat bar mills do not produce flat bar to metric dimensions.”

***

“Wide flat bars are produced on a non-continuous bar mill and are rolled sequentially on all four faces. 

Wide flat bars are not similar to CTL plate but are a different product with different specifications and

different end uses. Wide flat bars could never be interchanged with standard CTL plate. Wide flat bar

have superior surface finish, dimensional precision, and precise and clean edges and corners produced by

rolling on a bar mill rather than cutting from plate produced on a plate mill.”

***

“Our wide flat bars are up to 12"wide - CTL plate is 48" min to 96" max.”

***

“As far as I can determine your definition of CTL plate includes most wide flat bar sizes.”
F-8

***

“Same physical characteristics, yield and tensile strength.”

***

“General characteristics are the same as compared to comparable CTL plate - end uses can be similar as

well.”

Interchangeability

***

“Customers prefer flat bar - don’t have to pay for cutting out of plate.”

***

“None.”

***

“CTL plate and wide flat bars are interchangeable and can be substituted for each other easily. Some

applications cannot use the slit CTL plate in place of wide flat bar.”

***

“Cannot always be interchanged.”

***

“For us, it is not interchangeable due to cost inefficiency and quality issues.”

***

“None.”

***

“CTL plate cannot be interchanged with wide flat bar required for cold drawing.”

***

—

***

“Most uses very interchangeable.”

***

“Depends upon application of use if rolling or extruding.”

***

“Interchangeability is dependent on specific customer end use.”

Channels of Distribution

***

“Most would use it interchangeably.”
F-9

***

“Do not know end use. CTL plate is bought from mills, importers, and coil processors who inventory the

product. Wide flat bar is bought from U.S. mini mills. We sell both to our customers.”

***

“Wide flats have a variety of end use primarily in construction (ex. base plates for columns, lintels, etc.). 

Wide flats are usually sold through wholesale distribution or metal service centers.”

***

“Unknown.”

***

“They are not interchangeable so this does not apply.”

***

“The product becomes part of a ship.”

***

“*** purchases wide flat bar for consumption in its processing facilities. All wide flat bar is processed

into cold drawn bar.”

***

“Same as for CTL plate.”

***

—

***

“Similar channels of distribution.”

***

“Construction and agricultural are some of the possible end uses; material is available mill direct or

through service centers.”

Customer and Producer Perception

***

“Most would use it interchangeably.”

***

“For *** they are two distinct products and we sell both to our customers. CTL is up to 1⁄2" thick, min

48" wide. Wide flat bar can be 2" thick, maximum 12" wide.”

***

“The only perceived difference between wide flat bars and CTL plate is the edge condition. Wide flat

bars have a universal rolled mill edge. CTL plate must be slit to the customer’s width.”

***

“Unknown.”
F-10

***

“They are not interchangeable so this does not apply.”

***

“None.”

***

“Wide flat bar is used for cold drawing and is not compatible with CTL plate.”

***

—

***

“Customers assume price lower.”

***

“Unknown.”

***

“Based upon end use, we do not believe customers perceive a difference.”

Price

***

“UM plate tends to be cheaper because you don’t pay for cutting.”

***

“*** sells U.M. plate and CTL plate to the same end user - fabricators and some manufacturers. The cost

for 1⁄2 x 10 U.M. plate x 20 is $*** delivered. *** cost for 1⁄2 . 48 . 120 CTL plate is $*** delivered ***.”

***

“Wide flats are produced by a number of bar mills in the US. As a result of the increased supply of wide

flats in the US, they are more competitively priced. CTL plate prices are dependent on the current flat

roll coil prices. Currently, there are fewer US producers (and no import) and consequently carry a higher

price than wide flat bars.”

***

“Unknown.”

***

“Not interchangeable for us.”

***

“Prices trend in a similar manner.”

***

“Pricing for wide flat bar rolled on bar mill is priced considerable higher than CTL plate and would not be

considered as a substitute.”
F-11

***

—

***

—

***

“Pricing is similar on a per CWT basis.”

***

“Wide flat bar is normally sold at a discount to CTL plate.”

FOREIGN PRODUCERS OF CUT-TO-LENGTH PLATE

Characteristics and Uses

***

“The wide flat bar *** produces is far more narrow than its CTL plate, which is produced in a range of 56

inches to 120 inches. (The maximum width of ***’s wide flat bar is 6 inches.) ***’s CTL plate product

is also produced up to two inches thick, while the bar mill is limited to a thickness of 1 inch or less. 

Typically, ***’s wide flat bar production is utilized in applications such as leaf springs for the automotive

industry or other commercial uses where a narrow flat product is required for mechanical or structural

applications. In addition, any wide flat bar *** produces is strictly generic commercial grade product,

while an overwhelming majority of *** CTL plate is more specialized. ***’s CTL plate product is used

for a much wider range of applications for which wide flat bar is incapable of serving due to differences

in dimension and grade.”

***

“By definition, cut-to-length plate has edges and corners which have been damaged by a cutting operation

(for example, by cold shearing or flame cutting) to cut the piece of steel down to a narrower size than its

original wide plate form. This damage makes cut-to-length plate unsuitable for cold finishing or cold

drawing. Wide flat bars can be rolled with round, radiused edges and corners, for use in the manufacture

of off-highway wheels, whereas cut-to-length plate cannot. Similarly, wide flat bars can be rolled with

chamfered or bevelled edges, on either one edge or both, for use in the manufacture of earthmover

wearparts, whereas cut-to-length plate cannot.”

Interchangeability

***

“CTL plate and wide flat bar are not interchangeable. As stated above, most CTL plate applications are

incapable of utilizing wide flat bar due to differences in dimension and grade. It would make no

commercial sense to purchase CTL plate and further process that product for a wide flat bar application.”

***

“In applications where the edge condition does not matter, e.g. structural fabrication, both wide flat bar

and cut-to-length plate could be used. Where the edge condition is important, e.g. for cold finishing (cold

drawing) cut-to-length plate is not suitable. Given the price premium charged by ***’s wide flat bar for

cold finishing, its products would never be used for structural fabrication, where less expensive standard

cut-to-length plate would suffice.”
F-12

Manufacturing Processes

***

“CTL plate and wide flat bar are produced on completely different rolling mills. Typically, a mill will

also utilize a special caster for its bar mill. *** lacks this casting equipment. Any wide flat bar produced

at the mill is made from slab scraps that are further processed so they will fit on the bar mill.”

***

“Wide flat bars are rolled in bar mills which are always smaller than plate mills. Bar mills have a number

of mill stands which sequentially roll the wide flat bars on all four faces. This enables very close control

of thickness and width tolerances. Bars can be rolled with a variety of edge shapes - round, radiused,

chamfered or bevelled.

Plate is rolled in large plate mills, typically, but not always on a reversing mill. The rolling process is

therefore geared to roll top and bottom surfaces predominantly, with minimal rolling of the edges. While

there can be a reasonable control of thickness tolerance, the control of width tolerance is poor. Plate is

typically produced in widths of 1500 mm or wider, and therefore has to be cut down by cold shearing, or

flame cutting to provide customers with narrower sizes.”

Channels of Distribution

***

“The majority of ***’s CTL plate production is sold directly to end-users. ***’s flat bar production is

sold almost exclusively to service centers in ***.”

***

“Plate is typically produced in large volumes, and can be regarded to a great degree as a semi-finished

product since it predominantly has to be cut down in width, and cut-to-length before being used. Because

of this, most plate is mostly sold by its producers to stockholders or service centres who carry out this

cutting, or distribute the plates to plate profiling companies.

Because wide flat bars are produced in much smaller volumes, especially for industries such as cold

finishing (cold drawing), they are much more often shipped directly to the final user of the steel.”

Customer and Producer Perception

***

“*** consider CTL plate and wide flat bar to be completely different products, as do ***’s customers.”

***

“***’s experience is that:

Cold finishing (cold drawing) customers cannot use the sharp and damaged corners that are a feature of

cut-to-length plate.

Many customers do not like the sharp corners that cut-to-length plate displays, and prefer instead the safer

and smoother corners that are a fundamental feature of wide flat bars. There are very obvious
F-13

health and safety hazards from sharp corners in situations where cut-to-length plate has to be manually

handled, or where those edges are exposed in finished products.

Fabricators making steel framed buildings prefer to saw cut square or rectangular base plates in bundles

from wide flat bar, because it is more convenient than cutting them from plate by saw cutting. In other

words, fabricators’ large and expensive plate profiling machines are much more profitably employed

profiling larger and more complex profiles than simple square or rectangular ones which can more easily

be cut from wide flat bars. Manufacturers of off highway wheels, who initially roll steel into hoops

before welding, prefer the cross sectional symmetry inherent in wide flat bars. Cut-to-length plate often

does not display that symmetry because it has, by definition, been cut down from a larger piece of plate,

which can result in thickness variance across the width. Also, the sharp corners on cut-to-length plate

damages tooling, and can ‘burr’ over in the manufacturing process, unlike when the smooth corners that

wide flat bars have are used.” 

Price

***

“Given the nature of ***’s production, the price of its wide flat bar is substantially lower than CTL plate

prices.”

***

“Wide flat bars that are sold for specialist applications such as for cold finishing (cold drawing), are

always sold at a premium over equivalent cut-to-length plate products. This is because the cold finishing

industry recognises the superior quality and properties of wide flat bars.”

The following companies either did not respond, responded with an N/A, or responded by saying that they did not have the

knowledge to answer the questions: 

Producers: ***.

Importers: ***.

Purchasers: ***.

Foreign Producers: ***.

Source: Compiled from Commission questionnaires.

G-1

APPENDIX G

COMMENTS BY U.S. PRODUCERS, IMPORTERS, AND PURCHASERS

REGARDING CARBON AND MICRO-ALLOY STEEL CTL PLATE

 1

 The company noted that alloy products produced to AISI 4140 and 4340 are specified for use in applications

requiring high hardenability characteristics such as the tool and die industry.

G-3

U.S. PRODUCERS OF CUT-TO-LENGTH PLATE

Characteristics and Uses

***

“Used in bridges, cranes, trailers, cold weather applications where charpy toughness values are critical,

abrasive applications where hardness is critical, and any high strength application requiring high tensile

loading.”

***

“Micro-alloy steels generally have higher strength characteristics than run-of-the-mill grades. Some have

special resistance to weathering elements. They are used for high strength applications in general.”

***

“Micro-alloy steel (MAS) and cut-to-length plate (CTL) are both structural materials; however, MAS is

used primarily in bridge fabrication. MAS has higher mechanical properties than CTL.”

***

“When compared to carbon grade CTL plate, micro-alloy steel plates have higher strength and toughness

characteristics. These attributes are specific to the grade of steel required by the end use customer, but are

not discernible in the as-rolled condition of the plate. Only when the plates are metallurgically tested

through either destructive or non-destructive methods are these differences apparent. The end use of

these plates may be the same as for carbon plate applications. However, micro-alloy steels are usually

priced higher than carbon grades due to the costs for the additional alloying elements. To achieve even

greater strength and toughness characteristics, one would need to specify an alloy grade of CTL plate,

which has significantly higher alloying elements than micro-alloy steels and is usually heat treated to

provide additional characteristics such as formability and ductility. These products are typically priced

higher than carbon and micro-alloy CTL plates due to the additional heat treat operations plus alloying

and testing requirements involved.”

***

“Following the definitions of micro-alloy steel pertaining to this review information, *** produces a few

grades on a regular basis – A588, 4140, 4130. Grade A588 items are high strength low alloy items

specified for use in atmospheric corrosion resistant applications such as steel bridge component parts.”1

***

“As defined (page 9 of instructions) micro-alloy steel is typically higher strength steel than carbon (A36)

and HSLA (A572-50) steels, with elevated tensile strength, improved toughness and higher hardness. 

End uses are often for specific applications, such as; construction and earth-moving/mining equipment,

rail cars, line pipe, poles and towers, armored vehicles, and machine parts and bridges.”

***

“As we resell this product, grade is specified by our customers.”
G-4

***

“Microalloy plate can have the same characteristics and end uses to comparable CTL plate.”

***

“Flatness and thickness identical. Micro-alloy steel more weldable at a given strength level, and offers

significantly higher strength levels. End uses: highway truck and trailer frames and components, crane

booms, roll-over protective structures, air tanks.”

***

“In most of the end uses described in response to Question IV-B-II, carbon and micro-alloy plate would

be interchangeable unless the customer specification restricted certain alloys for improved weldability.”

Interchangeability

***

“Very interchangeable unless edge quality is critical. Driver/decider if all else is equal is generally price

and availability. Also, torchcut can be a negative due to the potential of heat affected zone (HAZ) where

original physical properties are lost.”

***

“M-A steels are interchangeable with ordinary steels although they generally command a higher price and

would not be used when a less expensive “garden variety” steel would suffice. The opposite is not true

however. Lower strength steels will not be placed in high strength applications. M-A steels are good

substitutes where strength is required along with less weight.”

***

“Both products can be used in structural applications; MAS can be a substitute for CTL, but not

necessarily the reverse.”

***

“Micro-alloy steels may be interchanged with regular carbon grades. However, in addition to the cost

issue discussed above, micro-alloy steels provide a weight savings advantage due to the gage reduction

realized from the increased strength levels achieved from the alloy additions.”

***

“Grade A588 can be used in high strength low alloy applications not requiring atmospheric corrosion

resistance characteristics.”

***

“Micro-alloy steel is typically not interchangeable with carbon steel due to the higher strength exceeding

design criteria and higher cost exceeding budget criteria.”

***

“As we resell this product, grade is specified by our customers.”

***

“Interchangeability is dependent on specific end use.”
G-5

***

“Thinner micro-alloy steel can be substituted for other cut-to-length plate with no loss of strength, but

micro-alloy is preferred.”

***

“In most of the end uses described in response to Question IV-B-II, carbon and micro-alloy plate would

be interchangeable unless the customer specification restricted certain alloys for improved weldability.”

Manufacturing Processes

***

“Melting process essentially the same. Hot rolled to either exact width needed (bar mill) or rolled in wide

plates, strip and slit or burned to required width. Heat treating is required for many applications but is the

same on wide flats and CTL plate.”

***

“Manufacturing processes are the same, but larger amounts of alloying elements are used in MAS. MAS

plate may also have some type of heat treatment.”

***

“Micro-alloy steels are produced on the same equipment utilizing the same labor force as carbon and

alloy grades. The difference between the grades is achieved in the steelmaking process or melt practice 

The micro-alloy and alloy grades employ higher chemical and alloy additions at the steel making process

than are utilized in the production of standard carbon grades of steel. Additionally, varying refining,

rolling, and heat treating methods are employed for micro-alloy and alloy plates versus carbon grades.”

***

“*** uses the same production practices and manufacturing processes for all grades produced.”

***

“Micro-alloy steel is often control-temperature rolled (TMCP) or heat treated to achieve properties.”

***

“Some additional testing is required of micro-alloy product to confirm mechanical properties.”

***

—

***

“Our vendors control via melting and rolling practice, but at our facility, Micro-Alloy is more difficult to

level.”

***

“Carbon and micro-alloy plate are made on the same equipment and with the same employees.”

Channels of Distribution

***

“Same.”
G-6

***

“Same.”

***

“Both products are sold to fabricators and service centers.”

***

“The carbon, micro-alloy, and alloy plate grades are marketed and sold through the same distribution

channels.”

***

“Steel service centers, steel bridge and other steel fabricators.”

***

“Micro-alloy steel is sold to both OEM's (end users) and to steel distributors.”

***

“No difference.”

***

“Material is used where corrosion resistance, internal soundness and/or mechanical properties are

important criteria.”

***

“OEM as shown in (a).”

***

“Carbon and micro-alloy plate are sold in the same channels of distribution.”

Customer and Producer Perception

***

“Edge quality is far better on bar mill rolled product. However, customer/producer will opt for best

price/delivery unless edge quality critical.”

***

— 

***

“MAS is considered to be a higher quality product than CTL. There is no difference in sales and

marketing practices.”

***

“Typically, it is at the discretion of the customer to specify the grade of steel they require for an end use

application. Customers generally know to order a higher strength grade based upon the application.”

***

“Micro-alloy steel items produced by *** are marketed the same way as all other products.”
G-7

***

“Micro-alloy steels are often specified for specific end use applications with properties tailored to design

criteria - whereas carbon steal is used in more generic applications. Also, direct engineering contacts

between the producer and end user is common.”

***

“Grade extras for micro-alloy product are passed on to the customers.”

***

“We do not believe there is a perceived difference in comparable grades.”

***

“OEM as shown in (a).”

***

“Customers and producers see no differences in carbon and micro-alloy plate that is made for the same

application.”

Price

***

“None.”

***

“M-A steels command a premium.”

***

“MAS usually carries an extra of *** per cwt over CTL. Heat treatment and special requirements (CVN,

UT, etc.) are extra and can run *** per cwt.”

***

“Certain premiums are charged for micro-alloy and alloy plates versus carbon plates due to the

manufacturing process and alloy additions or richer chemistries. These grades are recognized as higher

value products in the marketplace. However, at times, some competitors may moderate the premium

charged in order to secure an attractive segment of business or to fill their mills.”

***

“Base prices for the few micro-alloy grades produced by *** are generally $*** to $*** per ton higher

than base prices for basic CTL plate items.”

***

“Depending on the strength level and processing required (heat treating for example) micro-alloy steels

can demand a price *** higher than carbon (A36) steel.”

***

“Similar by grade.”

***

“Net price is more expensive, but features make it a viable competitive option.”
G-8

***

“The price of plate is based on the gauge range and any extras regardless of whether the plate in question

is carbon or micro-alloy.”

IMPORTERS OF CUT-TO-LENGTH PLATE

Characteristics and Uses

***

“Load bearing high strength applications.”

***

“Micro-alloys are used for more demanding applications requiring, for example, higher wear resistance,

strength or tensile properties, with less weight.”

***

“Micro-alloys are used for more demanding applications requiring, for example, greater wear resistance,

strength or tensile properties, with less weight.”

***

“Micro-alloy steels generally have higher strength characteristics than run-of-the-mill grades. Some have

special resistance to weathering elements. They are used for high strength applications in general.”

***

“Alloy plate is used for armor, abrasion resistant, wear sensitive and high strength. Carbon plate is used

for weight, area coverage and some critical parts.”

***

“Micro-alloy steel has higher strength.”

***

“Not comparable.”

***

“As we resell this product, grade is specified by our customers.”

***

“Microalloy plate can have the same characteristics and end uses to comparable CTL plate.”

Interchangeability

***

—

***

“Micro-alloys can be downgraded, although price differentials generally make this unappealing. Carbon

generally cannot be used for micro-alloy applications.”
G-9

***

“Micro-alloys can be downgraded, although price differentials generally make this unappealing. 

Generally carbon cannot be substituted for micro-alloy applications.”

***

“M-A steels are interchangeable with ordinary steels although they generally command a higher price and

would not be used when a less expensive “garden variety” steel would suffice. The opposite is not true

however. Lower strength steels will not be placed in high strength applications. M-A steels are good

substitutes where strength is required along with less weight.”

***

“In my view they are not interchangeable.”

***

“End usages do not differ, but microalloy is used for more higher quality material.”

***

“Not comparable.”

***

“As we resell this product, grade is specified by our customers.”

***

“Interchangeability is dependent on specific end use.”

Channels of Distribution

***

“Resale, OEM, heavy equipment manufacturers.”

***

“Micro-alloys are usually purchased by OEMs or for specific jobs. Carbon is typically purchased in

standard grades for inventory.”

***

“Micro-alloys are usually purchased by OEMs or for specific jobs. Carbon is typically purchased in

standard grades for inventory.”

***

“Same.”

***

“Same.”

***

—

***

“Not comparable.”
G-10

***

“Same for all products.”

***

“Material is used where corrosion resistance, internal soundness and/or mechanical properties are

important criteria.”

Customer and Producer Perception

***

“Greater longevity, wear resistance, and strength.”

***

“Micro-alloys are perceived as suitable for demanding applications. Micro-alloys are perceived as

significantly more expensive.”

***

“Micro-alloys are perceived as suitable for demanding applications. Micro-alloys are perceived as

significantly more expensive.”

***

—

***

“Alloy plates are much more expensive.”

***

“If in need of high quality material, some customers require microalloy.”

***

“Not comparable.”

***

“No differences.”

***

“We do not believe there is a perceived difference in comparable grades.”

Price

***

“Varies. Micro-alloy steel ***% greater.”

***

“Micro-alloys are significantly more expensive.”

***

“Micro-alloys are significantly more expensive.”
G-11

***

“M-A steels command a premium.”

***

“In some grades alloys can be $*** a ton more expensive.”

***

—

***

“Not comparable.”

***

“Grade extras for micro-alloy products are passed on to the customers.”

***

“Similar by grade.”

PURCHASERS OF CUT-TO-LENGTH PLATE

Characteristics and Uses

***

“Using the definition of micro-alloy CTL plate to include Q&T (heat treated alloy) CTL plate, the

differences include: higher alloy content and higher strength. This steel is used for welded structural

components requiring a higher strength than that of carbon steels. They are also used for abrasion

resistant parts, such as dump truck bodies, and tractor blades and buckets.”

***

“Customers have different welding and fabricating practices.”

***

“Higher strength and formability.”

***

“Microalloy plate can have the same characteristics and end uses to comparable CTL plate.”

Interchangeability

***

“Typically, carbon steel plate and micro-alloy (including Q&T) plate are not interchangeable due to the

chemistry and strength differences.”

***

“This is at the discretion of the customer.”

***

“Not interchangeable due to customer needs (requirements).”
G-12

***

“Interchangeability is dependent on specific end use.”

Channels of Distribution

***

“Product is purchased directly for manufacture of parts used for tractors and for parts sales.”

***

“End use is in general fabrication and O.E.M. work. Distribution through normal service channels.”

***

—

***

“Material is used where corrosion resistance, internal soundness and/or mechanical properties are

important criteria.”

Customer and Producer Perception

***

“New high strength (non heat treated) steels are starting to compete with traditional alloy Q&T steel plate. 

However, Q&T alloy plate does not usually compete with carbon plate.”

***

“None.”

***

“Actual product and price differences due to nature of product.”

***

“We do not believe there is a perceived difference in comparable grades.”

Price

***

“The price of the alloy and Q&T plate is higher than carbon CTL plate due to the richer chemistries and

extra processing in the case of Q&T plate.”

***

“Normally extracts premium over other carbon grades.”

***

—

***

“Similar by grade.”
G-13

The following companies either did not respond, responded with an N/A, or responded by saying that they did not have the

knowledge to answer the questions: 

Producers: ***.

Importers: ***.

Purchasers: ***.

Source: Compiled from Commission questionnaires.

H-1

APPENDIX H

COMMENTS BY U.S. PRODUCERS, IMPORTERS, AND PURCHASERS

REGARDING CARBON AND MICRO-ALLOY CORROSION-RESISTANT

STEEL

H-3

U.S. PRODUCERS OF CORROSION-RESISTANT STEEL

Characteristics and Uses

***

“In most of the end uses described in our response to Question IV-V-11, carbon and micro-alloy

corrosion-resistant would be interchangeable unless the customer spec restricted certain alloys for

improved formability.”

Interchangeability

***

“In most of the end users described in our response to Question IV-V-11, carbon and micro-alloy

corrosion-resistant would be interchangeable unless the customer spec restricted certain alloys for

improved formability.”

Manufacturing Processes

***

“Carbon and micro-alloy corrosion-resistant are made on the same equipment and with the same

employees.”

Channels of Distribution

***

“Carbon and micro-alloy corrosion-resistant are sold in the same channels of distribution.”

Customer and Producer Perception

***

“Customers and producers see no differences in carbon and micro-alloy corrosion-resistant that is made

for the same applications.”

Price

***

“The price of corrosion-resistant is based on the gauge range, coating weights and any extras whether the

corrosion-resistant in question is carbon or micro-alloy.”
H-4

IMPORTERS OF CORROSION-RESISTANT STEEL

Characteristics and Uses

***

“Microalloy (IFS titanium bearing) steels are used for deep drawing applications such as heat shields,

baking pans, etc.”

***

“In order to meet increasing requirements for both crash safety and Corporate Average Fuel Economy

(CAFÉ) regulations in the automotive industry, corrosion-resistant steel producers have developed grades

of steels with higher strength and/or better formability. These steels allow automakers to design parts

with more intricate shapes, or parts with higher component strength at lighter thicknesses. The

development of these new grades has generated a significant increase in the use of these

corrosion-resistant steels by the automakers, which in turn drives more development of steels with higher

and better combinations of strength and formability. 

Steels designed in response to the auto industry include Interstitial Free (IF grades like Extra Deep

Drawing Steel (EDDS), Enhanced Extra Deep Drawing Steel (EEDDS) and Bake Hardenable (BH), High

Strength Low Alloy (HSLA) grades, and Advanced High Strength Steels (AHSS) like Dual Phase (DP). 

Additionally, corrosion resistance has become increasingly important as warranties against perforation

corrosion have increased to 10 - 12 years on automotive body panels.

The most formable grades of steel are generally called “interstitial free”, or IF grades. On an atomic

scale, interstitials are spaces where small atoms like carbon and nitrogen can squeeze in between regularly

spaced larger iron atoms. Interstitial elements make the final steel product harder and much less

formable. Thus “interstitial free” steels are steels that do not have elements such as carbon and nitrogen

in the interstitial sites. Trace amounts of carbon and nitrogen will always exist in commercially produced

steel as it would be prohibitively expensive to remove 100% of these elements in liquid steel prior to

solidification. Fortunately, carbon and nitrogen atoms can be prevented from going to those interstitial

sites by tying them up with alloying elements such as titanium (Ti) or columbium (Cb, also known as

niobium, Nb), or less often, vanadium (V). The levels of these alloying elements are carefully controlled

to be certain to tie up (“precipitate”) all potential interstitial elements. Excessive amounts of alloying

elements harden the steel, making it less formable.

IF grades of steel are generally used on deeply drawn outer body panels (e.g. body sides), or inner panels

that have a high degree of forming required (e.g. floor pans or dash panels). Many of these parts are

extremely large with demanding formability requirements, making the control of alloy elements critical. 

Development of this type of steel with improved formability has allowed automotive companies to

produce larger panels - for instance, in the past they may have required three separate pieces to produce

the front floor pan whereas now most front floor pans can be produced from a single sheet of highly

formable IF steel. This, in turn, has driven a significant growth in the use of this type of steel grade.

“Bake hardenable” (BH) is a particularly specialized form of IF steel that has been developed for auto

body panels requiring good formability during manufacture, yet good dent/ding resistance while in

service (e.g. outer doors, fenders) - that is, the steel is almost as formable as, but harder than, regular IF

steels. BH steel has almost all of the carbon and nitrogen tied up with Ti or Cb alloying elements. Thus

the steel is very formable. However a small, controlled amount of carbon and nitrogen is not tied up with

Ti or Cb so that when the formed door is painted then baked to cure and harden the paint, the remaining

unalloyed C and N settle in interstitial sites and harden the steel. These steels have such a good
H-5

combination of improved formability and finished strength that their use is expanding to underbody

applications.

Advanced High Strength Steels, or AHSS grades, are now being developed to meet increasing needs for

higher strength and formability at lighter thicknesses. Because of their unique work hardening

characteristics, these grades of steel are being used for structural and safety components where crash

management protects occupants. 

Dual phase steels are one particular type of AHSS where, due to a combination of alloying elements and

specialized processing, the steel is comprised of two different phases allowing a combination of

toughness and formability. Because Dual phase steels are difficult to produce and complex to use, they

have been developed by only a few specialized, high quality mills and specified for use only on vehicles

developed in North America in the past few years. Design engineers for *** specifically targeted the use

of this type of steel to introduce a vehicle with the highest North American percentage of advanced high

strength steels for advanced crash management and occupant safety. The use of this type of steel for

structural parts will continue to grow as more mills develop the capability to produce it. 

Changing patterns in the use of steel will continue in the automotive industry as government safety

regulations increase, as CAFE requirements increase, as gas prices increase, and as the steel supply

industry itself develops new more formable grades of steel.

Subject corrosion resistant steel are used for many uses in the automotive and construction market

segments. Substantial shipments are made through service centers to end users as well. Service centers

perform several functions - holding inventory for small and large manufacturers for JIT delivery, selling

steel to smaller buyers that do not consume enough steel to qualify as mill accounts, and specialized

finishing that they are generally able to do more economically than mills.”

***

“Micro alloys may affect the formability of the steel as it pertains to a certain specific end use such as

pipe formation. It also can affect the weldability.”

***

“Microalloy is used as a substitute for carbon steel to gain improved properties. Microalloy steels have

higher strength, finer grain, improved surface appearance, improved fracture properties, which allow for

weight reductions, better formability, better weldability, and better structural integrity.”

***

“Characteristics – Excellent heat resistance, formability weldability.

Usage – Exhaust system, heat exchanger.”

***

“It might be necessary to micro-alloy in order to achieve higher strength levels than normally available in

‘other corrosion resistant steel.'”

***

“Alloy steel is used in more demanding applications where carbon grades cannot yield the necessary

results for the manufacturing of the finished project.”
H-6

***

“Alloy grades of corrosion resistant steel provide more suitable properties for robust and continuous

stamping performance. Customer specifications are considered guidelines, as in the end the supplier has

to guarantee the performance. To meet the stringent requirements both in terms of quality but also in

terms of stamping productivity alloy grades are often used for complex deep drawn or stretched formed

parts.”

***

“Micro alloy steel contains alloying elements which improve the performance of the steel.”

***

“*** has not purchased any micro-alloyed steel that we are aware of. This material is generally intended

for high strength and highly formability applications.”

Interchangeability

***

“Microalloys can be substituted for carbon steels in limited cases, for specific applications and markets. 

However, carbon steel can rarely if ever be substituted for microalloys.”

***

“The automotive companies design the parts based on the knowledge of how the steel will form. Dies are

designed to stamp the parts based on how the steel will form, and these dies are usually “tuned” to the

steel of the company that worked on the part from the Early Vendor Involvement (EVI) stage. As a result

of this process, alloy and subject corrosion resistant steels cannot be interchanged one with the other.”

***

“Depending on the final end use, the materials may be interchangeable.”

***

“Microalloy and carbon steels are generally interchangeable with allowances for weight and strength.”

*** 

“We don't have any idea because we supply this product by requests of the customer.”

***

“The end-uses might be similar but a customer would not specify a higher strength level than needed

since it would cost more.”

***

“None that we are aware of.”

***

“With the very different end uses in sheet steel for automotive production, from high formability to very

high strength applications, products are not considered interchangeable.”

***

“Other corrosion resistant steels and micro alloy steels are not interchangeable.”
H-7

***

“We understand that micro-alloyed steel can be used for simpler applications that do not necessarily

require the micro-alloying.”

Channels of Distribution

***

“Same as for corrosion resistant.”

***

“Alloy steels are sold almost exclusively to the automotive industry. Subject corrosion resistant steel also

are sold directly to the automotive industry. For the construction market segment, subject corrosion

resistant steel can be sold directly to the end user or through service centers.”

***

“Mainly steel service centers. Some end users/OEM's.”

***

“The channels of distribution are generally the same for both carbon and microalloy steels.”

***

“This product has not that specific channels of distribution. The volume of the sales is quite small

compared to other CORE.”

***

“The channels of distribution are usually the same: either direct to an end-user or to a service centre for

eventual shipment to an end-user or a construction company.”

***

“Alloy material is normally more end-use specific and requires a close cooperation between the mill and

the end user even if the product is distributed and processed by a third party. Normal carbon grades for

general warehouse and distribution used in construction and less demanding applications would require

minimal technical support and would be interchangeable between most producers.”

***

“In view of the very complex applications and demanding production performance, a very close working

relationship between the producer and the end user is a necessity, and technical transparency is

maintained should on occasion a third party participate in processing. The material supply to the

automotive customer is always done with the supervision and oversight of the mills representatives or

their designates.”

***

“End-users, mainly automotive.”

***

“We believe such to be the same.”
H-8

Customer and Producer Perception

***

“Microalloy steels are much more formable, with better yields, but are more difficult and expensive to

produce. Microalloys are therefore priced higher than carbon steels.”

***

“Alloy steels are sold almost exclusively to the automotive industry. Subject corrosion resistant steel also

are sold directly to the automotive industry. For the construction market segment, subject corrosion

resistant steel can be sold directly to the end user or through service centers.”

***

“Customers perceive specific micro alloy contents will produce a better product. Or, engineers may have

specified certain chemistries.”

***

“Microalloy steels are preferred by some customers for some applications.”

***

“We supply “Mill Test Certificate” showing every contents of chemical compositions.”

***

“Micro-alloy steel is more costly and used in more specialized applications.”

***

“Alloy material is normally more end-use specific and requires a close cooperation between the mill and

the end user even if the product is distributed and processed by a third party. Normal carbon grades for

general warehouse and distribution used in construction and less demanding applications would require

minimal technical support and would be interchangeable between most producers.”

***

“As described in answer (c) above, this is a highly specialized business environment and each application

needs to be viewed independently and is perceived by both parties accordingly.”

***

“Due to high alloy elements, higher production costs and higher prices.”

***

“Micro-alloyed steel is of higher quality.”

Price

***

“Prices for these products are market-driven.”

***

“Pricing is generally higher for alloy steel. For example, two very similar *** items, one subject goods,

and one alloy sell for $***/nt and $***/nt, respectively.”
H-9

***

“Price extras depend upon customers' specific micro alloying requirements.”

***

“Prices of microalloy steels are generally slightly higher than for carbon steels.”

***

“The market for the product is not that fluctuate compared to other CORE products because the supply

and demand is very limited.”

***

“The price of micro-alloy steel is higher than ‘corrosion resistant steel.’ ”

***

“Alloy grades by the specific end use would fluctuate less over a period of time since those grades tend to

be contracted firm for a specific quantity or for a specific time frame and over time would provide for

higher returns. Carbon grades which may be readily interchangeable by producers and have broader

availability tend to follow a commodity pricing pattern with frequent price changes.”

***

“Price is individually formulated as to the specific end use and parts, as well as the cost of production

taking into account the customer's ultimate requirements in quality and productivity.”

***

“Due to high alloy elements, higher production costs and higher prices.”

***

“Micro-alloyed steel costs more.”

PURCHASERS OF CORROSION-RESISTANT STEEL

Characteristics and Uses

***

“Physical characteristics are the same, but uses are concentrated into critical structural application.”

***

“Yield, tensile and carbon are higher and aluminum or titanium content is lower than other products.”

***

“Microalloys corrosion resistant steels have higher portions of columbium, titanium and chromium to

stabilize the steel and make it more formable than corrosion resistant steel.”

***

“Current purchases of sheet steel are not specified as Microalloy by the *** used in stampings. In the

process of making some grades alloys are used to stabilize the chemistry to make a steel that is easier to

form and produce parts. Alloys in the amounts specified by the Microalloy definition in the instructions

to this questionnaire are mainly used for certain higher strength grades to create a more formable

corrosion resistant material.”
H-10

***

“We do not know about physical characteristics other than descriptions. End usage = Fireplace, Burner,

Muffler, etc.”

***

“Alloyed corrosion resistant steel is superior to carbon steel for severe end users.”

Interchangeability

***

“No interchangeability.” 

***

“Microalloy material is used mainly for structural automotive end use applications. Material is specified

by end user.”

***

“None.”

***

“Sheet steel for vehicles is designed by specific grades and not by the chemistry makeup. Mills determine

the chemistry to meet the physical properties specified by ***.”

***

“Not really interchangeable. For example, Galvanized/Galvalume products are utilized in panel/HVAC

ducts where aluminizeds are used in fireplace, burner, cookware, etc.”

***

“Not.”

Channels of Distribution

***

“Channels of distribution are the same.”

***

“Automotive end use and market.”

***

—

***

“Direct purchases from major mill supply sources.”

***

“We sold to tubing manufacturer and service centers.”

***

“Automotive.”
H-11

Customer and Producer Perception

***

“Microalloy corrosion-resistant carbon steels are seen as a value add product.”

***

“None.”

***

“Not perceptible by our customers.”

***

“None.”

***

“None.”

***

—

Price

***

“In general the prices for microalloy corrosion-resistant carbon steels are higher.”

***

“Microalloy steel pricing is higher than some product and lower than some product.”

***

“Requires a longer process to make and value added increases price ***%.”

***

“Pricing is negotiated for each grade and currently this type material would be furnished by the steel

supplier only when necessary to meet specifications.”

***

“Generally prices are comparable to those carbon corrosion resistant flat products.”

***

—
H-12

The following companies either did not respond, responded with an N/A, or responded by saying that they did not have the

knowledge to answer the questions:

Producers: ***.

Importers: ***.

Purchasers: ***.

Source: Compiled from Commission questionnaires.
I-1

APPENDIX I

COMMENTS BY U.S. PRODUCERS, IMPORTERS, PURCHASERS, AND

FOREIGN PRODUCERS REGARDING THE EFFECTS OF THE ORDERS ON

CTL PLATE AND THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

I-3

U.S. PRODUCERS OF CUT-TO-LENGTH PLATE

II-4. Would your firm anticipate any changes in the character of your operations or organization

(as noted above) relating to the production of cut-to-length plate in the future if the countervailing

duty and/or antidumping duty orders on cut-to-length plate from the subject countries were to be

revoked? If your response differs for any country, please indicate.

* * * * * * *

II-17. Describe the significance of the existing countervailing duty and/or antidumping duty orders

covering imports of cut-to-length plate from subject countries in terms of its effect on your firm's

production capacity, production, U.S. shipments, inventories, purchases, employment, revenues,

costs, profits, cash flow, capital expenditures, research and development expenditures, and asset

values. You may wish to compare your firm's operations before and after the imposition of the

order. Please indicate it your response differs by country.

* * * * * * *

II-18. Would your firm anticipate any changes in its production capacity, production, U.S.

shipments, inventories, purchases, employment, revenues, costs, profits, cash flow, capital

expenditures, research and development expenditures, or asset values relating to the production of

cut-to-length plate in the future if the countervailing duty and/or antidumping duty orders on

cut-to-length plate from subject countries were to be revoked? Please indicate it your response

differs by country.

* * * * * * *

U.S. IMPORTERS OF CUT-TO-LENGTH PLATE

II-4. Would your firm anticipate any changes in the character of your operations or organization

(as noted above) relating to the importation of cut-to-length plate in the future if the countervailing

duty and/or antidumping duty orders on cut-to-length plate from the subject countries were to be

revoked? If your response differs for any country, please indicate.

* * * * * * *

II-14. Describe the significance of the existing countervailing duty and/or antidumping duty orders

covering imports of cut-to-length plate from subject countries in terms of its effect on your firm's

imports, U.S. shipments of imports, and inventories. You may wish to compare your firm's

operations before and after the imposition of the order. 

* * * * * * *

II-15. Would your firm anticipate any changes in its imports, U.S. shipments of imports, or

inventories of cut-to-length plate in the future if the countervailing duty and/or antidumping duty

orders on cut-to-length plate from the subject countries were to be revoked?

* * * * * * *
I-4

U.S. PURCHASERS OF CUT-TO-LENGTH PLATE

The Commission requested U.S. purchasers to describe any potential effects on (1) the future

activities of your firm and (2) the U.S. market as a whole if the antidumping/countervailing duty

orders covering imports of CTL plate from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland,

Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom were revoked. (Question III-35). The

following are quotations from the responses of purchasers.

* * * * * * *

FOREIGN PRODUCERS OF CUT-TO-LENGTH PLATE

II-3. Would your firm anticipate any changes in the character of your operations or organization

(as noted above) relating to the production of cut-to-length plate in the future if the countervailing

duty and/or antidumping duty orders on cut-to-length plate from subject countries were to be

revoked?

* * * * * * *

II-15. Describe the significance of the existing countervailing duty and/or antidumping duty orders

covering imports of cut-to-length plate from the subject countries in terms of their effect on your

firm's production capacity, production, home market shipments, exports to the United States and

other markets, and inventories. You may wish to compare your firm's operations before and after

the imposition of the order.

* * * * * * *

II-16. Would your firm anticipate any changes in its production capacity, production, home

market shipments, exports to the United States and other markets, or inventories relating to the

production of cut-to-length in the future if the countervailing duty and/or antidumping duty orders

on cut-to-length plate from the subject countries were to be revoked? 

* * * * * * *
J-1

APPENDIX J

COMMENTS BY U.S. PRODUCERS, IMPORTERS, PURCHASERS, AND

FOREIGN PRODUCERS REGARDING THE EFFECTS OF THE ORDERS ON

CORROSION-RESISTANT STEEL AND THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF

REVOCATION

J-3

U.S. PRODUCERS OF CORROSION-RESISTANT STEEL

II-4. Would your firm anticipate any changes in the character of your operations or organization

(as noted above) relating to the production of corrosion-resistant steel in the future if the

countervailing duty and/or antidumping duty orders on corrosion-resistant steel from the subject

countries were to be revoked? 

* * * * * * *

II-18. Describe the significance of the existing countervailing duty and/or antidumping duty orders

covering imports of corrosion-resistant steel from subject countries in terms of its effect on your

firm's production capacity, production, U.S. shipments, inventories, purchases, employment,

revenues, costs, profits, cash flow, capital expenditures, research and development expenditures,

and asset values. You may wish to compare your firm's operations before and after the imposition

of the order. Please indicate if your response differs by country.

* * * * * * *

II-19. Would your firm anticipate any changes in its production capacity, production, U.S.

shipments, inventories, purchases, employment, revenues, costs, profits, cash flow, capital

expenditures, research and development expenditures, or asset values relating to the production of

corrosion-resistant steel in the future if the countervailing duty and/or antidumping duty orders on

corrosion-resistant steel from subject countries were to be revoked? Please indicate if your

response differs by country.

* * * * * * *

IMPORTERS OF CORROSION-RESISTANT STEEL

II-4. Would your firm anticipate any changes in the character of your operations or organization

(as noted above) relating to the production of corrosion-resistant steel in the future if the

countervailing duty and/or antidumping duty orders on corrosion-resistant steel from the subject

countries were to be revoked? 

* * * * * * *

II-13. Describe the significance of the existing countervailing duty and/or antidumping duty orders

covering imports of corrosion-resistant steel from subject countries in terms of its effect on your

firm's imports, U.S. shipments of imports, and inventories. You may wish to compare your firm's

operations before and after the imposition of the orders.

* * * * * * *

II-14. Would your firm anticipate any changes in its imports, U.S. shipments of imports, or

inventories of corrosion-resistant steel in the future if the countervailing duty and/or antidumping

duty orders on corrosion-resistant steel from the subject countries were to be revoked?

* * * * * * *
J-4

U.S. PURCHASERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE

ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDERS AND THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

The Commission requested U.S. purchasers to describe any potential effects on (1) the future

activities of your firm and (2) the U.S. market as a whole if the antidumping/countervailing duty

orders covering imports of corrosion-resistant steel from Australia, Canada, France, Germany,

Japan, and Korea were revoked. (Question III-35). The following are quotations from the

responses of purchasers.

* * * * * * *

FOREIGN PRODUCERS OF CORROSION-RESISTANT STEEL

II-3. Would your firm anticipate any changes in the character of your operations or organization

(as noted above) relating to the production of corrosion-resistant steel in the future if the

countervailing duty and/or antidumping duty orders on corrosion-resistant steel from the subject

countries were to be revoked? 

* * * * * * *

II-15. Describe the significance of the existing countervailing duty and/or antidumping duty orders

covering imports of corrosion-resistant steel from the subject countries in terms of their effect on

your firm's production capacity, production, home market shipments, exports to the United States

and other markets, and inventories. You may wish to compare your firm's operations before and

after the imposition of the order.

* * * * * * *

II-16. Would your firm anticipate any changes in its production capacity, production, home

market shipments, exports to the United States and other markets, or inventories relating to the

production of corrosion-resistant steel in the future if the countervailing duty and/or antidumping

duty orders on corrosion-resistant steel from the subject countries were to be revoked? 

* * * * * * *
K-1

APPENDIX K

ADDITIONAL PURCHASING FACTOR COMPARISONS

K-3

Table K-1

Corrosion-resistant steel: Comparisons of product by source country, as reported by purchasers

Factor

U.S. vs nonsubject1 U.S. vs all others/all foreign2

SC I SC I

Number of firms responding 

Availability 350121

Contract with supplier 3 5 0 0 4 0

Delivery terms 5 3 0 0 4 0

Delivery time 5 3 0 2 2 0

Discounts offered 170030

Extension of credit 2 6 0 1 2 0

Finish/appearance 251040

Minimum quantity requirements 260130

Packaging 1 6 1 0 4 0

Price3

125021

Product consistency 341040

Product range 260130

Proximity of supplier 7 1 0 4 0 0

Qualification for certain applications 2 5 1 1 3 0

Quality meets industry standards 170030

Quality exceeds industry standards 350030

Reliability of supply 440130

Technical support/service 521130

Traditional supplier 440130

U.S. transportation costs3 61103 0

 1

 Eight purchasers responded to the question by comparing the U.S. product with product from a nonsubject

country; the countries include Brazil, China, India, Italy, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom.

 2

 Four purchasers responded to the question by comparing the U.S. product with “all others” or “all foreign,”

without specifying subject or nonsubject countries. 3 A rating of “S” on price and U.S. transportation costs indicates that this country has lower prices/costs than the

other country.

Note.--S=first-listed country’s product is superior; C=both countries’ products are comparable; I=first-listed country’s

product is inferior.

Note.--Not all purchasers responded for every factor.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
K-4

Table K-2

CTL plate: Comparisons of product by source country, as reported by purchasers1

Factor

U.S. vs all others/all foreign

SC I

Number of firms responding 

Availability 3 1 1

Contract with supplier 2 3 0

Delivery terms 2 3 0

Delivery time 4 1 0

Discounts offered 0 4 1

Extension of credit 1 3 1

Finish/appearance 220

Minimum quantity requirements 2 2 1

Packaging 1 4 0

Price2

005

Product consistency 1 4 0

Product range 3 2 0

Proximity of supplier 5 0 0

Qualification for certain applications 1 4 0

Quality meets industry standards 0 5 0

Quality exceeds industry standards 1 4 0

Reliability of supply 3 1 1

Technical support/service 4 1 0

Traditional supplier 3 2 0

U.S. transportation costs2 4 1 0

 1

 Five purchasers responded to the question by comparing the U.S. product with “all others” or “all foreign,”

without specifying subject or nonsubject countries. 2 A rating of “S” on price and U.S. transportation costs indicates that this country has lower prices/costs than the

other country.

Note.--S=first-listed country’s product is superior; C=both countries’ products are comparable; I=first-listed country’s

product is inferior.

Note.--Not all purchasers responded for every factor.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.