U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4063 March 2009

Washington, DC 20436

Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide 

from China

Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Review)
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS 

 

Shara L. Aranoff, Chairman 

Daniel R. Pearson, Vice Chairman 

Deanna Tanner Okun 

Charlotte R. Lane 

Irving A. Williamson 

Dean A. Pinkert

Robert A. Rogowsky

Staff assigned

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

Director of Operations

Mary Messer, Investigator 

Larry Johnson, Industry Analyst 

Peter Sultan, Attorney 

Douglas Corkran, Supervisory Investigator

Staff gratefully acknowledges the contributions of the following individuals:

Jack Greenblatt, Industry Analyst 

Orlando Crosby, Economic Research Assistant
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4063 March 2009

Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide 

from China

Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Review)

i

CONTENTS

Page

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

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

Information obtained in the review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

The original investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Commerce’s original determination and subsequent review determinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Commerce’s final result of expedited five-year review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

Distribution of Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act funds to affected domestic 

producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

Related Commission investigations and reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

The product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

U.S. tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

Domestic like product and domestic industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

Physical characteristics and uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-9

Manufacturing process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

Interchangeability and customer and producer perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

Channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

Pricing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

The industry in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

U.S. producers’ trade, employment, and financial data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-19

Related party issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-21

National Defense Stockpile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-22

U.S. imports and apparent U.S. consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-24

U.S. imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-24

Leading nonsubject sources of imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-25

Ratio of imports to U.S. production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-33

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-33

Antidumping actions outside the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-34

The world market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-36

Supply and demand considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-36

Prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-44

The subject industry in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-48

RBAO operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-53

Export profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-53
ii

CONTENTS

Page

Appendixes

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

B. Commission’s statement on adequacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

C. Table C-2 from Commission’s staff report in the final phase of the original investigation . . . . . C-1

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

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

asterisks.
 1

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

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Review)

REFINED BROWN ALUMINUM OXIDE FROM CHINA

DETERMINATION

On the basis of the record1

 developed in the subject five-year review, the United States

International Trade Commission (“Commission”) determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act

of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on refined brown aluminum

oxide from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in

the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted this review on October 1, 2008 (73 FR 57149) and determined on

January 5, 2009 that it would conduct an expedited review (74 FR 1706, January 13, 2009). 
 
 1

 Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), USITC Pub. 3643 (Nov. 2003) at

I-1 (“Original Determination”). 

 2

 Original Determination at 3.

 3

 Antidumping Duty Order: Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide From The People’s Republic of China, 68 Fed.

Reg. 65249 (Nov. 19, 2003). 

 4

 Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide From China, 73 Fed. Reg. 57149 (Oct. 1, 2008).

 5

 See Explanation of Commission Determination on Adequacy. 

 6

 Id.; 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3).

 7

 See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a).

 8

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

3

VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

Based on the record in this five-year review, we determine under section 751(c) of the Tariff Act

of 1930, as amended (the “Act”), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on refined brown

aluminum oxide (“BAO”) from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material

injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

I. BACKGROUND

The original investigation of refined BAO from China was instituted on November 20, 2002,

based on a petition filed by Washington Mills Company, Inc. The petition was subsequently amended to

add C-E Minerals, Inc. and Treibacher Schleifmittel Corp. as additional petitioners.1

 In November 2003,

the Commission determined that an industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of

imports of refined BAO from China that the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) had determined

were sold in the United States at less than fair value.2

 Commerce imposed an antidumping duty order on

imports of refined BAO from China on November 19, 2003.3

The Commission instituted this review on October 1, 2008.4 The Commission received a joint

response to its notice of institution from the following four domestic producers: C-E Minerals, Inc.;

Great Lakes Minerals, LLC; Treibacher Schleifmittel North America, Inc.; and Washington Mills

Company, Inc. (the “Domestic Parties”). The Commission did not receive any responses from producers

or exporters of refined BAO in China or from any U.S. importers of the subject merchandise.

On January 5, 2009, the Commission found the domestic interested party response to the notice of

institution to be adequate and the respondent interested party response to be inadequate.5

 The

Commission did not find any circumstances that would warrant conducting a full review and determined

that it would conduct an expedited review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act.6

 Accordingly, for our

determination in this review, we rely on the facts available on the record when appropriate, which consist

primarily of information from the original investigation and information collected in this five-year

review, including that submitted by the Domestic Parties.7

II. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT AND INDUSTRY

A. Domestic Like Product

In making its determination under section 751(c), the Commission defines the “domestic like

product” and the “industry.”8

 The Act defines the “domestic like product” as “a product which is like, or

in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation
 9

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10). See Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 19 CIT 450, 455 (1995); Timken Co. v. United

States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996); Torrington Co. v. United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 748-49 (Ct.

Int’l Trade 1990), aff’d, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also S. Rep. No. 249, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 90-91

(1979).

 10 See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, and the United

Kingdom, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-380 to 382 and 731-TA-797 to 804 (Review), USITC Pub. 3788 at 6 (July 2005);

Crawfish Tail Meat from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-752 (Review), USITC Pub. 3614 at 4 (July 2003); Steel Concrete

Reinforcing Bar from Turkey, Inv. No. 731-TA-745 (Review), USITC Pub. 3577 at 4 (Feb. 2003).

 11 Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited Sunset

Review, 74 Fed. Reg. 4138-4139 (Jan. 23, 2009). 

 12 Antidumping Duty Order: Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide (Otherwise Known as Refined Brown Artificial

Corundum or Brown Fused Alumina) From the People’s Republic of China, 68 Fed. Reg. 65249 (Nov. 19, 2003).

 13 Original Determination at 3.

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

 15 Original Determination at 7.

 16 Domestic Parties’ Response to the Notice of Institution (Nov. 20, 2008) at 13.

4

under this subtitle.”9

 In five-year reviews, the Commission looks to the domestic like product definition

from the original determination and any previous reviews and considers whether the record indicates any

reason to revisit that definition.10

In its expedited sunset determination, Commerce defined the subject merchandise as: 

ground, pulverized or refined brown artificial corundum, also known as brown aluminum

oxide or brown fused alumina, in grit size of 3/8 inch or less. Excluded from the scope of

the order is crude artificial corundum in which particles with a diameter greater than 3/8

inch constitute at least 50 percent of the total weight of the entire batch. The scope

includes brown artificial corundum in which particles with a diameter greater than 3/8

inch constitute less than 50 percent of the total weight of the batch. The merchandise

under investigation is currently classifiable under subheadings 2818.10.20.00 and

2818.10.20.90 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).11

The scope definition set out above is essentially the same as Commerce’s original scope definition.12

Refined BAO is a solid inorganic chemical derived from the aluminum oxide in mined bauxites

and produced by crushing, grinding, and sieving BAO in ingot or crude form. The product is sold in a

range of sizes, generally but not always with a diameter of 3/8 inch or less, to end users and to

distributors.13 Refined BAO is used mainly to make abrasives and refractories (heat-resistant furnace

linings).14

In its original investigation, the Commission found a single domestic like product consisting of

all merchandise corresponding to the scope of the investigation as well as any refined BAO where

particles with a diameter greater than 3/8 inch constitute at least 50 percent of the total weight of the

entire batch, as long as this product has been crushed, screened, and sorted into consistent sizes.15 In this

review, the Domestic Parties have stated that they agree with the Commission’s definition of the domestic

like product in the original investigation.16 No new information was obtained in this review that would

suggest any reason for the Commission to revisit its domestic like product definition in the original

investigation. Therefore, we again define the domestic like product to include all merchandise

corresponding to the scope of Commerce’s review, as well as any refined BAO where particles with a

diameter greater than 3/8 inch constitute at least 50 percent of the total weight of the entire batch, as long

as this product has been crushed, screened, and sorted into consistent sizes.
 17 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). 

 18 Original Determination at 9-11.

 19 CR at I-19, PR at I-14-I-15.

 20 CR at I-29-I-30 and I-33, PR at I-21-I-22 and I-24. According to the Domestic Parties, Great Lakes Minerals is

no longer an importer and is now a significant producer of refined BAO in the United States. Domestic Parties’

Response to the Commission’s Notice of Institution at 5. The record indicates that in early 2003 the company added

capital equipment to increase its crushing and sizing capability and that in late 2006 it expanded its production

capacity. CR at I-21, PR at I-16. We note that because the Commission excluded Great Lakes Minerals from the

domestic industry as a related party in the original investigation, its data were excluded from the domestic industry’s

overall data for 2002. We have not found Great Lakes Minerals to be a related party in this review, and thus its data

are included for 2007.

 21 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

5

B. Domestic Industry and Related Parties

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the relevant domestic industry as the “producers as a whole

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

constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”17

In the original determination, of the six domestic producers of refined BAO, five imported the

subject merchandise during the period examined and thus were related parties under the statute. The

Commission found that appropriate circumstances existed to exclude one of these producers, Great Lakes

Minerals, from the domestic industry. The Commission therefore defined the domestic industry as

consisting of all U.S. producers of the domestic like product, with the exception of Great Lakes

Minerals.18

There are currently six U.S. producers of the domestic like product: C-E Minerals, Detroit

Abrasives, Great Lakes Minerals, Treibacher Schleifmittel, U.S. Electrofused Minerals, and Washington

Mills.19 The record indicates that none of the domestic producers imported the subject merchandise or

was otherwise a related party during the period of review.20 In light of our definition of the domestic like

product, we find one domestic industry consisting of all domestic producers of refined BAO.

III. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY IF 

THE ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDER IS REVOKED

For the reasons stated below, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on

refined BAO from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the

domestic industry producing the domestic like product within a reasonably foreseeable time.

A. Legal Standard In a Five-Year Review

In a five-year review conducted under section 751(c) of the Act, Commerce will revoke an

antidumping duty order unless (1) it makes a determination that dumping or subsidization is likely to

continue or recur and (2) the Commission makes a determination that revocation of the antidumping duty

order “would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably

foreseeable time.”21 The Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”), Statement of Administrative

Action (“SAA”), states that “under the likelihood standard, the Commission will engage in a counterfactual analysis; it must decide the likely impact in the reasonably foreseeable future of an important

change in the status quo – the revocation or termination of a proceeding and the elimination of its
 22 The SAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. I, at 883-84 (1994). The SAA states that “[t]he likelihood of injury

standard applies regardless of the nature of the Commission’s original determination (material injury, threat of

material injury, or material retardation of an industry). Likewise, the standard applies to suspended investigations

that were never completed.” SAA at 883. 

 23 While the SAA states that “a separate determination regarding current material injury is not necessary,” it

indicates that “the Commission may consider relevant factors such as current and likely continued depressed

shipment levels and current and likely continued [sic] prices for the domestic like product in the U.S. market in

making its determination of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of material injury if the order is revoked.” 

SAA at 884.

 24 See NMB Singapore Ltd. v. United States, 288 F. Supp. 2d 1306, 1352 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2003) (“‘likely’ means

probable within the context of 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c) and 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)”), aff’d without opinion, 140 Fed.

Appx. 268 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-153 at 7-8 (Ct. Int’l Trade Dec. 24,

2002) (same); Usinor Industeel, S.A. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-152 at 4 n.3 & 5-6 n.6 (Ct. Int’l Trade Dec. 20,

2002) (“more likely than not” standard is “consistent with the court’s opinion”; “the court has not interpreted ‘likely’

to imply any particular degree of ‘certainty’”); Indorama Chemicals (Thailand) Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-

105 at 20 (Ct. Int’l Trade Sept. 4, 2002) (“standard is based on a likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury,

not a certainty”); Usinor v. United States, Slip Op. 02-70 at 43-44 (Ct. Int’l Trade July 19, 2002) (“‘likely’ is

tantamount to ‘probable,’ not merely ‘possible’”).

 25 For a complete statement of Commissioner Okun’s interpretation of the likely standard, see Additional Views

of Vice Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun Concerning the “Likely” Standard in Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy

Steel Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from Argentina, Brazil, Germany, and Italy, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-362 (Review)

and 731-TA-707-710 (Review) (Remand), USITC Pub. 3754 (Feb. 2005).

 26 Commissioner Lane notes that, consistent with her views in Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from Italy, Inv. No.

AA1921-167 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 3698 (June 2004) at 15-17, she does not concur with the U.S. Court of

International Trade’s interpretation of “likely” but she will apply the Court’s standard in this review and all

subsequent reviews until either Congress clarifies the meaning or the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

addresses the issue.

 27 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).

 28 SAA at 887. Among the factors that the Commission should consider in this regard are “the fungibility or

differentiation within the product in question, the level of substitutability between the imported and domestic

products, the channels of distribution used, the methods of contracting (such as spot sales or long-term contracts),

and lead times for delivery of goods, as well as other factors that may only manifest themselves in the longer term,

such as planned investment and the shifting of production facilities.” Id.

 29 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

6

restraining effects on volumes and prices of imports.”22 Thus, the likelihood standard is prospective in

nature.23 The U.S. Court of International Trade has found that “likely,” as used in the five-year review

provisions of the Act, means “probable,” and the Commission applies that standard in five-year reviews.24

25 26

The statute states that “the Commission shall consider that the effects of revocation or termination

may not be imminent, but may manifest themselves only over a longer period of time.”27 According to

the SAA, a “‘reasonably foreseeable time’ will vary from case-to-case, but normally will exceed the

‘imminent’ timeframe applicable in a threat of injury analysis in original investigations.”28

Although the standard in a five-year review is not the same as the standard applied in an original

antidumping duty investigation, it contains some of the same fundamental elements. The statute provides

that the Commission is to “consider the likely volume, price effect, and impact of imports of the subject

merchandise on the industry if the orders are revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated.”29 It

directs the Commission to take into account its prior injury determination, whether any improvement in

the state of the industry is related to the order or the suspension agreement under review, whether the

industry is vulnerable to material injury if the orders are revoked or the suspension agreement is
 30 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). Commerce did not make any duty absorption findings with respect to the order under

review. See Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited

Sunset Review, 74 Fed. Reg. 4138 (Jan. 23, 2009). 

 31 The statute further provides that the presence or absence of any factor that the Commission is required to

consider shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the Commission’s determination. 19 U.S.C. §

1675a(a)(5). While the Commission must consider all factors, no one factor is necessarily dispositive. SAA at 886.

 32 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a) authorizes the Commission to “use the facts otherwise available” in reaching a

determination when: (1) necessary information is not available on the record or (2) an interested party or other

person withholds information requested by the agency, fails to provide such information in the time, form, or manner

requested, significantly impedes a proceeding, or provides information that cannot be verified pursuant to section

782(i) of the Act. 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a). The verification requirements in section 782(i) are applicable only to

Commerce. 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(i). See Titanium Metals Corp., 155 F. Supp. 2d at 765 (“[T]he ITC correctly

responds that Congress has not required the Commission to conduct verification procedures for the evidence before

it, or provided a minimum standard by which to measure the thoroughness of a Commission investigation.”).

 33 Commissioner Okun notes that the statute authorizes the Commission to take adverse inferences in five-year

reviews, but such authorization does not relieve the Commission of its obligation to consider the record evidence as

a whole in making its determination. 19 U.S.C. § 1677e. She generally gives credence to the facts supplied by the

participating parties and certified by them as true, but bases her decision on the evidence as a whole, and does not

automatically accept participating parties’ suggested interpretations of the record evidence. Regardless of the level

of participation and the interpretations urged by participating parties, the Commission is obligated to consider all

evidence relating to each of the statutory factors and may not draw adverse inferences that render such analysis

superfluous. “In general, the Commission makes determinations by weighing all of the available evidence regarding

a multiplicity of factors relating to the domestic industry as a whole and by drawing reasonable inferences from the

evidence it finds most persuasive.” SAA at 869.

 34 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). 

 35 The Commission recognized that the decline in apparent U.S. consumption may have been overstated due to

misclassification of refined and crude BAO and overinclusion of white and pink aluminum oxide in the relevant

HTSUS subheading. Original Confidential Views at 17. 

7

terminated, and any findings by Commerce regarding duty absorption pursuant to 19 U.S.C.

§ 1675(a)(4).30 31

No respondent interested party has participated in this review. The record, therefore, contains

limited information with respect to the industry producing refined BAO in China. Accordingly, we rely

on the facts available on the record when appropriate, which consist primarily of information from the

original investigation and information collected in this five-year review, including that submitted by the

Domestic Parties.32 33

B. Conditions of Competition and the Business Cycle

In evaluating the likely impact of the subject imports on the domestic industry, the statute directs

the Commission to consider all relevant economic factors “within the context of the business cycle and

conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”34 The following conditions of

competition are relevant to our determination.

Demand. In the original investigation, the Commission found that demand for refined BAO

declined over the period examined. This decline reportedly was caused by factors such as an overall

deterioration in the economy, weak conditions in the refractory and steel industries, and increasing

imports of downstream products. The quantity of apparent U.S. consumption fell by *** percent between

2000 and 2001, by *** percent between 2001 and 2002, and by *** percent when comparing the first six

months of 2002 (“interim 2002”) with the first six months of 2003 (“interim 2003”).35
 36 CR at I-11, PR at I-10. In the original investigation the Commission stated that there were three main end-use

markets for refined BAO: refractories, abrasives, and industrial. As explained in the staff report for this review,

industry publications treat the abrasives and industrial end uses as a single market (the abrasives market), and we

have done so also for this review. Id. Abrasives account for about 60 percent of worldwide demand for refined

BAO, and refractory uses make up most of the remaining 40 percent. CR at I-12, PR at I-10.

 37 CR at I-54, PR at I-40.

 38 CR at I-43 and I-45, PR at I-33-I-34.

 39 CR at I-56, PR at I-43.

 40 CR at I-54, PR at I-40.

 41 CR at I-54, PR at I-40.

 42 CR at I-54, PR at I-40.

 43 Domestic Parties’ Final Comments (Feb. 5, 2009) at 4.

 44 A recent forecast for fused alumina products (fused alumina is a granular material with a high density, low

porosity, low permeability, and high refractoriness; and is a product category broader than refined BAO, CR at I-11,

PR at I-9) generally indicates that demand may be fairly stable in the short term, but could easily decline slightly

over the longer term if manufacturing activity slows further. CR at I-54-I-55, PR at I-40 and I-43.

 45 Original Determination at 12-13. 

 46 Original Determination at 13. 

 47 Original Determination at 13-14. 

8

The two principal end-use applications for refined BAO are abrasives and refractories.36

Accordingly, demand for refined BAO is dependent on the demand for abrasives and refractories, which,

in turn, is heavily dependent on the manufacturing industries using these products, such as the steel and

construction industries.37 There is some information in the record indicating that demand for refined

BAO has been dampened by technological changes affecting the use of both abrasives and refractories.38

In addition, purchasers of refined BAO are considering using higher priced abrasives instead as prices of

the two have converged.39

Generally, demand for refined BAO for refractories is reported to have increased in the period

following the imposition of the antidumping duty order as a result of rising worldwide steel production

and increased demand for steel products in China.40 Demand for refined BAO used in abrasives is

reported to have increased from 2003 to 2005 and to have been stable or declining slightly since 2005.41

By 2008, overall demand for refined BAO is reported to have suffered as a result of the recessions in the

United States and Europe and the slowing of economic growth in China and India.42 The Domestic

Parties maintain that demand for refined BAO will decline sharply in 2009 as a result of upheaval in the

metal polishing industry (especially related to automotive production) and a drop in steel production.43 44

Supply. In the original investigation, the Commission noted several changes in the domestic

industry during the period examined (the acquisition by Washington Mills of the refined BAO operations

of another domestic producer, Exolon; the cessation of production by 3M; and the beginning of domestic

production by C-E Minerals).45 The Commission also noted sales by the Defense Logistics Agency

(“DLA”) of its stockpile of crude aluminum oxide (the raw material used by domestic producers) at low

prices in 2001 and 2002. One domestic producer, Washington Mills, purchased this raw material from

the DLA stockpile. With the exception of the DLA stockpile sales, all domestic producers of refined

BAO obtained their raw material from foreign sources, including China, as there was no domestic

production of crude BAO.46 Finally, the Commission stated in the original investigation that the volume

of nonsubject imports declined over the period examined, while recognizing that problems with HTSUS

data might have affected the data.47

There have been several changes in the structure of the domestic industry since the original

investigation. A new domestic producer, U.S. Electrofused Materials, moved into its Aliquippa, PA
 48 CR/PR at Table D-4 and n.3.

 49 CR at I-18, PR at I-14.

 50 Id.

 51 CR at I-20-I-25, PR at I-15-I-19.

 52 DLA stockpiles of crude aluminum oxide were exhausted during the original investigation. CR at I-31, 

PR at I-22.

 53 CR at I-50, I-60 and I-65, PR at I-39, I-46 and I-50.

 54 CR/PR at Table I-13 and CR at I-49-I-50, PR at I-36 and I-39. 

 55 Original Determination at 13. 

 56 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

 57 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A)-(D). With regard to the second of these factors, the record in this expedited review

does not contain information on inventories of the subject merchandise, or likely increases in inventories. With

(continued...)

9

facility in mid-2002 and was active during the review period;48 Washington Mills sold one of its two U.S.

production facilities;49 and Great Lakes Minerals is no longer an importer of the subject merchandise and

has increased its production of refined BAO in the United States.50

In this review, domestic producers continue to be dependent on foreign sources for crude 

BAO.51 52 Another development affecting supply since the original investigation is that Chinese

producers of refined BAO have reportedly been constrained by shortages of bauxite feedstock and other

production difficulties.53 The Chinese refined BAO industry, however, remains the largest in the world.54

Substitutability. In the original investigation, the Commission observed that purchasers

characterized price as a very important factor in their purchasing decisions. While quality was the

primary consideration for most purchasers, most purchasers reported that the U.S. and Chinese products

were comparable in terms of quality and product consistency, as well as in terms of availability, discounts

offered, minimum quantity requirements, packaging, product range, reliability of supply, and U.S.

transportation costs. Most purchasers ranked the U.S. product as superior to the Chinese product in terms

of technical support and service and inferior only in terms of (lowest) price. Overall, U.S. producers,

importers, and purchasers reported that refined BAO produced in the United States was generally

interchangeable with refined BAO produced in China. The Commission found a moderate to high degree

of substitutability between refined BAO from China and the domestic like product.55 There is no

evidence on the record of this expedited review to suggest that these conditions affecting substitutability

have changed significantly since the original investigation.

Based on the record evidence, we find that these conditions of competition are not likely to

change significantly in the reasonably foreseeable future.

C. Likely Volume of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely volume of imports of subject merchandise if the antidumping duty order

is revoked, the Commission is directed to consider whether the likely volume of imports would be

significant either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States.56 In

doing so, the Commission must consider “all relevant economic factors,” including four enumerated

factors: (1) any likely increase in production capacity or existing unused production capacity in the

exporting country; (2) existing inventories of the subject merchandise, or likely increases in inventories;

(3) the existence of barriers to the importation of the subject merchandise into countries other than the

United States; and (4) 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.57
 57 (...continued)

regard to the third of these factors, third country import barriers, the European Union maintained an antidumping

duty order on all types of fused alumina from October 1997 until October 2002. CR at I-45, PR at I-34. There is no

information in the record as to any current barriers to the importation of the subject merchandise into countries other

than the United States.

 58 Original Confidential Views at 20-21. 

 59 CR/PR at Table I-8. We note that import data for 2000-02, 2003-04, and 2005-07 are from different sources

and that the data for 2003-04 may be overstated by the inclusion of nonsubject refined aluminum oxide. CR/PR at

Table I-8.

 60 CR/PR at Table I-11.

 61 CR at I-49, PR at I-39. Original Determination at VII-1.

 62 CR/PR at Table I-13. According to the Domestic Parties, Chinese refined BAO capacity was at least 1.1

million tons in 2007. Domestic Parties’ Response to the Commission’s Notice of Institution (Nov. 20, 2008) at 9.

10

In the original investigation subject imports totaled 68,994 short tons in 2000, 80,547 short tons

in 2001, and 57,172 short tons in 2002. In interim 2002 and interim 2003, subject imports were 24,259

short tons and 22,073 short tons, respectively. The volume of U.S. shipments of subject imports was

66,046 short tons in 2000, 71,461 short tons in 2001, and 68,864 short tons in 2002. In interim 2002 and

interim 2003, U.S. shipments of subject imports were 40,391 short tons and 28,262 short tons,

respectively. The market share of subject imports (measured on the basis of U.S. shipments) was high

throughout the period examined: *** percent in 2000, *** percent in 2001, *** percent in 2002, *** in

interim 2002, and *** percent in interim 2003. The ratio of subject import volume to production in the

United States was 55.7 percent in 2000, 71.0 percent in 2001, 51.9 percent in 2002, 52.2 percent in

interim 2002, and 34.3 percent in interim 2003. Based on these data, the Commission found the volume

of the subject imports to be significant, particularly in light of the moderate to high degree of

substitutability between subject imports and the domestic product, the importance of price in purchasing

decisions, and the prevalence of underselling by substantial margins.58

Subject imports declined sharply after the imposition of the antidumping duty order in November

2003, although there was a slight increase in these imports at the end of the review period in 2007. 

Subject imports were 57,172 short tons in 2002, 13,333 short tons in 2003, 3,093 short tons in 2004,

1,011 short tons in 2005, 2,076 short tons in 2006, and 2,922 short tons in 2007.59 The market share of

subject imports followed a similar course. U.S. imports from China accounted for *** percent of

apparent U.S. consumption in 2002, but only 1.7 percent in 2007.60

We find that the volume of subject imports would likely be significant if the order was revoked. 

China had the largest refined BAO industry in the world at the time of the original investigation, and its

production capacity has reportedly grown significantly since then. In 2003, worldwide production of

brown fused aluminum oxide was slightly more than 1.1 million short tons, with China accounting for

about 50 percent of this total.61 By 2008, worldwide production of brown fused aluminum oxide had

grown to an estimated 1.5 million short tons. Although there are no precise data on the record, it appears

that China’s share of this worldwide production was at least 50 percent, if not significantly more, given

China’s rapidly expanding production capacity. China’s capacity to produce all fused aluminum oxide

(including the subject merchandise) grew from 661,380 short tons in 2003 to 1,322,744 short tons in

2007, and its share of total worldwide capacity to produce these products increased from 54.1 percent to

70.6 percent in the same period.62 We recognize that there is some indication in the record that Chinese

producers of refined BAO have been constrained by shortages of bauxite feedstock and other production
 63 CR at I-50, I-60 and I-65, PR at I-39, I-46 and I-50.

 64 CR/PR at Table I-11.

 65 CR/PR at Table I-12.

 66 China’s exports of refined BAO accounted for the following percentages of total Chinese shipments: 65.6

percent in 2000, 62.0 percent in 2001, and 61.6 percent in 2002. CR/PR at Table I-17.

 67 China’s exports of fused aluminum oxide to the United States were 174,134 short tons in 2003 and 206,641

short tons in 2007. CR/PR at Table I-18.

 68 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(3). The SAA states that “[c]onsistent with its practice in investigations, in considering

the likely price effects of imports in the event of revocation and termination, the Commission may rely on

circumstantial, as well as direct, evidence of the adverse effects of unfairly traded imports on domestic prices.” SAA

at 886.

 69 Original Determination at 16. 

11

difficulties.63 Nonetheless, it is clear that China’s capacity and production have grown over the review

period and far surpass U.S. consumption, which was 167,086 short tons in 2007.64

The refined BAO industry in China is export oriented. It is by far the world’s largest exporter of

fused aluminum oxide, with its total exports rising from 740,349 short tons in 2003 to 930,306 short tons

in 2007.65 China’s exports exceeded its home market shipments throughout the original period of

investigation.66 Moreover, while China’s exports of refined BAO to the United States fell sharply after

the imposition of the antidumping duty order in 2003, its overall exports of fused aluminum oxide (crude

and refined) to the United States increased over the period of review.67 If the antidumping duty order on

refined BAO were revoked, Chinese producers would have an incentive to shift their exports to the

higher-valued and more labor intensive refined product. 

For the foregoing reasons, we find that imports of refined BAO from China would likely be

significant in the reasonably foreseeable future if the antidumping duty order were revoked. 

D. Likely Price Effects of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely price effects of subject imports if the antidumping order is revoked, the

Commission is directed to consider whether there is likely to be significant underselling by the subject

imports as compared to the domestic like product and whether the subject imports are likely to enter the

United States at prices that otherwise would have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on the

price of the domestic like product.68

In the original determination, the Commission found that subject imports undersold the domestic

like product in 46 of the 56 quarters in which comparisons were possible, with substantial weightedaverage margins of underselling. The Commission observed that prices for both the domestic like product

and subject imports generally declined over the period examined. It recognized that these declining prices

may have been attributable in part to a decline in raw material costs and to weak demand for refined

BAO, but found that the decline in prices could not be completely attributed to these other factors. The

Commission found that there was significant underselling by the subject imports and that the significant

volumes of the subject merchandise depressed prices to a significant degree.69

There is no new product-specific information on prices in the U.S. market on the record in this

expedited review. As explained above, we find that Chinese producers likely would increase exports to

the United States significantly in the reasonably foreseeable future upon revocation of the antidumping

duty order. Consequently, as in the original investigation, subject imports would likely undersell the

domestic like product to gain market share, as nothing in the record of this review suggests that price does

not continue to be an important factor in purchasing decisions. The volume of subject imports at those
 70 The average unit values of imports of refined BAO from China increased from $328 per short ton in 2003 to

$475 per short ton in 2007. CR/PR at Table I-8 (as noted above, the data for 2003 included non-subject refined

aluminum oxide). For the January-October 2008 period, the average unit value of such imports was $829 per short

ton. CR/PR at Table I-9. The prices of Chinese exports of refined BAO to Europe also rose sharply beginning

approximately in mid-2007. CR/PR at Figure I-1. Rising prices of Chinese exports since mid-2007 may have been

partly attributable to an agreement among large Chinese producers to raise prices. CR at I-62, PR at I-47. 

 71 See CR/PR at Figure I-1.

 72 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 73 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). Section 752(a)(6) of the Act states that “the Commission may consider the magnitude

of the margin of dumping” in making its determination in a five-year review. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(6). The statute

defines the “magnitude of the margin of dumping” to be used by the Commission in five-year reviews as “the

dumping margin or margins determined by the administering authority under section 1675a(c)(3) of this title.” 

19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)(C)(iv). See also SAA at 887. Commerce expedited its determination in its review of refined

BAO from China and found that revocation of the antidumping duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of dumping at the following margins: 135.18 percent for Zibo Jinyu Abrasive Co. Ltd., and 135.18

percent for the PRC-wide rate. Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide From the People’s Republic of China: Final

Results of Expedited Sunset Review, 74 Fed. Reg. 4138, 4139 (Jan. 23, 2009).

12

prices, in turn, would likely have significant depressing or suppressing effects on prices of the domestic

like product. 

We recognize that there is some evidence in the record that the prices of U.S. imports of Chinese

product have risen since the original investigation, and particularly that such prices have recently

increased sharply.70 We are not persuaded by the evidence of these price increases, however, that subject

imports would not undersell the domestic product if the order were revoked. An increase in subject

import prices is a likely result of the imposition of an antidumping duty order. In addition, in this case,

the volume of imports associated with the increasing average unit values has been very small. Moreover,

it is only very recently that the prices of exports from China have risen to the levels of U.S. prices,71 and it

is not clear that this would be a lasting development, particularly in light of declining demand for refined

BAO and the likely substantial increases in subject imports.

We conclude that, were the order revoked, subject imports from China likely would increase

significantly at prices that likely would undersell the domestic like product, and those imports would

likely have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on prices for the domestic like product.

E. Likely Impact of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely impact of imports of subject merchandise if the antidumping duty order is

revoked, the Commission is directed to consider all relevant economic factors that are likely to have a

bearing on the state of the industry in the United States, including, but not limited to the following:

(1) likely declines in output, sales, market share, profits, productivity, return on investments, and

utilization of capacity; (2) likely negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth,

ability to raise capital, and investment; and (3) 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.72 All relevant economic factors are to be considered within the context of the

business cycle and the conditions of competition that are distinctive to the industry.73 As instructed by the

statute, we have considered the extent to which any improvement in the state of the domestic industry is

related to the order at issue and whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the order is

revoked.

In the original investigation, the Commission found that most of the domestic industry’s

performance indicators were weak throughout the period examined and that many worsened over the

period. At the same time, subject imports were present in significant volumes and were underselling
 74 Original Confidential Views at 25-27. 

 75 See CR/PR at Table I-5.

 76 As noted above, the data for the domestic industry’s performance in 2002 excluded information pertaining to

Great Lakes Minerals, which the Commission excluded from the domestic industry as a related party in the original

investigation. Because we have not excluded Great Lakes Minerals from the domestic industry in this review, its

information is included in the data for 2007.

 77 CR/PR at Table I-4 and n.3.

 78 The domestic industry’s capacity was 250,000 short tons in 2007, as compared with *** short tons in 2002. 

CR/PR at Table I-5 and Original Investigation Staff Report at Table C-2. 

 79 The domestic industry’s production was 159,337 short tons in 2007, as compared with *** short tons in 2002. 

CR/PR at Table I-5 and Original Investigation Staff Report at Table C-2.

 80 The domestic industry’s capacity utilization was 63.7 percent in 2007, as compared with *** percent in 2002. 

CR/PR at Table I-5 and Original Investigation Staff Report at Table C-2.

 81 The quantity of the domestic industry’s U.S. shipments was 154,103 short tons in 2007, as compared with ***

short tons in 2002, and the value of those shipments was $87.0 million in 2007, as compared with $*** in 2002. 

CR/PR at Table I-5 and Original Investigation Staff Report at Table C-2.

 82 The domestic industry had net sales of $91.5 million in 2007, as compared with $*** in 2002. CR/PR at Table

I-5 and Original Investigation Staff Report at Table C-2.

 83 Improvements in these indicators can also be observed when comparing data for 2007 with data for 2002 which

includes information pertaining to Great Lakes Minerals. See CR/PR at Table I-5.

 84 The domestic industry had an operating loss of $125,000 in 2007, as compared with an operating loss of $***

in 2002. CR/PR at Table I-5 and Original Investigation Staff Report at Table C-2.

13

domestic producers by significant margins. The Commission recognized that there were substantial

variations in the financial results of domestic producers, but concluded that the weak results of one

producer in particular (***) were due in significant part to subject imports. The Commission also

recognized that declining demand for refined BAO played a role in the domestic industry’s worsening

performance, but concluded that the decline in demand did not detract from the fact that the significant

underselling by subject imports, which were present in large volumes and at an increasing market share

during the period, had a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry.74

In this expedited five-year review, we note that there is only limited information on the record

concerning the condition of the domestic industry. This information is for only one year of the period of

review and pertains to only some of the indicia of the domestic industry’s performance.75 This limited

information does not permit us to determine whether the domestic industry is vulnerable to the

continuation or recurrence of material injury if the antidumping duty order were to be revoked.

We find that the domestic industry has experienced some positive effects as a result of the order.76

U.S. Electrofused Materials moved into its Aliquippa, PA facility in 2002 and operated throughout the

period of review,77 and the industry’s capacity,78 production,79 capacity utilization,80 shipments,81 and net

sales82 were all higher in 2007 than in 2002.83 There was also a slight improvement in the industry’s

financial performance.84

As discussed above, revocation of the antidumping duty order on refined BAO from China would

likely result in a significant increase in subject import volumes, significant subject import underselling,

and significant price suppression or depression. We find that the intensified subject import competition

that would likely occur after revocation of the order would likely have a significant adverse impact on the

domestic industry, especially in a period of declining demand. Specifically, the domestic industry would

likely lose market share to subject imports, which would adversely impact the industry’s production,

shipments, sales, revenues, and employment. Declining production, sales and revenues, as well as

depressed or suppressed prices for the domestic like product, would adversely impact the domestic
14

industry’s profitability, as well as its ability to raise capital and make and maintain necessary capital

investments. 

Given the likelihood of significant subject import volume and adverse price effects absent the

order, we conclude that revocation of the order would likely have a significant adverse impact on the

domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on refined

brown aluminum oxide from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material

injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.
I-1

INFORMATION OBTAINED IN THE REVIEW

 1

 19 U.S.C. 1675(c).

 2 73 FR 57149, October 1, 2008. All interested parties were requested to respond to this notice by submitting the

information requested by the Commission. The Commission’s notice of institution is presented in app. A.

 3

 In accordance with section 751(c) of the Act, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) published a

notice of initiation of a five-year review of the subject antidumping duty order concurrently with the Commission’s

notice of institution. 73 FR 57055, October 1, 2008.

 4

 The Commission received one submission from domestic producers C-E Minerals, Inc. (“C-E Minerals”); Great

Lakes Minerals, LLC (“Great Lakes Minerals”); Treibacher Schleifmittel North America, Inc. (“Treibacher

Schleifmittel”); and Washington Mills Company, Inc. (“Washington Mills”)(collectively referred to herein as

“domestic interested parties”) in response to its notice of institution for the subject review. The domestic interested

parties are represented by the law firm of Schagrin Associates. The domestic interested parties reported that together

they accounted for 80 percent of total U.S. production of RBAO in 2007. Response of domestic interested parties,

November 20, 2008, p. 12.

 5

 The Commission did not receive a response from any respondent interested parties to its notice of institution;

however, an entry of appearance in the review was filed by the law firm of Fischer Fox Global PLLC on behalf of

Saint-Gobain Abrasives (“Saint-Gobain”) and Allied Mineral Products, Inc. (“Allied Mineral”), importers of the

subject merchandise from China.

 6

 74 FR 1706, January 13, 2009. The Commission’s notice of an expedited review appears in app. A. The

Commission’s statement on adequacy is presented in app. B.

 7

 Cited Federal Register notices beginning with the Commission’s institution of a five-year sunset review are

presented in app. A.

I-3

INTRODUCTION

On October 1, 2008, in accordance with section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended

(“the Act”),1

 the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission” or “USITC”) gave notice that it

had instituted a review to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on refined brown

aluminum oxide (“RBAO”) from China would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of material

injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.2 3

 On January 5, 2009, the Commission determined that the

domestic interested party group response to its notice of institution was adequate4

 and that the respondent

interested party group response was inadequate.5

 In the absence of respondent interested party responses

and any other circumstances that would warrant the conduct of a full review, the Commission determined

to conduct an expedited review of the antidumping duty order pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act (19

U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3)).6

 The Commission voted on this review on February 19, 2009, and notified

Commerce of its determination on March 2, 2009. The following tabulation presents selected information

relating to the schedule of this five-year review.7
 8

 The petition was filed by Washington Mills, North Grafton, MA. On November 27, 2002, the petition was

amended to include two additional petitioners, C-E Minerals, King of Prussia, PA, and Treibacher Schleifmittel,

Niagara Falls, NY. Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide From China: Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), USITC

Publication 3643, November 2003, p. I-1. On March 14, 2003, the petitioners further alleged that critical

circumstances existed with respect to imports of RBAO from China. 68 FR 23966, May 6, 2003.

 9

 Commerce further found that critical circumstances existed with respect to subject imports from China. 

Commerce’s determination was company specific only as it applied to Chinese producer/exporter Zibo Jinyu

Abrasive Co., Ltd.; otherwise, Commerce applied adverse facts available for all other Chinese producers/exporters

as an adverse inference that critical circumstances were applicable for companies that refused to cooperate with its

request for information. 68 FR 55589, September 26, 2003.

 10 The Commission found that critical circumstances did not exist with respect to imports of the subject

merchandise from China. 68 FR 64369, November 13, 2003; Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide From China: 

Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), USITC Publication 3643, November 2003, p. 1.

 11 68 FR 65249, November 19, 2003.

I-4

Effective date Action

Federal Register

citation

October 1, 2008 Commission’s institution of five-year review

73 FR 57149 

October 1, 2008

October 1, 2008 Commerce’s initiation of five-year review

73 FR 57055

October 1, 2008

January 5, 2009 Commission’s determination to conduct an expedited five-year review

74 FR 1706

January 13, 2009

January 23, 2009 Commerce’s final determination in its expedited five-year review

74 FR 4138

January 23, 2009

February 19, 2009 Date of the Commission’s vote Not applicable

March 2, 2009 Commission’s determination transmitted to Commerce Not applicable

The Original Investigation

On November 20, 2002, a petition was filed with Commerce and the Commission alleging that an

industry in the United States was materially injured and threatened with further material injury by reason

of less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) imports of RBAO from China.8

 On September 26, 2003, Commerce

made an affirmative final LTFV determination9

 and, on November 10, 2003, the Commission completed

its original investigation, determining that an industry in the United States was materially injured by

reason of LTFV imports of RBAO from China.10 After receipt of the Commission’s final affirmative

determination, Commerce issued an antidumping duty order on imports of RBAO from China.11

Commerce’s Original Determination and Subsequent Review Determinations

Commerce’s original determination was published on September 26, 2003, and the antidumping

duty order concerning RBAO from China was issued on November 19, 2003. Commerce is currently

conducting an administrative review of the subject merchandise from China for the 2006-07 period and

has published its preliminary results; however, the final results of Commerce’s administrative review are
 12 73 FR 72767, December 1, 2008.

 13 See the section of this report entitled “Scope” for information concerning Commerce’s scope rulings.

 14 Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results for the Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping

Duty Order on Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from the PRC, from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary

for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, January 13, 2009, p. 2.

I-5

not expected to be released until the end of March 2009.12 No other administrative reviews have been

completed since the issuance of the antidumping duty order. Although there have been three scope

rulings concerning the antidumping duty order,13 there have been no new shipper reviews, no changed

circumstances determinations, and no duty absorption findings. The order remains in effect for all

manufacturers, producers, and exporters of the subject merchandise.14

Commerce’s Final Result of Expedited Five-Year Review

On November 20, 2008, Commerce notified the Commission that it did not receive an adequate

substantial response to its notice of initiation from respondent interested parties with respect to RBAO

from China and that it would conduct an expedited review of the order. Commerce published the final

result of its review based on the facts available on January 23, 2009. Commerce concluded that

revocation of the antidumping duty order on RBAO from China would likely lead to continuation or

recurrence of dumping at margins determined in its original final determination. Information on

Commerce’s final determination, antidumping duty order, preliminary administrative review

determination, and final results of its expedited five-year review is presented in table I-1.

Table I-1

RBAO: Commerce’s final determination, antidumping duty order, and preliminary administrative

review determination

Action Effective

date

Federal

Register

citation

Period of

investigation/

review

Antidumping duty

margins

FirmspecificCountrywide1

Percent ad valorem

Final determination 09/26/2003 68 FR 55589

04/01/2002-

09/30/2002 135.182 135.18

Antidumping duty order 11/19/2003 68 FR 65249 -- 135.182 135.18

Preliminary results of

administrative review 12/01/2008 73 FR 72767

11/01/2006-

10/31/2007 54.623 --

Final results of expedited

five-year review 01/23/2009 74 FR 4138 -- 135.182 135.18

 1 The country-wide rate applies to all companies that otherwise have not received a “firm-specific” rate.

 2

 Zibo Jinyu Abrasive Co., Ltd.

 3

 Qingdao Shunxingli Abrasives Co. Ltd. Commerce’s final results of the administrative review are expected to

be issued by the end of March 2009.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.
 15 Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results for the Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping

Duty Order on Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from the PRC, from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary

for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, January 13, 2009, pp. 3-4.

 16 19 CFR 159.64(g).

 17 Customs’ CDSOA Annual Reports 2003-08,

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/priority_trade/add_cvd/cont_dump/.

 18 68 FR 65249, November 19, 2003.

I-6

In its final results, Commerce explained that “{i}n determining whether revocation of an

antidumping duty order is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, the Department shall

consider (a) the weighted-average dumping margin for the investigation that continued at any level above

de minimis after the issuance of the order, and (b) imports of the subject merchandise for the period

before and after the issuance of the order. . .” With respect to the subject review, Commerce found that

“dumping margins have continued to exist at levels above de minimis since the issuance of the order, and

there have been substantially lower import levels after the imposition of the order when compared to

pre-order levels. . .” Therefore, Commerce found that dumping would likely continue or recur if the order

were revoked.15

Distribution of Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act Funds to Affected Domestic Producers

Qualified U.S. producers of RBAO are eligible to receive disbursements from U.S. Customs and

Border Protection (“Customs”) under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000

(“CDSOA”), also known as the Byrd Amendment.16 Certifications were filed with Customs by three

claimants (C-E Minerals, Treibacher Schleifmittel, and Washington Mills) with respect to RBAO from

China during 2005-07. No other CDSOA claims/disbursements were made with respect to the subject

merchandise from China prior to 2005.17 Table I-2 presents CDSOA claims and disbursements for

Federal fiscal years 2005-08.

Related Commission Investigations and Reviews

The Commission has conducted no other related investigations or reviews concerning RBAO.

THE PRODUCT

Scope

In its original antidumping duty order, Commerce defined the subject merchandise as follows:

The merchandise covered by this investigation is ground, pulverized or refined brown

artificial corundum, also known as refined brown aluminum oxide or brown fused

alumina, in grit size of 3/8 inch or less. Excluded from the scope of the investigation is

crude artificial corundum in which particles with a diameter greater than 3/8 inch

constitute at least 50 percent of the total weight of the entire batch. The scope includes

brown artificial corundum in which particles with a diameter greater than 3/8 inch

constitute less than 50 percent of the total weight of the batch.18

Commerce has received three separate requests for scope rulings since the original antidumping

duty order date. The requestors, outcomes, and completion dates of Commerce’s scope rulings are listed

in table I-3.
I-7

Table I-2

RBAO: CDSOA claims and disbursements, Federal fiscal years 2005-081 2

Year Claimant

Share of yearly

allocation Certification amount3 Amount disbursed

Percent Dollars

2005

C-E Minerals 24.90 27,939,245.54 47,893.77

Treibacher Schleifmittel 22.47 25,208,666.00 43,212.98

Washington Mills 52.63 59,050,482.00 101,225.00

Total, 2005 100.00 112,198,393.54 192,331.75

2006

C-E Minerals 18.30 29,900,060.00 90,504.54

Treibacher Schleifmittel 22.92 37,446,347.00 113,346.41

Washington Mills 58.77 96,007,586.00 290,605.53

Total, 2006 100.00 163,353,993.00 494,456.48

2007

C-E Minerals 18.42 42,828,996.43 116,873.79

Treibacher Schleifmittel 22.54 52,400,442.61 142,992.81

Washington Mills 59.04 137,278,556.00 374,612.25

Total, 2007 100.00 232,508,005.044 634,478.85

2008

C-E Minerals 19.16 48,820,171.37 115,213.06

Treibacher Schleifmittel 23.31 59,400,181.80 140,181.33

Washington Mills 57.53 146,595,586.00 345,957.93

Total, 2007 100.00 254,815,939.17 601,352.32

 1 The Federal fiscal year is October 1-September 30.

 2

 No CDSOA claims and disbursements were made with respect to RBAO from China prior to 2005.

 3

 Qualifying expenditures incurred by domestic producers since the issuance of an order.

 4

 Total presented as reported in Annual Report does not add to figures shown.

Source: Customs’ CDSOA Annual Reports 2003-08, http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/priority_trade/add_cvd/cont_dump/.

Table I-3

RBAO: Commerce’s scope rulings

Requestor Scope ruling Date of

completion

Federal Register

citation

Cometals Division

of Commercial

Metals Co.; Wester

Mineralien SA (Pty)

Ltd.; and

Polmineral Sp.zo.o.

Exclusion request granted. Crude brown

aluminum oxide, in which particles with a

diameter greater than 3/8 inch constitute at least

50 percent of the total weight of the entire batch,

that is purchased from China and then refined in

a country other than China is outside the scope

of the order. February 3, 2004

70 FR 24533

(May 10, 2005)

Cometals Division

of Commercial

Metals Co.

Exclusion request granted. Black aluminum

oxide is excluded from the scope of the

antidumping duty order. February 7, 2005

70 FR 41374 

(July 19, 2005)

3M Co.

Exclusion request denied. Semi-friable

aluminum oxide and heat-treated aluminum

oxide are within the scope of the antidumping

duty order. October 1, 2008 (1

)

 1 Commerce’s scope ruling has not yet been published in the Federal Register.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices and Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results for the Expedited Sunset

Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from the PRC, from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy

Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, January 13, 2009, p. 2.
 19 In the original investigation, the Commission reported that other than imports from Canada and possibly

Brazil, the imports reported in official import statistics were believed to be predominately, if not totally, white and

pink refined product. The data for “other sources” presented in the Commission’s staff report in the original

investigation, therefore, included only imports from Canada and Brazil. The staff report further noted that those data

were overstated to the extent that white and pink product (in particular from Brazil) were included in the data. 

Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide From China: Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), USITC Publication 3643,

November 2003, p. I-1, fn. 5.

 20 RBAO imported into the United States has a “free” column 1-special duty rate for eligible goods under the

following programs: Generalized System of Preferences, United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement, United

States-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, North American Free Trade Agreement (Canada and

Mexico), United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement, Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act, United States-Israel

Free Trade Area, Andean Trade Preference Act, United States-Jordan Free Trade Area Implementation Act,

Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, United

States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement, and

United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. A 4.1 percent column 2 rate of duty applies to

RBAO imported from Cuba and North Korea.

 21 Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide From China: Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), USITC Publication

3643, November 2003, p. 7.

 22 The Commission reported in the original investigation that there were six domestic producers of RBAO, five

of which imported the subject merchandise from China during the period examined and were therefore considered

(continued...)

I-8

U.S. Tariff Treatment

During the original investigation, the subject merchandise was imported under statistical

reporting number 2818.10.2000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTS”). 

Imports that entered the United States under this provision included not only refined brown aluminum

oxide, but also items outside the scope of the investigation (e.g., white and pink refined aluminum

oxide).19 However, beginning in 2005, separate data have been collected on white, pink, and ruby

aluminum oxide and on the brown product that is subject to the order. The white, pink, and ruby product

is currently imported under HTS statistical reporting number 2818.10.2010 (“white, pink or ruby,

containing more than 97.5 percent by weight of aluminum oxide”) and the subject merchandise is

currently imported under HTS statistical reporting number 2818.10.2090 (“other”). RBAO, imported

under statistical reporting number 2818.10.2090 (“artificial corundum, whether or not chemically defined: 

in grains, or ground, pulverized or refined, other”), has a normal trade relations tariff rate of 1.3 percent

ad valorem applicable to imports from China.20

Domestic Like Product and Domestic Industry

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. The domestic

industry is the collection of 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 determination, the Commission defined the domestic like product as all

merchandise corresponding to the scope of the investigation, as well as any RBAO where particles with a

diameter greater than 3/8 inch constitute at least 50 percent of the total weight of the entire batch, as long

as this product has been crushed, screened, and sorted into consistent sizes.21 The Commission defined

the domestic industry as all U.S. producers of the domestic like product, as defined above, with the

exception of Great Lakes Minerals, which was excluded from the domestic industry as a related party.22
 22 (...continued)

related parties under the statute. However, the Commission excluded only Great Lakes Minerals from the domestic

industry. Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide From China: Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), USITC Publication

3643, November 2003, pp. 7 and 10. Further information concerning related party issues is contained in the section

of this report entitled “Related Party Issues.”

 23 Response of domestic interested parties, November 20, 2008, p. 13.

 24 Response of domestic interested parties, November 20, 2008, pp. 4-5.

 25 Much of the industry information presented throughout this report is from articles published in Industrial

Minerals, a London-based publication that is a source of information for the global industrial minerals industry.

 26 Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide From China: Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), USITC Publication

3643, November 2003, p. I-2.

 27 Backus, Rachel, “Uphill Struggle,” Industrial Minerals, December 2007, p. 33.

 28 Global annual production estimates for brown and white fused alumina is approximately 1 million short tons

and 500,000 short tons, respectively. Tran, Alison, “Alumina: Fused and Abused,” Industrial Minerals, July 2007,

p. 37.

 29 Backus, Rachel, “Uphill Struggle,” Industrial Minerals, December 2007, p. 33; Tran, Alison, “Alumina: 

Fused and Abused,” Industrial Minerals, July 2007, pp. 37-43; Taylor, Lindsey, “Hot Stuff: Tabular Alumina Takes

the Heat,” Industrial Minerals, June 2003, p. 43; and Kendall, Tom, “Fused Alumina: Grinding Out a Living,”

Industrial Minerals, October 2005.

 30 Tran, Alison, “Alumina: Fused and Abused,” Industrial Minerals, July 2007, p. 37.

I-9

The domestic interested parties indicated in their response to the Commission’s notice of

institution in this review that they agree with the definitions of the domestic like product and domestic

industry as set out in the Commission’s notice of institution and its final determination in the original

investigation.23 However, they point out that Great Lakes Minerals is no longer an importer but is now a

“significant” producer of RBAO in the United States.24

Physical Characteristics and Uses25

Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide

RBAO (also known as brown fused alumina grain or grits) is a solid inorganic chemical of the

formula Al2O3. It is a processed form of aluminum oxide (also referred to as alumina) found in mined

bauxites.26 RBAO is processed from fused alumina, which is a granular material with a high density, low

porosity, low permeability, and high refractoriness. In general, fused alumina has a melting point of

approximately 2,500 degrees Celsius. Fused alumina (or fused aluminum oxide) is produced in various

forms, the most common of which are brown fused alumina (“BFA”) and white fused alumina

(“WFA”).27

RBAO is the most common form of fused alumina, accounting for about two-thirds of the global

market, whereas the market for the white form is roughly half the size of the brown.28 In addition, exports

of RBAO from China are generally more widely available than the white, pink, and red forms.29

Industrial Minerals described the primary differences in the two forms of fused alumina in very simple

terms as follows: “BFA is considered the tougher all-purpose commodity material with a lower

specification and, up until now, a lower price. WFA is the specialist for which consumers pay a

premium.”30
 31 The Commission reported in the original investigation that there were three main end-use markets: 

refractories, abrasives, and industrial. It also reported that the refractory market was the largest end-use market,

consisting of comparatively fewer customers requiring large quantities of relatively coarser RBAO. However, the

Commission’s staff report in the original investigation divided the end use markets for abrasives into the

bonded/coated market and the industrial market. In agreement with industry publications, these two end-use markets

have been combined for purposes of the discussion in this report. Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide From China: 

Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), USITC Publication 3643, November 2003, p. II-1.

 32 Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide From China: Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), USITC Publication

3643, November 2003, p. I-2; Kendall, Tom, “Fused Alumina: Grinding Out a Living,” Industrial Minerals,

October 2005; O’Driscoll, Mike, “Basics of Abrasives, Part 1: Types and Manufacture,” Industrial Minerals,

January 2007, pp. 37-38; Backus, Rachel, “Uphill Struggle,” Industrial Minerals, December 2007, pp. 32-38; and

“Synthetic Alumina Steels Show,” Industrial Minerals, March 2008, pp. 39-45.

 33 Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide From China: Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), USITC Publication

3643, November 2003, p. I-3, and Backus, Rachel, “Uphill Struggle,” Industrial Minerals, December 2007, pp. 32-

38.

I-10

There are two main end-use applications for RBAO: abrasives and refractories.31 RBAO is used

in the manufacture of a variety of abrasive products, such as bonded abrasives (e.g., grinding wheels for

high tensile materials), coated abrasives (e.g., paper, discs and belts for wood and metalworking), and

surface preparation products (e.g., blast media, ceramic deburring tools, and cutting tools to roughen,

shape, buff, polish, or finish a workpiece). Referred to as the “workhorse of the abrasives industry,” it is

considered the most widely used abrasive. RBAO is also used in various refractory applications, such as

the linings of furnaces and ovens. Abrasives account for about 60 percent of the worldwide demand for

RBAO, with refractory uses accounting for the bulk of the remaining 40 percent. Other specialty uses for

RBAO include pigments, chemical reagents, optical powders, and non-slip flooring and floor tiles.32

Refined White, Pink, and Ruby Aluminum Oxide

Refined white, pink, and red (or ruby) aluminum oxides are generally more chemically pure (in

terms of aluminum oxide content) than RBAO. The chemical purity of the brown product typically

ranges from 93.0 to 97.0 percent pure, whereas the chemical purity of the white product ranges from 99.5

to 99.9 percent. The pink and red forms of the product, which are produced by a very small number of

companies, are produced by the addition of chromium oxide to the white fused alumina, which increases

the toughness of the finished product. Pink fused alumina, which contains less than two percent

chromium oxide with small amounts of titanium oxide, has medium-sized sharp or blocky grains, which

make it suitable for precision grinding of hard alloy steels. Red fused alumina, which has a higher

chromium oxide content of less than three percent with small quantities of silicon oxide, ferrous oxide,

sodium oxide, calcium oxide, and magnesium oxide, has blocky, sharp edged, friable grains and is

tougher than pink grades. The higher purity white fused alumina is made from Bayer calcined specialty

alumina, whereas the brown fused alumina is produced from a calcined non-metallurgical bauxite

feedstock. In addition to differences in purity, other differences in characteristics between RBAO and the

pink and white products include hardness and friability.33

The more chemically pure refined white and pink aluminum oxides are ordinarily used in

separate, specialized abrasive and refractory applications where brown aluminum oxide, because of the

higher level of impurities, will not suffice. They ordinarily do not compete in end-use applications

because of the premium price commanded by the more pure product. For example, in refractory
 34 Backus, Rachel, “Uphill Struggle,” Industrial Minerals, December 2007, pp. 32-38, and Tran, Alison,

“Alumina: Fused and Abused,” Industrial Minerals, July 2007, pp. 37-43.

 35 One fused alumina processor with facilities in Germany, Poland, and South Africa reported standardized

grading attained by micro powders at FEPA grain size F1500. “Wester Expands Fused Alumina/SiC Microgrits

Capacity,” Industrial Minerals, December 2004, p. 15.

 36 “Minerals to the Grindstone,” Industrial Minerals, January 2009, pp. 45-50; “Wester Expands Fused

Alumina/SiC Microgrits Capacity,” Industrial Minerals, December 2004, p. 15; and Kendall, Tom, “Fused Alumina: 

Grinding Out a Living,” Industrial Minerals, October 2005.

 37 Unless indicated otherwise, the discussion in this section is based on information contained in Refined Brown

Aluminum Oxide From China: Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), USITC Publication 3643, November 2003, p.

I-3.

 38 Producing fused alumina with an electric arc furnace is a very energy intensive process. At the time of the

original investigation, none of the U.S. RBAO producers operated an electric arc furnace in the United States. 

Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide From China: Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), USITC Publication 3643,

November 2003, p. I-3, and Backus, Rachel, “Uphill Struggle,” Industrial Minerals, December 2007, pp. 32-38. 

 39 O’Driscoll, Mike, “Basics of Abrasives, Part 1: Types and Manufacture,” Industrial Minerals, January 2007,

pp. 35-39.

I-11

applications, RBAO tends to compete more with calcined clays and calcined bauxite, whereas the refined

white fused alumina competes more with tabular alumina.34

Micro Powders

Micro powders (or microgrits) are fine-milled grades of fused alumina,35 which are used in a wide

range of abrasive applications in the industrial and electronic industries where fine surface finishing and

polishing is required. Prices of these micro powders are reportedly nearly three to five times higher than

fused alumina in traditional grit sizes, typically well exceeding $1,000 per short ton. Estimates generally

suggest that micro powders account for less than ten percent of the overall global alumina abrasives

market but that the demand for the fine milled grades is growing ahead of that for traditional grit sizes. 

The reported growth in micro powders and the substantially higher prices that the fine-milled grades

demand has attracted new capacity worldwide with the installation of micronising lines in processing

facilities.36

Manufacturing Process37

Production of RBAO uses bauxite ores which have been oven dried at high heat (calcined) to

drive off both free moisture and chemically combined water. The calcined bauxite is then heated (or

fused) to its melting point (about 2100 degrees Fahrenheit) in an electric arc furnace.38 The varying

amounts of impurities, such as iron oxide, silica, and titania, are removed in the electric arc furnace by

melting the calcined bauxite with additions of carbon and iron. The carbon reacts with the oxygen in the

impurities to form carbon monoxide gas, and the impurities are reduced to their corresponding metals,

which, being heavier than aluminum oxide, settle to the bottom of the melt. The addition of iron to the

melt results in the formation of iron salts (e.g., ferrosilicates) which also settle to the bottom. The brown

aluminum oxide ingot is cooled and removed from the vessel. The impurities are removed from the

bottom of the ingot, and the brown aluminum oxide is then refined (crushed, ground, and screened) into

specific particle sizes. In general, the more uniform in size, the more expensive and difficult it is to

manufacture.39 The sized material is then packaged for shipping to end users and distributors. RBAO is
 40 Domestic producers Washington Mills and Treibacher Schleifmittel reported in the original investigation that

they produced the brown and white products in separate facilities.

 41 McLeod, Don, “Special Section/Resource Management: Success Story: Recycling Spent Aluminum Oxide,”

October 1, 2008, found at http://www.ceramicindustry.com, and Olson, Donald W., “Abrasives, Manufactured,”

U.S. Geological Survey 2007 Minerals Yearbook.

 42 Unless indicated otherwise, the discussion in this section is based on information contained in Refined Brown

Aluminum Oxide From China: Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), USITC Publication 3643, November 2003, p. 

I-3.

 43 Response of domestic interested parties, November 20, 2008, p. 10.

 44 See also Tran, Alison, “Alumina: Fused and Abused,” Industrial Minerals, July 2007, pp. 37-43.

 45 The discussion in this section is based on information from Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide From China: 

Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), USITC Publication 3643, November 2003, pp. I-4 and II-1.

I-12

produced in facilities separate from white and pink aluminum oxide because there must be no brown

aluminum oxide mixing with the white and pink product.40

Traditionally, spent aluminum oxide, including RBAO, is transported to landfills for final

disposal. However, up to 30 percent of fused aluminum oxide is reportedly recycled back into the

manufacturing process in North America. Domestic RBAO producer Washington Mills developed a

process that enables it to collect spent aluminum oxide grains and recycle the spent product back into its

aluminum oxide furnaces located in Canada. The spent aluminum oxide is blended with new bauxite and

the mixture is fed into specially designed furnaces that melt and purify the liquid product. Recycling

spent aluminum oxide reportedly has enabled Washington Mills to control overall costs in light of

increasing raw materials costs, declining quality of raw material inputs, rising landfill costs, tighter

landfill regulations, and higher freight costs.41

Interchangeability and Customer and Producer Perceptions42

U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers responding to Commission questionnaires in the

original investigation agreed that RBAO produced in the United States, China, and other nonsubject

countries were interchangeable. They further noted that RBAO is produced to American National

Standards Institute (“ANSI”) specifications, with many customers requesting certification of the product. 

Producers in the United States and China reported in the original investigation that they had certified the

RBOA they produced to ANSI standards. The domestic interested parties in this review indicated in their

response to the Commission’s notice of institution that the domestic like product and the subject imports

from China remain “completely” interchangeable.43

Purchasers reported in the original investigation that refined white and pink aluminum oxide is

perceived differently than RBAO by both end users and sellers. They further reported that refined white

and pink aluminum oxide is ordinarily used in specialized applications where RBAO is not suitable.44

Channels of Distribution45

In general, RBAO shares the same channels of distribution as refined white and pink aluminum

oxide, being sold to distributors and end users. In addition, U.S. producers and importers of RBAO

distribute the product through both distributors and end users. During the period examined in the original

investigation, U.S. producers sold slightly more of their RBAO to end users, whereas importers generally

sold more to distributors. In 2002, U.S. producers shipped 52.4 percent of their product to end users and

47.6 percent to distributors, while importers shipped 37.9 percent to end users and 62.1 percent to

distributors.
 46 In making its determination, the Commission relied on data presented in tables D-3 and D-4 for products 2 and

3, which exclude sales by Great Lakes (which the Commission excluded from the domestic industry as a related

party). ***. Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide From China: Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), USITC

Publication 3643, November 2003, pp. V-3 - V-5 and tables D-3 and D-4.

 47 Further information concerning price trends and factors affecting the price of RBAO are presented in the

section of this report entitled “Prices.”

 48 Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide From China: Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), USITC Publication

3643, November 2003, p. II-5.

 49 Response of domestic interested parties, November 20, 2008, p. 10.

 50 Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide From China: Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), USITC Publication

3643, November 2003, p. I-4.

 51 Tran, Alison, “Alumina: Fused and Abused,” Industrial Minerals, July 2007, pp. 37-43.

I-13

End users and distributors that responded to the purchaser questionnaire in the original

investigation reported that the RBAO they purchased was used in all primary end-use markets; however,

the petitioners noted that purchases by refractory and abrasives (bonded/coated) customers tend to be

made directly from manufacturers or importers, while general industrial customers (for surface

preparation) tend to purchase from distributors. 

Pricing

In the Commission’s original investigation, the questionnaire data showed that prices for both

domestic and Chinese RBAO generally declined and that prices for RBAO imports from China were

lower than domestic prices in most of the quarterly periods examined. The prices reported in the original

investigation ranged from $289 to $719 per short ton for the domestic products and $253 to $833 per

short ton for the Chinese products.46 Historical monthly average price data for January 2003-January

2009 published by Industrial Minerals for RBAO indicate that average prices of European and U.S.

product have remained relatively stable over the past several years at $827 to $882 per short ton, whereas

average prices for the Chinese product have increased markedly from an average low of $358 per short

ton in December 2006 to $959 per short ton in the fourth quarter of 2008, a level noticeably greater than

that reported for the European and U.S. product.47 

In the original investigation, purchasers identified the three major factors considered by their firm

in deciding from whom to purchase RBAO. Sixteen of the 21 responding purchasers reported that quality

was the most important factor, while price was reported as the second most important factor by 14

purchasers, and availability was reported as the third most important factor by 12 purchasers.48 The

domestic interested parties participating in this review contend that since the U.S. and Chinese RBAO are

interchangeable, price remains a very important factor in purchasing decisions. They conclude that

“{t}herefore, if the order on RBAO is revoked, Chinese imports will continue to undersell the domestic

like product and depress prices.”49

With respect to prices for RBAO compared with those for refined white and pink aluminum

oxide, questionnaire respondents in the Commission’s original investigation reported that RBAO sold for

about half the price of the white and pink products.50 RBAO has a lower level of purity and has typically

commanded a much lower price than the white product.51 Industrial Minerals reports that average

European prices for white fused alumina have remained relatively stable since January 2005 at $1,000-
 52 “Prices,” Industrial Minerals, January 2005-January 2009.

 53 Dickson, Ted, “Bauxite Supply in the Red,” Industrial Minerals, August 2008, pp. 54-59; “Prices,” Industrial

Minerals, January 2005-January 2009.

 54 A sixth domestic firm (i.e., 3M) produced RBAO for its own use at a plant in, St. Paul, MN, using crude

product primarily imported from Washington Mills’ Canadian operations until June 2002, when it closed the facility. 

Following the plant’s closure, 3M’s Coated Abrasives Division entered into a long-term RBAO supply agreement

with Washington Mills. Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide From China: Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final),

USITC Publication 3643, November 2003, p. III-4.

 55 Detroit Abrasives *** in the original investigation. Staff Report on Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from

China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), October 9, 2003 (INV-AA-154), p. III-6.

 56 In the preliminary phase of original investigation, Great Lakes Minerals ***. However, in the final phase of

the original investigation, Great Lakes Minerals indicated that it ***. Staff Report on Refined Brown Aluminum

Oxide from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), October 9, 2003 (INV-AA-154), p. III-4.

 57 Staff Report on Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), October

9, 2003 (INV-AA-154), pp. III-1 - III-7.

 58 Response of domestic interested parties, November 20, 2008, pp. 4-5.

I-14

1,300 per short ton.52 However, the price of RBAO has increased markedly since the last half of 2007,

narrowing the gap between refined white fused alumina and RBAO prices.53

THE INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES

U.S. Producers

U.S. industry data collected in the original investigation were based on the questionnaire

responses of five domestic producers that accounted for 100 percent of U.S. production of refined brown

aluminum oxide during 2002.54 The five U.S. producers that participated in the original investigation and

their shares of total domestic production during 2002 were as follows: C-E Minerals (*** percent),

Detroit Abrasives (*** percent),55 Great Lakes Minerals (*** percent),56 Treibacher Schleifmittel (***

percent), and Washington Mills (*** percent).57 

The domestic interested parties participating in this review of the antidumping duty order

concerning U.S. imports of refined brown aluminum oxide from China indicated in their response to the

Commission’s notice of institution that there have been several “modest” changes to the structure of the

domestic industry since the Commission’s original investigation. These changes are listed below:

• Constructed at the former LTV Steel Works industrial park in Aliquippa, PA, U.S. Electrofused

Minerals, a subsidiary of Brazilian integrated producer ELFUSA, currently produces refined

brown aluminum oxide in the United States. 

• Washington Mills sold one of its production facilities (i.e., Lakes Wales, FL). 

• Great Lakes Minerals, a domestic producer that was excluded from the domestic industry during

the Commission’s original investigation because it was largely dependent upon imports of the

subject merchandise, is no longer an importer and is now a “significant” producer of refined

brown aluminum oxide in the United States.58

The domestic interested parties reported in their response that there are currently six domestic

producers of refined brown aluminum oxide: C-E Minerals; Detroit Abrasives; Great Lakes Minerals;
 59 Response of domestic interested parties, November 20, 2008, p. 11.

 60 C-E Minerals company website, found at http://www.ceminerals.com/; Backus, Rachel, “Uphill Struggle,”

Industrial Minerals, December 2007, p. 35; “Imerys Bid for UCM Group PLC,” Industrial Minerals, February 2007;

“C-E and Treibacher,” Industrial Minerals, January 2006, p. 47; and Kendall, Tom, “Fused Alumina: Grinding Out

a Living,” Industrial Minerals, October 2005.

I-15

Treibacher Schleifmittel; U.S. Electrofused Minerals; and Washington Mills.59 Details regarding each

firm’s location(s) and company shares of 2002 and 2007 total domestic production of RBAO are

presented in table I-4.

Table I-4

RBAO: U.S. producers, locations, and company shares of 2002 and 2007 total domestic

production

Firm Location

Share of 2002

reported RBAO

production

(percent)

Estimated share of

2007 domestic

production

(percent)

3M St. Paul, MN (1

) (1)

C-E Minerals Newell, WV *** ***

Detroit Abrasives Owosso, MI *** (2

)

Great Lakes Minerals Wurtland, KY *** ***

Treibacher Schleifmittel Niagara Falls, NY *** ***

U.S. Electrofused Minerals Aliquippa, PA (3

) (2)

Washington Mills

North Grafton, MA

Niagara Falls, NY

Tonawanda, NY *** ***

 Total 100.0 80.0

 1 3M produced RBAO for internal consumption using crude product primarily imported from Washington Mills in

Canada until June 2002, when it closed the facility. Following the plant’s closure, 3M’s Coated Abrasives Division

entered into a long-term RBAO supply agreement with Washington Mills.

 2

 Not available.

 3

 U.S. Electrofused Minerals was not identified as a domestic producer in the original investigation. Press

reports indicate that the company moved into its Aliquippa, PA facility in mid-2002.

Source: Staff Report on Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final),

October 9, 2003 (INV-AA-154), pp. III-1 - III-7; Response of domestic interested parties, November 20, 2008, exh.

VII; and "U.S. Electrofused Moves to New Facility," Ceramic Industry, August 1, 2002.

C-E Minerals

C-E Minerals, a sister company of Treibacher Schleifmittel with 100 percent common ownership,

is part of the Imerys family of companies, headquartered in Paris, France. C-E Minerals, headquartered in

King of Prussia, PA, is a supplier of industrial minerals manufactured and processed at the company’s

plants in the United States (Georgia, Tennessee, and West Virginia), Venezuela, and China. RBAO is

produced by C-E Minerals at its custom sizing and processing plant in Newell, WV. This facility

processes not only RBAO, but also bauxite, silicon carbide, and other imported minerals. The company

imports and processes a range of Chinese refractory and abrasive raw materials supplied from its joint

venture Guizhou Star Minerals located in Xiuwen and Zhanjiang, China.60 According to proprietary

import statistics, C-E Minerals’ imports into the United States include ***.
 61 “C-E and Treibacher,” Industrial Minerals, January 2006, p. 47.

 62 Response of domestic interested parties, November 20, 2008, pp. 7 and 9 and exh. VII; and Staff Report on

Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), October 9, 2003

(INV-AA-154), table VI-2.

 63 Staff Report on Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), October

9, 2003 (INV-AA-154), p. III-6; Detroit Abrasive company website, found at http://detroit-abrasives.com/. Detroit

Abrasive did not provide a response to the Commission’s notice of institution in this review; therefore, companyspecific proprietary data are not available.

 64 According to proprietary import statistics, Great Lakes Minerals’ imports into the United States include ***.

 65 Staff Report on Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), October

9, 2003 (INV-AA-154), pp. III-4- III-6; Great Lakes Minerals company website, found at

http://www.greatlakesminerals.com/; “Great Lakes Minerals,” Industrial Minerals, May 2007, p. 98; and “Great

Lakes Minerals,” Industrial Minerals, August 2005, p. 61.

I-16

During 2005, C-E Minerals installed a new crushing and screening production system to help

address the increased volume of material passing through its facility.61 During 2007, C-E Minerals

reported the capacity to produce RBAO at *** short tons and production at *** short tons, resulting in a

capacity utilization of *** percent. Operating income for 2007 reported by C-E Minerals was *** and

commercial sales were ***; operating income during 2002 was *** and commercial sales were ***. C-E

Minerals reported an operating *** in 2007 compared with *** in 2002.62

Detroit Abrasives

Detroit Abrasives, with an RBAO production facility located in Owosso, MI, is a provider of

aluminum oxide media for use in sandblasting and honing applications. In addition to RBAO, the

company’s product offerings include white, pink, and ruby fused aluminum oxide, aluminum zirconia,

and black and green silicon carbide. The company crushes and sieves purchased crude brown aluminum

oxide from Canada and China into RBAO as a final product. In 2002, ***.63

Great Lakes Minerals

Great Lakes Minerals was formed in March 1999 as a joint venture owned by Alcoa World

Chemicals (*** percent), PE Materials (*** percent), and PR Minerals (*** percent). On May 31, 2003,

Alcoa World Chemicals sold ***. Using material sourced primarily from ***,64 Great Lakes Minerals

specializes in the processing of industrial minerals for the refractory and abrasives markets. It is one of

the leading processors of bauxite and fused aluminas in the United States with a total annual processing

capacity of over 165,000 short tons. The company’s production facility, located in Wurtland, KY, was

designed to ***. In early 2003, Great Lakes Minerals added capital equipment to increase their crushing

and sizing capability so that the company would be better equipped to handle larger sized material. Also,

in December 2006, press reports indicate that Great Lakes Minerals completed yet another expansion to

increase abrasive fused alumina grit annual capacity. In 2002, ***. In 2005, the company’s total sales to

the refractories industry in the United States accounted for 80 percent of material produced, with 20

percent of material used for abrasive applications.65

During 2007, Great Lakes Minerals reported the capacity to produce RBAO at *** short tons and

production at *** short tons, resulting in a capacity utilization of *** percent. Operating income for 2007

reported by Great Lakes Minerals was *** and commercial sales were ***; operating income during 2002
 66 Response of domestic interested parties, November 20, 2008, pp. 7 and 9 and exh. VII; and Staff Report on

Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), October 9, 2003

(INV-AA-154), table VI-2.

 67 Staff Report on Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), October

9, 2003 (INV-AA-154), p. III-3; Backus, Rachel, “Uphill Struggle,” Industrial Minerals, December 2007, pp. 32-38;

“Imerys Expands Portfolio,” Industrial Minerals, July 2007; “Imerys Bid for UCM Group PLC,” Industrial

Minerals, February 2007; Moore, Paul, “The Cutting Edge,” Industrial Minerals, May 2006, pp. 41-45; “C-E and

Treibacher,” Industrial Minerals, January 2006, p. 47; “World BFA Production Summary (Ex-China),” Industrial

Minerals, May 2005, p. 47; “Corundum Conundrum,” Industrial Minerals, October 2003, pp. 30-39; “Treibacher

Acquires Brazilian Fused Alumina Operation,” Industrial Minerals, November 2002, p. 17; Crossley, Penny,

“Abrasive Bauxite: Giving Proppants the Nod,” Industrial Minerals, July 2002; Kendall, Tom, “Fused Alumina: 

Grinding Out a Living,” Industrial Minerals, October 2005.

 68 Staff Report on Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), October

9, 2003 (INV-AA-154), p. III-3; “World BFA Production Summary (Ex-China),” Industrial Minerals, May 2005, p.

47; Crossley, Penny, “Abrasive Bauxite: Giving Proppants the Nod,” Industrial Minerals, July 2002; Kendall, Tom,

“Fused Alumina: Grinding Out a Living,” Industrial Minerals, October 2005.

 69 Staff Report on Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), October

9, 2003 (INV-AA-154), p. III-3; Moore, Paul, “The Cutting Edge,” Industrial Minerals, May 2006, pp. 41-45;

“Corundum Conundrum,” Industrial Minerals, October 2003, pp. 30-39.

I-17

was *** and commercial sales were ***. Great Lakes Minerals reported an operating *** in 2007

compared with *** in 2002.66

Treibacher Schleifmittel

Treibacher Schleifmittel was founded in 1898 in the Austrian village Treibach; “schleifmittel” is

the German word for abrasives. Treibacher Schleifmittel is a sister company of C-E Minerals and is a

wholly owned subsidiary of Imerys, a multinational corporation headquartered in France and a world

leader in the refractory and abrasives fields. The Treibacher group of companies, with headquarters in

Austria, is reportedly the largest worldwide manufacturer of fused alumina grains for the abrasive and

refractory markets, operating plants in Austria, Brazil, China, Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, Slovenia,

United States, and Venezuela. Treibacher Schleifmittel’s worldwide annual processing capacity for fused

alumina grain products is reportedly more than 300,000 short tons.67 

The company’s Niagara Falls, NY facility acts as a processing center, grinding, sizing, and

treating imported fused aluminas, including RBAO. Material from the company’s worldwide fusion

facilities, including its 90-percent owned Chinese fusion plant, Treibacher Schleifmittel Guizhou Co., is

exported to the United States where it is processed at the company’s facility in Niagara Falls to make high

value products. According to proprietary import statistics, Treibacher Schleifmittel’s imports into the

United States include ***. Additionally, Treibacher Schleifmittel produces white aluminum oxide at its

production facility in Andersonville, GA.68

The Commission reported in 2002 that *** percent of the company’s shipments were for the

abrasives and polishing/blasting markets and *** percent were for the refractory market. Press reports

indicate that Treibacher Schleifmittel supplies approximately 95 percent of its total output to abrasives

markets in 55 countries. A relatively minor amount of the company’s total output supplies the

refractories, ceramics, sand blasting, and surface protection markets. Most of these shipments are made

directly to the customers rather than through distributors or traders.69

During 2007, Treibacher Schleifmittel reported the capacity to produce RBAO at *** short tons

and production at *** short tons, resulting in a capacity utilization of *** percent. Operating income for

2007 reported by Treibacher Schleifmittel was *** and commercial sales were ***; operating income
 70 Response of domestic interested parties, November 20, 2008, pp. 7 at fn. 20 and 9 at fn. 26 and exh. VII; and

Staff Report on Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), October 9,

2003 (INV-AA-154), table VI-2.

 71 Response of domestic interested parties, November 20, 2008, p. 4.

 72 “U.S. Electrofused Moves to New Facility,” Ceramic Industry, August 1, 2002.

 73 U.S. Electrofused Minerals company website, found at http://usminerals.com/.

 74 In 2002, ***.

 75 Washington Mills company website, found at http://www.washingtonmills.com/; Staff Report on Refined

Brown Aluminum Oxide from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), October 9, 2003 (INV-AA-154), pp.

III-1 - III-3; Backus, Rachel, “Uphill Struggle,” Industrial Minerals, December 2007, pp. 32-38; “World BFA

Production Summary (Ex-China),” Industrial Minerals, May 2005, p. 47; and Kendall, Tom, “Fused Alumina: 

Grinding Out a Living,” Industrial Minerals, October 2005.

I-18

during 2002 was *** and commercial sales were ***. Treibacher Schleifmittel reported an operating ***

in 2007 compared with *** in 2002.70

U.S. Electrofused Minerals

U.S. Electrofused Minerals was not identified as a domestic producer in the original investigation

but was identified as a domestic producer of RBAO by domestic interested parties participating in this

review. In their response to the Commission’s notice of institution, the domestic interested parties

reported that U.S. Electrofused Minerals, a subsidiary of Brazilian integrated producer Elfusa Geral de

Eletrofusao Ltda., has completed construction of its plant in Aliquippa, PA, where it produces RBAO.71

Press reports indicate that the company moved into its Aliquippa, PA facility in mid-2002.72 According

to the company’s website, U.S. Electrofused Minerals is “a world-class supplier” of aluminum oxides,

spinel, mullite, alumina zirconia, and silicon carbide. Its products are processed from bauxite mined and

manufactured by its parent company in Brazil, Elfusa, one of the largest manufacturers of fused oxides in

the Southern Hemisphere with an annual capacity to produce over 130,000 short tons of fused oxides. 

Primary markets for the company’s products are the abrasive, refractory, blasting, chemical, and non-skid

industries.73

Washington Mills

Washington Mills, headquartered in North Grafton, MA, produces a wide range of artificial

abrasives, including aluminum oxide abrasives, at facilities located in Tonawanda, NY, Niagara Falls,

NY, and North Grafton, MA.74 The company also has aluminum oxide production facilities located in

Canada and the United Kingdom. On its website, Washington Mills describes itself as follows: “One of

the world’s largest producers of abrasives and fused mineral products, offering an exceptionally wide line

of standard abrasive grain and specialty electro-fused minerals from its worldwide multi-plant

locations.”75

The only producer of aluminum oxide with fusion capacity in North America, Washington Mills

has an annual fusion capacity to produce more than 120,000 short tons of crude fused alumina at its

fusion facilities in Canada. In its Canadian facilities, Washington Mills produces crude aluminum oxide

from bauxite in electric arc furnaces, performs coarse crushing, and then ships this output to its processing

plants in the United States where it further crushes, grinds, and sieves the product, and ultimately packs
 76 Staff Report on Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), October

9, 2003 (INV-AA-154), pp. III-1 - III-3; Backus, Rachel, “Uphill Struggle,” Industrial Minerals, December 2007,

pp. 32-38; “World BFA Production Summary (Ex-China),” Industrial Minerals, May 2005, p. 47; “Corundum

Conundrum,” Industrial Minerals, October 2003, pp. 30-39; and Kendall, Tom, “Fused Alumina: Grinding Out a

Living,” Industrial Minerals, October 2005.

 77 Response of domestic interested parties, November 20, 2008, p. 4.

 78 Washington Mills company website, found at http://www.washingtonmills.com/.

 79 Washington Mills company website, found at http://www.washingtonmills.com/.

 80 Response of domestic interested parties, November 20, 2008, pp. 7 and 9 and exh. VII; and Staff Report on

Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), October 9, 2003

(INV-AA-154), table VI-2.

 81 The Commission excluded Great Lakes Minerals from the domestic industry in the final phase of the original

investigation and, therefore, relied on data presented in table C-2 of the staff report, which excludes all “domestic”

data of Great Lakes Minerals, in making its determination. Since the original investigation, however, the company

ceased importing the subject merchandise and is no longer an interested party. Therefore, for comparison purposes

with data provided by the domestic interested parties in their response to the Commission’s notice of institution in

this review for calendar year 2007, the data presented in the body of this staff report for the period examined in the

original investigation include the data provided by Great Lakes Minerals. Table C-2 from the Commission’s original

staff report (excluding the “domestic” data of Great Lakes Minerals) is provided in appendix C of this report.

I-19

the product for sale to its customers.76 According to proprietary import statistics, in addition to crude

product from Canada, Washington Mills imports crude aluminum oxide from ***. 

Since the antidumping duty order went into effect, Washington Mills has undergone several

structural changes in its business. These changes are listed below:

• From 2002 to 2004, Washington Mills sold its production facilities located in Lakes Wales, FL,

and Thorold, Ontario, Canada.77

• In 2004, Washington Mills added to its capacity with the complete acquisition of Orkla Exolon in

Norway.78

• More recently in 2006, Washington Mills completed the construction of a state-of-the-art

microgrit processing plant at Orkla Exolon in Norway. Equipped with the latest equipment and

technology, the new plant has the advanced capability to produce high quality micro grits and

sub-micron powders.79

During 2007, Washington Mills reported the capacity to produce RBAO in its U.S. facilities at

*** short tons and production at *** short tons, resulting in a capacity utilization of *** percent. 

Washington Mills explained that its capacity utilization was relatively high during 2007 because it

“reduced capacity during the period of review.” Washington Mills reported *** for 2007, with

commercial sales of ***. Likewise, during 2002 the company reported ***, with commercial sales of

***. Washington Mills reported an operating *** in 2007 compared with an operating *** in 2002.80

U.S. Producers’ Trade, Employment, and Financial Data

Data reported by U.S. producers of RBAO in the Commission’s original investigation and in

response to its five-year review institution notice are presented in table I-5. Data presented for the period

examined in the final phase of the original investigation were provided by five producers (C-E Minerals,

Detroit Abrasives, Great Lakes Minerals,81 Treibacher Schleifmittel, and Washington Mills) that were

believed to have represented 100 percent of the U.S. production of RBAO during 2002. Data presented

for 2007 were provided by four producers (C-E Minerals, Great Lakes Minerals, Treibacher Schleifmittel, 
I-20

Table I-5

RBAO: U.S. producers’ trade, employment, and financial data, 2000-02, January-June 2002, January-June

2003, and 20071

(Quantity=short tons; unit values and unit labor costs=$/short ton)

Item 2000 2001 2002

January-June

2002 2003 2007

Capacity 217,400 217,400 246,600 112,900 133,700 250,000

Production 123,918 113,396 110,074 46,468 64,297 159,337

Capacity utilization (percent) 57.0 52.2 44.6 41.2 48.1 63.7

U.S. shipments:2

 Quantity 110,414 96,434 109,808 49,657 59,272 154,103

 Value ($1,000) 51,543 46,506 48,019 22,733 24,796 86,969

 Unit value $467 $482 $437 $458 $418 $564

Exports:

 Quantity 10,939 8,649 8,076 4,158 4,445 (3)

 Value ($1,000) 6,083 4,441 4,299 2,243 2,260 4,478

 Unit value $556 $513 $532 $539 $508 (3

)

Total shipments:

 Quantity 121,353 105,083 117,884 53,815 63,717 (3)

 Value ($1,000) 57,626 50,947 52,318 24,976 27,056 91,447

 Unit value $475 $485 $444 $464 $425 (3

)

End-of-period inventories 41,923 53,811 47,322 47,245 48,055 (3)

Production and related workers (number) 186 168 168 168 166 (3)

Hours worked (1,000 hours) 388 354 332 162 171 (3

)

Wages paid ($1,000) 7,618 6,846 6,187 3,200 3,462 (3

)

Hourly wages $19.63 $19.34 $18.64 $19.75 $20.25 (3)

Productivity (short tons/1,000 hours) 319.4 320.3 331.5 286.8 376.0 (3)

Unit labor costs $61.48 $60.37 $56.21 $68.86 $53.84 (3)

Net sales ($1,000) 57,626 50,947 51,837 24,976 27,056 91,447

Cost of goods sold ($1,000) 52,491 44,981 47,081 22,397 25,675 (3

)

Gross profit or (loss) ($1,000) 5,135 5,966 4,756 2,579 1,381 (3)

SG&A ($1,000) 4,490 4,304 4,126 1,980 2,035 (3)

Operating income or (loss) ($1,000) 645 1,662 630 599 (654) (125)4

COGS/sales (percent) 91.1 88.3 90.8 89.7 94.9 (3)

Operating income (loss)/sales (percent) 1.1 3.3 1.2 2.4 (2.4) (0.1)4

 1 Data presented for 2000-02, January-June 2002, and January-June 2003 were provided by five producers (C-E Minerals,

Detroit Abrasives, Great Lakes Minerals, Treibacher Schleifmittel, and Washington Mills) in the final phase of the original

investigation. These five firms were believed to have represented 100 percent of the U.S. production of RBAO during 2002. For

comparison purposes, the domestic industry data presented include the data provided by Great Lakes Minerals, a company

excluded by the Commission from the domestic industry as a related party in its original determination. Data presented for 2007

were provided by four producers (C-E Minerals, Great Lakes Minerals, Treibacher Schleifmittel, and Washington Mills). These four

firms are believed to have represented *** percent of U.S. production of RBAO during 2002 and 80.0 percent during 2007.

 2

 Captive shipments amounted to *** percent of total reported US. shipments in 2000, 2001, 2002, January-June 2003, and

2007 respectively.

 3

 Not available.

 4

 ***.

Source: Staff Report on Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), October 9, 2003 (INVAA-154), tables III-1 and VI-1; Response of domestic interested parties, November 20, 2008, pp. 7 at fn. 20 and 9 at fn. 26 and

exh. VII.
 82 The Commission also noted that “we discount the significance of interim 2003 data due to the pendency of this

investigation at that time.” Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide From China: Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final),

USITC Publication 3643, November 2003, p. 17.

 83 Response of domestic interested parties, November 20, 2008, p. 7.

 84 Response of domestic interested parties, November 20, 2008, p. 7.

 85 Staff Report on Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), October

9, 2003 (INV-AA-154), pp. III-3 - III-4, III-6, and IV-1.

I-21

and Washington Mills) that are believed to have represented *** percent of U.S. production of RBAO

during 2002 and 80.0 percent during 2007. 

The Commission noted in its views in the final phase of the original investigation that “{m}ost of

the domestic industry’s performance indicators were weak throughout the period examined and many

worsened over the period.”82 The data collected in the original investigation show that domestic

production of RBAO fell from 2000 to 2002 with capacity utilization rates, which were relatively low in

2000, reflecting the drop in production. The domestic industry’s inventories remained fairly constant

over the period examined but employment and wages generally declined. Capital expenditures rose

during the period examined, although shipments and net sales declined, mirroring the domestic industry’s

overall poor and deteriorating financial performance.

The domestic interested parties noted in their response to the Commission’s notice of institution

in this review that despite a decline in the level of imports of RBAO from China since the antidumping

duty order went into effect, “the domestic industry continues to be vulnerable to unfairly traded subject

imports because the industry has not experienced significant recovery following the investigation. . .”83

The data provided by domestic interested parties participating in this review indicate that the domestic

industry has experienced overall improvements in capacity, production, capacity utilization, and

shipments in 2007 as compared with 2002. Despite a substantial increase in unit value of shipments from

2002 to 2007, the industry also reported aggregate losses of $125,000 during 2007. ***.84

Related Party Issues

Each of the five U.S. producers of RBAO imported the subject merchandise from China during

all or part of the period examined in the original investigation. U.S. producers Great Lakes and C-E

Minerals were ***, accounting for *** percent and *** percent, respectively, of reported imports from

China from 2000 to June 2003. Great Lakes imported *** and its shipments of imports of refined brown

aluminum oxide from China were equivalent to *** percent of its U.S.-produced commercial shipments. 

On the other hand, C-E Minerals ceased importation of the subject merchandise in 2002 when it began its

U.S. production operations. Petitioner Washington Mills accounted for *** percent of total reported

imports of refined brown aluminum oxide from China during 2002 and domestic producer Detroit

Abrasives reported a minor amount (i.e., *** tons) of imports of subject merchandise only during 2002. 

Petitioner Treibacher Schleifmittel, whose subject imports accounted for *** percent of total reported

imports of refined brown aluminum oxide from China during 2002, reported during the original

investigation that it was affiliated with Treibacher Schleifmittel Guizhou Co., Ltd., a Chinese producer of

refined brown aluminum oxide, and C-E Minerals, a sister company with 100 percent common

ownership.85 

As indicated earlier, the Commission found in the final phase of the original investigation that

appropriate circumstances existed to exclude domestic producer Great Lakes Minerals from the domestic

industry as a related party. The Commission further determined that Great Lakes Minerals “***, and thus
 86 Confidential Views of the Commission, Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from China, Investigation No.

731-TA-1022 (Final), pp. 15-16.

 87 Response of domestic interested parties, November 20, 2008, p. 12.

 88 “World BFA Production Summary (Ex-China),” Industrial Minerals, May 2005, p. 47, and Crossley, Penny,

“Abrasive Bauxite: Giving Proppants the Nod,” Industrial Minerals, July 2002.

 89 *** domestic producers of RBAO reported having purchased product from the DLA during the period

examined in the original investigation. Staff Report on Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from China, Investigation

No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), October 9, 2003 (INV-AA-154), pp. III-2 - III-5. 

 90 Although the U.S. Geological Survey indicated that the 2007 sales of aluminum oxide grain depleted the

remaining stockpile inventory held by DLA, the DLA annual materials plan for fiscal year 2009 released in October

2008 reported that 5,500 short tons of abrasive aluminum oxide will be offered for sale before the plan expires in

September 2009. “DNSC Slates ‘09 Offerings,” American Metal Market, October 3, 2008.

 91 Olson, Donald W., “Abrasives, Manufactured,” U.S. Geological Survey, 2007 Minerals Yearbook, November

2008. According to Washington Mills, although the last of the crude material was purchased in 2000, it was not

released to the purchasers in that year (see table I-6).

I-22

has a strong interest in maintaining its access to these imports. The company’s sales volumes and overall

financial results towards the end of the period examined reflect ***.86

The domestic interested parties participating in this review reported in their response to the

Commission’s notice of institution that C-E Minerals and Treibacher Schleifmittel are both related to a

producer of subject merchandise in China (Treibacher Schleifmittel Guizhou Co., Ltd.); however, they

reported that the related foreign producer does not export the subject merchandise to the United States.87

The Chinese integrated producer of RBAO (with fusion and processing capabilities) is 90 percent-owned

by Treibacher Schleifmittel. The Chinese producer procures Chinese bauxite and mainly manufactures

RBAO for Asian markets, although it supplies crude brown fused alumina to Treibacher Schleifmittel in

the United States for further processing into RBAO.88 The domestic interested parties further indicated in

their response to the Commission’s notice of institution in this review that none of the domestic producers

have imported the subject merchandise from China since the original investigation and no other related

parties were otherwise identified.

National Defense Stockpile

During the original investigation, the Commission reported that Washington Mills purchased

aluminum oxide from the U.S. government Defense Logistics Agency (“DLA”) stockpile from ***.89

These purchases are presented in table I-6. Washington Mills explained that

“{i}n 1999 and 2000, we were able to purchase large quantities of U.S. government DLA

stockpile crude ore at extremely low prices. Much of this low-cost crude was released to

us and used in 2001 and 2002. . . There is no more crude ore remaining in the DLA

stockpile.” 

Data published by the U.S. Geological Survey indicate that during 2007, sales of aluminum oxide

abrasive grain by the DLA amounted to 4,514 short tons at $1.734 million (table I-7). These sales in

2007 reportedly depleted all remaining inventory of fused aluminum oxide abrasive grain kept by the

DLA.90 Under Federal legislation authorizing the disposal of all aluminum oxide stockpiles, the DLA had

previously planned to continue such sales until all the stockpiled aluminum oxide was sold. All of the

DLA crude fused aluminum oxide stockpile was sold during 2000.91
I-23

Table I-6

Aluminum oxide: Washington Mills’ purchases of aluminum oxide from the DLA stockpile, 2000-02

and January-June 20031

Item 2000 2001 2002 JanuaryJune 2003

Crude aluminum oxide:2

 Quantity (short tons) *** *** *** ***

RBAO:

 Quantity (short tons) *** *** *** ***

 1 Company-specific sales of RBAO from the DLA subsequent to June 2003 are not available.

 2

 All of the DLA crude aluminum oxide stockpile was sold during 2000. Data presented apparently represent

releases of such sales to Washington Mills.

Source: Staff Report on Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final),

October 9, 2003 (INV-AA-154), p. III-2, and Olson, Donald W., "Abrasives, Manufactured," U.S. Geological Survey,

2002 Minerals Yearbook.

Table I-7

Fused aluminum oxide abrasive grain: Inventories and sales from the DLA stockpile, 2002-07

Item 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Sales:

 Quantity (short tons) 66 2,600 1,995 2,275 2,366 4,514

 Value ($1,000) 30 643 606 871 885 1,734

 Unit value (per short ton) $455 $247 $304 $383 $374 $384

End-of-period inventories:

 Quantity (short tons) 17,809 15,212 9,138 6,861 4,691 0

 Value ($1,000) 7,500 6,500 3,100 2,200 1,700 0

 Unit value (per short ton) $421 $427 $339 $321 $362 --

Note.–Data are presented as published by the U.S. Geological Survey regardless of apparent reconciliation

inconsistencies.

Source: Olson, Donald W., “Abrasives, Manufactured,” U.S. Geological Survey, 2002-07 Minerals Yearbooks.
 92 Staff Report on Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), October

9, 2003 (INV-AA-154), pp. IV-1 - IV-2. 

 93 Response of domestic interested parties, November 20, 2008, exh. V.

 94 Ibid., p. 12.

 95 The data for 2000-02 are from responses to Commission questionnaires in the original investigation for China

and from official import statistics for Brazil and Canada for “other” sources entered under HTS statistical reporting

number 2818.10.2000. The Commission’s staff report in the final phase of the original investigation indicated that

the official U.S. import statistics for countries other than Brazil, Canada, and China were predominately, if not

totally, nonsubject white and pink refined product. The data for 2003-07 are from official import statistic for imports

entered under HTS statistical reporting number 2818.10.2000 (2003-04) and 2818.10.2090 (2005-07).

 96 Response of domestic interested parties, November 20, 2008, p. 7.

I-24

U.S. IMPORTS AND APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION

U.S. Imports

During the original investigation, 14 firms believed to have accounted for virtually all imports of

subject merchandise from China provided requested trade data to the Commission. As noted earlier, each

of the five U.S. producers of refined brown aluminum oxide imported the subject merchandise from

China during all or part of the period examined in the original investigation. Subject imports made by

domestic producers Great Lakes and C-E Minerals (***) accounted for *** percent of reported imports

from China during January 2000-June 2003. Domestic producers Washington Mills and Treibacher

Schleifmittel accounted for *** percent and *** percent, respectively, of total reported imports from

China in 2002. Aside from the domestic producers, nine other firms reported imports of subject

merchandise, three of whom were parties to the original investigation (Allied of Columbus, OH; Cometals

of Fort Lee, NJ; and Saint-Gobain of Worcester, MA). Other companies providing import data were ***,

Dauber Co., ***, and Golden Dynamic.92

In their response to the Commission’s notice of institution in this review, the domestic interested

parties listed the following seven companies that they believe to be importers of subject merchandise

from China: Allied Mineral Products, Inc.; Cometals, a division of Commercial Metals Co.; Dauber Co.,

Inc.; Fujimi Corp.; Golden Dynamic, Inc.; Saint-Gobain Corp.; and 3M Corp.93 The domestic interested

parties also noted in their response that the domestic producers were not importers of the subject

merchandise after the Commission’s original investigation.94

RBAO import data for annual periods 2000-07 are presented in table I-8.95 Monthly RBAO

import data are presented in table I-9 for January 2005-October 2008. The quantity of the subject imports

increased from 2000 to 2001, but fell in 2002 to a level lower than that reported for 2000. The unit value

of the subject imports fell from 2000 to 2001 and increased slightly in 2002. After the imposition of the

antidumping duty order, subject imports from China fell by 98.2 percent from 57,172 short tons in 2002

to 1,011 short tons in 2005, before increasing to 2,922 short tons in 2007. Unit values of subject imports

increased overall subsequent to the order, from $257 per short ton in 2002 to $475 per short ton in 2007. 

Monthly import data reveal that the quantity of subject imports from China during the first 10 months of

2008 (807 short tons) was much lower than the quantity imported during the comparable period in 2007. 

In addition, the unit value of subject imports from China increased to $829 per short ton during JanuaryOctober 2008 and the share of total imports fell to 8.7 percent. The domestic interested parties indicated

in their response to the Commission’s notice of institution in this review that the antidumping duty order

under review has “kept injurious RBAO imports at extremely low levels.”96

During the period examined in the final phase of the original investigation, U.S. imports of

RBAO were primarily from China, which by 2002 accounted for 85.5 percent of total imports. By 2005,
 97 The Treibacher group of companies, with headquarters in Austria, is reportedly the largest worldwide

manufacturer of fused alumina grains for the abrasive and refractory markets, operating plants in Austria, Italy, and

Germany, as well as in Brazil, China, Czech Republic, Slovenia, United States, and Venezuela. According to

proprietary official import statistics, Treibacher Schleifmittel’s U.S. imports from *** accounted for *** percent of

total U.S. imports of RBAO during 2007.

I-25

China accounted for only 6.5 percent of total U.S. imports of RBAO; however, the share of total U.S.

RBAO imports held by the subject imports has since increased to 22.5 percent in 2007. 

Leading Nonsubject Sources of Imports

During the period for which data were collected, imports of RBAO entered the United States

from a variety of sources (tables I-8 and I-9). Austria, France, Germany, and Italy were the largest

nonsubject sources of imports during 2005-07, together accounting for almost two-thirds of total U.S.

imports during 2007. The single largest nonsubject source of RBAO during 2005-07 was Austria, which

accounted for almost one-third of total U.S. imports of RBAO during 2007. Other relatively large

nonsubject sources and their respective shares of the total quantity of imported RBAO during 2007

include the following: Italy (15.4 percent), France (8.9 percent), and Germany (6.8 percent).97 During

the period examined by the Commission in the final phase of the original investigation, the total quantity

of imports of RBAO from all nonsubject sources fell by 81.5 percent from 52,247 short tons in 2000 to

9,673 short tons in 2002. Likewise, the total quantity of imports of RBAO from all nonsubject sources

fell by 30.3 percent from 14,434 short tons in 2005 to 10,061 short tons in 2007. The average unit value

of all nonsubject imports rose steadily from $392 per short ton in 2000 to $596 per short ton in 2002, and

again from $1,307 per short ton in 2005 to $1,693 per short ton in 2007. The unit values of U.S. imports

from nonsubject countries were consistently higher than the average unit values of subject imports from

China.
I-26

Table I-8

RBAO: U.S. imports, by source, 2000-071

Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Quantity (short tons)

China 68,994 80,547 57,172 13,333 3,093 1,011 2,076 2,922

Nonsubject countries:

 Austria (2

) (2) (2) 5,332 7,131 4,304 4,684 4,184

 Brazil 8,300 5,571 5,122 8,192 9,897 4 123 169

 Canada 43,947 23,060 4,551 1,330 5,522 990 73 38

 France (2) (2) (2) 1,953 2,371 605 1,346 1,160

 Germany (2

) (2) (2) 8,747 11,459 2,295 1,626 878

 Italy (2

) (2) (2) 1,823 5,051 2,340 806 2,003

 Other3 (

2

) (2) (2) 4,194 11,956 3,895 2,526 1,629

 Subtotal, nonsubject

 countries 52,2472 28,6322 9,6732 31,572 53,388 14,434 11,184 10,061

 Total, all countries 121,241 109,179 66,844 44,904 56,481 15,445 13,260 12,983

Value ($1,000)

China 19,553 20,604 14,664 4,378 1,192 449 852 1,387

Nonsubject countries:

 Austria (2

) (2) (2) 7,100 9,495 6,879 7,408 7,850

 Brazil 5,860 3,972 3,291 4,977 6,335 7 120 191

 Canada 14,605 7,428 2,472 1,344 3,639 710 92 55

 France (2) (2) (2) 2,811 3,630 736 1,920 2,072

 Germany (2

) (2) (2) 11,655 14,015 4,112 3,757 2,334

 Italy (2) (2) (2) 1,462 3,442 1,684 694 1,379

 Other3 (

2

) (2) (2) 5,261 10,678 4,743 4,675 3,150

 Subtotal, nonsubject

 countries 20,4652 11,3992 5,7632 34,610 51,234 18,870 18,665 17,031

 Total, all countries 40,019 32,003 20,428 38,988 52,425 19,319 19,517 18,418

Table continued on following page.
I-27

Table I-8--Continued

RBAO: U.S. imports, by source, 2000-071

Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Unit value (per short ton)

China 283 256 257 328 385 444 411 475

Nonsubject countries:

 Austria (2

) (2) (2) 1,332 1,331 1,598 1,581 1,876

 Brazil 706 713 643 607 640 1,585 975 1,134

 Canada 332 322 543 1,011 659 717 1,261 1,455

 France (2) (2) (2) 1,439 1,531 1,216 1,426 1,786

 Germany (2

) (2) (2) 1,332 1,223 1,791 2,311 2,658

 Italy (2

) (2) (2) 802 681 720 861 688

 Other3 (

2

) (2) (2) 1,254 893 1,218 1,851 1,934

 Average, nonsubject

 countries 3922 3982 5962 1,096 960 1,307 1,669 1,693

 Average, all

 countries 330 293 306 868 928 1,251 1,472 1,419

Share of quantity (percent)

China 56.9 73.8 85.5 29.7 5.5 6.5 15.7 22.5

Nonsubject countries:

 Austria (2) (2) (2) 11.9 12.6 27.9 35.3 32.2

 Brazil 6.8 5.1 7.7 18.2 17.5 0.0 0.9 1.3

 Canada 36.2 21.1 6.8 3.0 9.8 6.4 0.5 0.3

 France (2

) (2) (2) 4.4 4.2 3.9 10.2 8.9

 Germany (2

) (2) (2) 19.5 20.3 14.9 12.3 6.8

 Italy (2

) (2) (2) 4.1 8.9 15.2 6.1 15.4

 Other3 (

2

) (2) (2) 9.3 21.1 25.3 19.0 12.6

 Subtotal, nonsubject

 countries 43.12 26.22 14.52 70.3 94.5 93.5 84.3 77.5

 Total, all countries 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Footnotes continued on the following page.
I-28

 1 Data presented for 2000-02 are based on data from importer questionnaire responses received in the

Commission’s original investigation (China) and from official U.S. import statistics (“other” sources). Data presented

for 2003-07 are based on official U.S. import statistics. Prior to 2005, the subject merchandise was classified under

a statistical reporting number that included all refined aluminum oxide (i.e., subject brown aluminum oxide, as well

as nonsubject white, pink, and ruby refined aluminum oxide). Beginning in 2005, the HTS segregated white, pink,

and ruby aluminum oxide from the brown product subject to the order. The white, pink, and ruby product is currently

classified under HTS statistical reporting number 2818.10.2010 (“white, pink or ruby, containing more than 97.5

percent by weight of aluminum oxide”) and the subject merchandise is currently classified under HTS statistical

reporting number 2818.10.2090 (“other”). Therefore, the data presented for 2003-04 are believed to be overstated

by the inclusion of a substantial amount of nonsubject white, pink, and ruby refined aluminum oxide.

 2

 Not applicable. The Commission’s staff report in the original investigation indicates that data presented for

“other” imports were for Brazil and Canada only. It explained that U.S. imports from countries other than Canada

and possibly Brazil were believed to be predominately, if not totally, nonsubject white and pink refined aluminum

oxide. It added that the official import statistics presented are overstated to the extent white and pink product (in

particular from Brazil) are included.

 3

 The largest “other” sources and their respective shares of the total quantity of imported RBAO during 2007

include the following: Slovenia (4.5 percent), United Kingdom (3.1 percent), Japan (1.8 percent), and Mexico (1.5

percent).

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Staff Report on Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final),

October 9, 2003 (INV-AA-154), p. IV-2 and table IV-1 (2000-02), official Commerce statistics, HTS statistical

reporting numbers 2818.10.2000 (2003-04) and 2818.10.2090 (2005-07).
I-29

Table I-9RBAO: U.S. imports, monthly entries into the United States, by sources, 2005-07, and January-October 2008

Source Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. N

Quantity (short tons)

2005:China 9 115 22 44 0 0 88 0 219 254 Other 2,143 1,461 1,337 732 874 1,431 737 803 646 2,190  Total 2,152 1,576 1,359 776 874 1,431 825 803 866 2,444 2006:China 211 176 13 107 0 243 174 146 0 367 Other 840 975 1,412 1,119 950 846 808 656 618 1,186  Total 1,051 1,151 1,425 1,226 950 1,088 982 803 618 1,553 2007:China 309 381 433 381 338 191 34 136 0 88 Other 766 860 879 908 1,001 824 1,076 654 595 1,005  Total 1,075 1,241 1,312 1,290 1,339 1,015 1,110 789 595 1,093 2008:China 0 82 33 80 151 176 58 84 38 105 

Other 893 534 996 1,042 936 683 818 1,057 451 1,058  Total 893 616 1,029 1,123 1,087 859 876 1,141 489 1,163 Table continued on following page.
I-30

Table I-9--ContinuedRBAO: U.S. imports, monthly entries into the United States, by sources, 2005-07, and January-October 2008

Source Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. N

Value ($1,000)

2005:China 12 34 23 15 0 0 24 0 111 116 Other 2,307 1,937 1,923 991 1,547 1,688 1,277 1,188 1,000 1,900  Total 2,319 1,971 1,947 1,006 1,547 1,688 1,301 1,188 1,111 2,017 2006:China 90 76 4 48 0 90 66 62 0 140 Other 1,379 1,412 2,492 1,966 1,713 1,374 1,294 1,017 1,150 1,930  Total 1,469 1,488 2,495 2,014 1,713 1,464 1,360 1,080 1,150 2,069 2007:China 116 178 175 154 149 84 33 62 0 45 Other 1,349 1,433 1,623 1,422 1,675 1,375 1,747 1,162 972 1,701  Total 1,465 1,611 1,798 1,576 1,824 1,459 1,780 1,225 972 1,746 2008:China 0 89 35 49 82 89 42 64 57 162 

Other 1,170 985 1,698 1,509 1,485 1,354 1,342 1,885 882 1,738  Total 1,170 1,074 1,733 1,558 1,567 1,444 1,384 1,949 939 1,901 Table continued on following page.
I-31

Table I-9--ContinuedRBAO: U.S. imports, monthly entries into the United States, by sources, 2005-07, and January-October 2008

Source Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. N

Unit value (dollars per short ton)

2005:China 1,263 294 1,063 332 (1) (1) 271 (1) 506 458 

Other 1,077 1,326 1,439 1,354 1,771 1,179 1,734 1,480 1,547 868  Average 1,078 1,251 1,432 1,296 1,771 1,179 1,578 1,480 1,283 825 2006:China 427 430 288 450 (1) 369 382 425 (1) 380 

Other 1,642 1,448 1,765 1,757 1,803 1,625 1,600 1,550 1,860 1,628  Average 1,398 1,292 1,751 1,643 1,803 1,345 1,385 1,345 1,860 1,333 2007:China 374 467 405 405 439 438 976 458 (1) 511 Other 1,761 1,666 1,845 1,565 1,675 1,668 1,624 1,779 1,633 1,693  Average 1,363 1,298 1,370 1,222 1,362 1,437 1,604 1,552 1,633 1,598 2008:China (1) 1,089 1,055 606 545 508 716 763 1,503 1,549 

Other 1,310 1,846 1,705 1,448 1,587 1,983 1,641 1,784 1,955 1,643  Average 1,310 1,745 1,683 1,388 1,442 1,680 1,580 1,709 1,920 1,635 Table continued on following page.
I-32

Table I-9--ContinuedRBAO: U.S. imports, monthly entries into the United States, by sources, 2005-07, and January-October 2008

Source Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. N

Share of quantity (percent)

2005:China 0.4 7.3 1.6 5.7 0.0 0.0 10.7 0.0 25.3 10.4 Other 99.6 92.7 98.4 94.3 100.0 100.0 89.3 100.0 74.7 89.6  Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 2006:China 20.1 15.3 0.9 8.7 0.0 22.3 17.7 18.2 0.0 23.7 Other 79.9 84.7 99.1 91.3 100.0 77.7 82.3 81.8 100.0 76.3  Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 2007:China 28.7 30.7 33.0 29.6 25.3 18.8 3.0 17.2 0.0 8.1 Other 71.3 69.3 67.0 70.4 74.7 81.2 97.0 82.8 100.0 91.9  Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 2008:China 0.0 13.3 3.2 7.2 13.9 20.5 6.6 7.4 7.7 9.0 

Other 100.0 86.7 96.8 92.8 86.1 79.5 93.4 92.6 92.3 91.0  Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

1 Not applicable.

Source: Official import statistics (HTS 2818.10.2090).
 98 Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide From China: Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), USITC Publication

3643, November 2003, p. II-1.

I-33

Ratio of Imports to U.S. Production

Information concerning the ratio of U.S. imports to U.S. production of RBAO is presented in

table I-10. Subject imports of RBAO from China amounted to 55.7 percent of U.S. production during

2000, increased to 71.0 percent during 2001, but fell markedly after that point. Subject imports of RBAO

from China were equivalent to only 1.8 percent of U.S. production during 2007. The ratio of nonsubject

imports to domestic production fell during the period examined in the final phase of the Commission’s

original investigation. Nonsubject imports amounted to 6.3 percent of U.S. production during 2007.

Table I-10

RBAO: Ratio of U.S. imports to U.S. production, by sources, 2000-02, January-June 2002, JanuaryJune 2003, and 20071

Item 2000 2001 2002

January-June

2002 2003 2007

Quantity (short tons)

U.S. production 123,918 113,396 110,074 46,468 64,297 159,337

Ratio of U.S. imports to production (percent)

China 55.7 71.0 51.9 52.2 34.3 1.8

Other 42.2 25.2 8.8 11.8 6.1 6.3

 Total imports 97.8 96.3 60.7 64.0 40.5 8.1

 1 Production data presented for 2000-02, January-June 2002, and January-June 2003 were provided by five

producers believed to have represented 100 percent of the U.S. production of RBAO during 2002. For comparison

purposes, the domestic industry data presented include the data provided by Great Lakes Minerals, which was

excluded by the Commission from the domestic industry as a related party in its original determination. Data

presented for 2007 were provided by four producers believed to have represented *** percent of U.S. production of

RBAO during 2002 and 80.0 percent during 2007.

Source: Staff Report on Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final),

October 9, 2003 (INV-AA-154), tables III-1 and IV-1 (2000-02, January-June 2002, and January-June 2003); official

Commerce statistics, HTS statistical reporting number 2818.10.2090 (for 2007 U.S. import data); and Response of

domestic interested parties, November 20, 2008, exh. VII (for 2007 production data).

Apparent U.S. Consumption and Market Shares

Domestic demand for RBAO is ultimately derived from demand for end uses in which it is

employed. The two main end-use applications for RBAO are for production of items used in the

abrasives and refractories markets.98 The domestic abrasives and refractories markets are strongly linked

to activity in the U.S. manufacturing sector, especially manufacturing output in the aerospace,

automotive, furniture, construction, and steel industries. However, because of improvements in

technology in many industries in the U.S. manufacturing sector, growth in these industries may not

necessarily lead to an increase in consumption of RBAO (e.g., improved material surface quality that
 99 Olson, Donald W., Abrasives, Manufactured, U.S. Geological Survey, 2007 Minerals Yearbook, November

2008; “Corundum Conundrum,” Industrial Minerals, October 2003, pp. 30-39; and Crossley, Penny, “Abrasive

Bauxite: Giving Proppants the Nod,” Industrial Minerals, July 2002.

 100 Olson, Donald W., Abrasives, Manufactured, U.S. Geological Survey, 2002-07 Minerals Yearbooks.

 101 Response of domestic interested parties, November 20, 2008, p. 7.

 102 Staff Report on Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), October

9, 2003 (INV-AA-154), p. VII-5; “BFA Anti-Dumping Measure Expires,” Industrial Minerals, November 2002, 

p. 10, and Kendall, Tom, “Fused Alumina: Grinding Out a Living,” Industrial Minerals, October 2005.

I-34

requires less grinding and finishing operations that use abrasives).99 The U.S. Geological Survey

estimated 2007 apparent U.S. consumption of all forms of fused aluminum oxide, including RBAO, to be

253,532 short tons. The estimated value of apparent U.S. consumption of all forms of fused aluminum

oxide rose from $35 million in 2002 to $64.4 million in 2005, a decline to $11.7 million in 2006, and an

increase to $78 million in 2007.100

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares of RBAO for 2000-02, January-June 2002,

January-June 2003, and 2007 are presented in table I-11. During the period examined in the final phase

of the original investigation, apparent U.S. consumption of RBAO fell. Calculated apparent U.S.

consumption for 2007 was modestly higher than the level reported in 2002. The domestic interested

parties indicated in their response to the Commission’s notice of institution in this review that demand

“increased slowly” from 2003 to 2007 before declining in 2008. They explained that demand was strong

for the larger refractory grades of RBAO used in the steel industry but that demand for RBAO in the

general industrial abrasives and the bonded coated segments weakened based primarily on the downturn

in domestic auto production. They forecasted that “{d}emand is likely to fall precipitously in 2009 as a

result of upheaval in the metal polishing industry, including automotive production and the significant

curtailing of steel production, which will reduce demand for refractories.”101

The domestic producers’ market share based on quantity fell from *** percent in 2000 to ***

percent in 2001, but increased to *** percent in 2002 and reached *** percent in the first six months of

2003. The subject imports from China gained market share from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in

2002, but China’s market share during January-June 2003 was lower at *** percent than that reported for

the comparable period in 2002. The domestic RBAO industry in 2007 held an estimated 92.2 percent of

apparent U.S. consumption on the basis of quantity and an estimated 82.5 percent on the basis of value. 

On the other hand, China held a 1.7-percent share of the U.S. market in 2007 on the basis of quantity and

other sources held a 6.0-percent share.

ANTIDUMPING ACTIONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES

In October 1997, an antidumping duty order on all types of fused alumina from China (95 percent

of which was brown fused alumina, including RBAO) was put in place by the European Union (“EU”). 

The duty imposed was a flat rate of 240 Euros per metric ton. The EU order, which was viewed by

Treibacher Schleifmittel as somewhat ineffective, expired in October 2002. No other antidumping

actions concerning RBAO outside the United States were identified in the domestic interested parties’

response to the Commission’s notice of institution in this review nor were any other actions identified in

public searches for information.102
I-35

Table I-11

RBAO: U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, U.S. shipments of imports, and apparent U.S. consumption, 

2000-02, January-June 2002, January-June 2003, and 2007

Item 2000 2001 2002

Jan.-June

2002 2003 2007

Quantity (short tons)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments1 *** *** *** *** *** 154,103

U.S. shipments of imports from--

 China 66,046 71,461 68,864 40,391 28,262 2,922

 Other sources2 52,247 28,632 9,673 5,489 3,948 10,061

 Total import shipments 118,293 100,093 78,536 45,880 32,210 12,983

Apparent U.S. consumption *** *** *** *** *** 167,086

Value (1,000 dollars)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments1 *** *** *** *** *** 86,969

U.S. shipments of imports from--

 China 21,796 22,456 22,057 12,772 9,939 1,387

 Other sources2 20,465 11,399 5,763 3,227 2,654 17,031

 Total import shipments 42,262 33,855 27,820 15,999 12,592 18,418

Apparent U.S. consumption *** *** *** *** *** 105,387

Share of consumption based on quantity (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments1 *** *** *** *** *** 92.2

U.S. shipments of imports from--

 China *** *** *** *** *** 1.7

 Other sources2 *** *** *** *** *** 6.0

 Total import shipments *** *** *** *** *** 7.8

Apparent U.S. consumption 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of consumption based on quantity (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments1 *** *** *** *** *** 82.5

U.S. shipments of imports from--

 China *** *** *** *** *** 1.3

 Other sources2 *** *** *** *** *** 16.2

 Total import shipments *** *** *** *** *** 17.5

Apparent U.S. consumption 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1 The Commission’s staff report in the final phase of the original investigation indicated that to avoid double-counting, it

excluded the U.S. producers’ shipments of Great Lakes.

 2

 U.S. imports are presented because U.S. shipments of imports are not available.

Source: Staff Report on Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), October 9, 2003

(INV-AA-154), table IV-3; Response of domestic interested parties, November 20, 2008, exh. VII; and official Commerce

statistics, HTS statistical reporting number 2818.10.2090.
 103 Burke, Alison, “Raw Deal for Fused Aluminas,” Industrial Minerals, May 2005, pp. 43-45, and 2007 Annual

Report on Chinese Artificial Corundum Market, Asian Metal Ltd. (reproduced in Response of domestic interested

parties, November 20, 2008, exh. III).

 104 Global Trade Atlas data are for HTS subheading 2818.10 and include all forms (i.e., crude and refined) and

all grades (e.g., white, pink, red, and brown) of fused aluminum oxide.

 105 The domestic interested parties indicated in their response to the Commission’s notice of institution in this

review that “there have been no significant changes in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for the

domestic like product that have occurred in the U.S. or in China after 2002.” Response of domestic interested

parties, November 20, 2008, p. 11.

 106 Gasser, Peter, “Abrasive Trends: China Versus the Rest to Continue?” Industrial Minerals, January 2002.

 107 Kendall, Tom, “Fused Alumina: Grinding Out a Living,” Industrial Minerals, October 2005.

I-36

THE WORLD MARKET

Total worldwide capacity of fused aluminum oxide was estimated to be approximately 1.9 million

short tons in 2007. More than two-thirds of this capacity is located in China.103 Global Trade Atlas

import and export data show that China, Brazil, and France historically have been net exporters of all

forms and grades of fused aluminum oxide, whereas the United States, Austria, Germany, and Italy

historically have been net importers of the product. Global Trade Atlas data concerning the net trade

balance reported for the United States, China, and other selected nonsubject countries are presented in

table I-12.104 These data show that China consistently held the largest net export trade balance during

every annual period from 2003 to 2007, reaching a level almost twice the size of the net export trade

balance held by the second largest country (i.e., France). China’s net export status increased from 2003 to

2004, fell during 2005 and 2006, and again increased to a period high during 2007.

Supply and Demand Considerations105

Global Supply

Fused aluminum oxide capacity

Total global production capacity for all grades of fused alumina, by source, for 1995, 2000, 2003,

and 2007 is presented in table I-13. These data show that in 2007, total annual production capacity of

fused aluminum oxide was estimated to be approximately 1.9 million short tons, up from a low of 1.2

million short tons in 2003. China has been, by far, the world’s largest producer of fused alumina, with

the annual capacity to produce 1.3 million short tons in 2007. China alone accounted for 70.6 percent of

total global capacity for fused aluminum oxide during 2007.

Brown fused aluminum oxide production

During 2001, global production of brown fused aluminum oxide was estimated to be

approximately 1.0 million short tons.106 As is the case today, China was the largest global producer,

primarily due to its proximity to rich domestic bauxite reserves. In 2001, China accounted for about onehalf of total worldwide production of brown fused alumina and European countries accounted for almost

one-quarter of the total. An approximate breakdown of total 2001 annual worldwide production by

region is as follows: China (580,000 short tons), Europe (225,000 short tons), United States/Canada

(100,000 short tons), India (33,000 short tons), and other countries (70,000 short tons).107 
I-37

Table I-12

Aluminum oxide: China and selected nonsubject country exports, imports, and trade balances,

2003-071

Item 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Quantity (short tons)

China:

 Exports 740,349 778,624 765,615 765,571 930,306

 Imports 54,159 80,524 100,788 120,287 89,946

 Trade balance 686,190 698,100 664,827 645,284 840,360

United States:

 Exports 13,438 16,135 16,137 17,505 20,995

 Imports 181,588 257,126 268,260 231,301 262,217

 Trade balance (168,150) (240,991) (252,123) (213,796) (241,222)

Austria:

 Exports2 10,824 5,599 374 453 453

 Imports 62,825 72,931 84,670 71,429 91,436

 Trade balance (52,001) (67,332) (84,296) (70,976) (90,983)

Brazil:

 Exports 20,848 27,640 29,499 27,371 29,349

 Imports 6,895 9,937 16,612 9,235 18,010

 Trade balance 13,953 17,703 12,887 18,136 11,339

Germany:

 Exports 44,911 58,043 56,520 53,740 64,293

 Imports 117,042 123,754 121,437 115,090 168,944

 Trade balance (72,131) (65,711) (64,917) (61,350) (104,651)

Italy:

 Exports 29,449 34,215 43,656 31,852 31,787

 Imports 55,725 74,910 72,454 64,494 73,289

 Trade balance (26,276) (40,695) (28,798) (32,642) (41,502)

 1 Positive numbers presented for “trade balance” show net exports and numbers in parentheses presented for

“trade balance” show net imports.

 2 Export data for Austria are not available for HTS subheading 2818.10. The data presented for Austria are for

HTS heading 2818, which includes not only aluminum oxide, but also aluminum hydroxide. Therefore, the export

data presented for Austria may be overstated.

Source: Global Trade Atlas (HTS subheading 2818.10, which includes all grades (e.g., brown, white, pink, and red)

of crude and refined aluminum oxide).
I-38

Table I-13

Fused aluminum oxide: Global capacity, by source, 1995, 2000, 2003, and 20071

Source 1995 2000 2003 2007

Quantity (short tons)

China 440,920 496,035 661,380 1,322,744

European countries 380,293 275,575 195,107 198,416

U.S. and Canada 242,506 242,506 97,002 66,139

Australia 110,230 55,115 55,115 55,116

Brazil 110,230 55,115 55,115 55,116

India 22,046 44,092 44,092 44,092

Japan 60,627 55,115 27,558 38,581

Other 165,345 88,184 88,184 93,696

 Total 1,532,197 1,311,737 1,223,553 1,873,900

Share of total capacity (percent)

China 28.8 37.8 54.1 70.6

European countries 24.8 21.0 15.9 10.6

U.S. and Canada 15.8 18.5 7.9 3.5

Australia 7.2 4.2 4.5 2.9

Brazil 7.2 4.2 4.5 2.9

India 1.4 3.4 3.6 2.4

Japan 4.0 4.2 2.3 2.1

Other 10.8 6.7 7.2 5.0

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1 Data presented are for all grades (e.g., brown, white, pink, etc.) and forms (i.e., crude and refined) of fused

aluminum oxide.

Source: Backus, Rachel, “Uphill Struggle,” Industrial Minerals, December 2007, p. 33, and 2007 Annual Report on

Chinese Artificial Corundum Market, Asian Metal Ltd. (reproduced in Response of domestic interested parties,

November 20, 2008, exh. III).
 108 Burke, Alison, “Raw Deal for Fused Aluminas,” Industrial Minerals, May 2005, pp. 43-45.

 109 “Corundum Conundrum,” Industrial Minerals, October 2003, pp. 30-39, and Burke, Alison, “Raw Deal for

Fused Aluminas,” Industrial Minerals, May 2005, pp. 43-45.

 110 Burke, Alison, “Raw Deal for Fused Aluminas,” Industrial Minerals, May 2005, pp. 43-45; Dickson, Ted,

“Bauxite Supply in the Red,” Industrial Minerals, August 2008, pp. 54-60; and “Minerals to the Grindstone,”

Industrial Minerals, January 2009, pp. 45 and 47.

 111 “Corundum Conundrum,” Industrial Minerals, October 2003, pp. 30-39, and Burke, Alison, “Raw Deal for

Fused Aluminas,” Industrial Minerals, May 2005, pp. 43-45; “Minerals to the Grindstone,” Industrial Minerals,

January 2009, pp. 45 and 47.

 112 2007 Annual Report on Chinese Artificial Corundum Market, Asian Metal Ltd. (reproduced in Response of

domestic interested parties, November 20, 2008, exh. III).

 113 “Corundum Conundrum,” Industrial Minerals, October 2003, pp. 30-39; Burke, Alison, “Raw Deal for Fused

Aluminas,” Industrial Minerals, May 2005, pp. 43-45; and “Minerals to the Grindstone,” Industrial Minerals,

January 2009, pp. 45 and 47.

 114 Burke, Alison, “Raw Deal for Fused Aluminas,” Industrial Minerals, May 2005, pp. 43-45; Dickson, Ted,

“Bauxite Supply in the Red,” Industrial Minerals, August 2008, p. 60.

I-39

By the time the antidumping duty order on RBAO from China was issued in 2003, annual

worldwide production of brown fused alumina had grown slightly to over 1.1 million short tons, with

China maintaining its share of the market at about 50 percent of the total. Supplies of brown fused

alumina from China had been “cheap and plentiful” and the global price of the product had “hit rock

bottom.”108 The industry’s reaction to the market conditions led to a decline in production levels outside

of China and eventually resulted in a major consolidation of firms, with producers either exiting the

business altogether or selling to more dominant industry players. As a result, the global brown fused

alumina industry outside of China was composed of a much smaller number of major producers with fully

integrated facilities, including in-house fusion operations. This change reportedly reinforced the global

strength of the two major French-owned producers, Treibacher Schleifmittel and Saint-Gobain.109

By 2005, industry estimates for worldwide production of brown fused alumina had again risen

slightly to over 1.2 million short tons and, by 2008, total production of brown fused alumina was

estimated to be about 1.5 million short tons, an increase of more than 50 percent since the Commission

conducted the original investigation.110 However, the dynamics of the global market for brown fused

alumina were shifting as well, reflecting various changes affecting the industry in China. In 2003-04,

shipments of bauxite feedstock to brown fused alumina producers and shipments of finished product to

ports for export were seriously disrupted by the SARS outbreak in China and resulting government

quarantine controls. More enduring, however, were widespread power supply problems within China and

feedstock shortages faced by Chinese suppliers due to government pressure to close down bauxite kilns

and brown fused alumina smelters for environmental reasons.111 Across China, many facilities producing

bauxite and brown fused alumina (mostly smaller scale facilities) reportedly have been fined or forced to

completely shut down production due to noncompliance with government environmental protection

standards.112 In addition, the power shortages affected the quality of the brown fused alumina produced in

China because intermittent production runs with limited power produced batches of material with

fluctuating properties. Further, the increasing requirements for bauxite feedstock to satisfy the expanding

aluminum industry in China have presented an ongoing challenge for brown fused aluminum oxide plants

to procure needed volumes of quality bauxite feedstock material.113 Since 2005, Chinese brown fused

alumina facilities have reportedly operated at about 50 percent of capacity.114 However, because of the
 115 Tran, Alison, “Alumina: Fused and Abused,” Industrial Minerals, July 2007, pp. 37-43.

 116 Tran, Alison, “Alumina: Fused and Abused,” Industrial Minerals, July 2007, pp. 37-43.

 117 “Corundum Conundrum,” Industrial Minerals, October 2003, p. 31, pp. 30-39.

 118 Tran, Alison, “Alumina: Fused and Abused,” Industrial Minerals, July 2007, pp. 37-43.

 119 Burke, Alison, “Raw Deal for Fused Aluminas,” Industrial Minerals, May 2005, pp. 43-45.

 120 Olson, Donald W., Abrasives, Manufactured, U.S. Geological Survey, 2007 Minerals Yearbook, November

2008.

 121 “Synthetic Alumina Steels Show,” Industrial Minerals, March 2008, pp. 39-45.

 122 Burke, Alison, “Raw Deal for Fused Aluminas,” Industrial Minerals, May 2005, pp. 43-45; “C-E and

Treibacher,” Industrial Minerals, January 2006, p. 47; Tran, Alison, “Quest for Calcined Bauxite,” Industrial

Minerals, March 2007, pp. 32-41; and Response of domestic interested parties, November 20, 2008, p. 9 and exh.

III.

 123 Burke, Alison, “Raw Deal for Fused Aluminas,” Industrial Minerals, May 2005, pp. 43-45; Tran, Alison,

“Quest for Calcined Bauxite,” Industrial Minerals, March 2007, pp. 32-41; and Backus, Rachel, “Uphill Struggle,”

Industrial Minerals, December 2007, pp. 32-38.

 124 “China’s New IM Export Taxes,” Industrial Minerals, November 2008.

I-40

global consolidation of firms and fairly limited options for supply outside of China, fused alumina

producers elsewhere have reportedly operated their facilities at relatively high capacity utilization rates.115

The primary producers of brown aluminum oxide worldwide include Alcan Bauxite and Alumina

(France), Boxitogorsk Alumina (Russia), Elfusa Geral de Eletrofusao Ltda (Brazil), Saint-Gobain (Japan,

China, Brazil), and Imerys, through Treibacher Schleifmittel and C-E Minerals (Austria, Germany, Italy,

Slovenia, Czech Republic, United States, Venezuela, Brazil, and China).116 The primary global producers

typically produce a wide range of fused alumina grades (e.g., brown, white, pink, and red) in a wide range

of sizes.117 Regional and niche market producers of brown fused alumina included Carborundum

Universal Ltd. and Orient Abrasives Ltd. (India); ZAC (Ukraine); Australian Fused Minerals Pty Ltd.

(Australia); Daehan Ceramics (Korea); and Showa Denko KK (Japan).118 Table I-14 provides available

information regarding worldwide producers of fused alumina.

Global Demand

The demand for RBAO is dependent on the demand for both abrasives and refractories. The

demand for these products, in turn, is heavily dependent on the manufacturing industries that use these

products, such as the steel and construction industries.119 The global RBAO market also is influenced by

economic and technological trends in the global manufacturing sectors. Demand for RBAO used in

abrasive applications has been affected by improved technology in certain manufacturing sectors that has

resulted in improved surface quality that requires less grinding and finishing operations that use

abrasives.120 Demand for RBAO used in refractory applications also has been affected by technological

shifts over the last decade that have resulted in the use of higher performance, longer lasting refractories,

which has caused an overall decline in the consumption of refractories per ton of steel produced.121

Global demand for RBAO for refractories has increased since the antidumping duty order was

imposed in 2003, benefitting primarily from a rise in worldwide steel production and an increase in

demand for steel products in China.122 For abrasives, the market gradually improved from 2003 to 2005

but was described as being either generally stable or declining slightly thereafter.123 By 2008, the

recession in the United States and Europe, the slowing of the expanding economies in China and India,

and the decline in global steel production in the second half of the year had a noticeable downward

impact on the demand for raw materials around the world, including RBAO.124 The most recent forecasts

for fused alumina products indicate that “{o}verall consumption is predicted to be fairly stable in the 
I-41

Table I-14 

Major world fused alumina producers (excluding China)

Firm Location

Capacity1

(short tons) Notes

Saint-Gobain

United States

The plant in Massachusetts imports and processes RBAO

manufactured at Saint-Gobain’s Chinese joint venture plant.1

 The

plant in Alabama produces fused aluminum oxide.

China 33,000

Zhengzhou Saint-Gobain White Dove Ceramic Materials Co. Ltd. 

joint venture produces RBAO for export to Saint-Gobain’s U.S.

operations and for external sales. Products include abrasive

grade BFA and WFA. Company may no longer be in operation

Poland 11,000 Former Polish producer Korund SA facility that produces BFA. 

Brazil

20,000 (fusion)

33,000 (refining)

Saint-Gobain Arasivos Ltda (formerly known as Norton Industria e

Comercio Ltda) operates fusion and refining facilities for grains

and micro-powder products destined for the home market and

South America. Three-fourths of the fusion capacity in Brazil is for

BFA, one-fourth is for WFA.

Japan Produces WFA.

Canada Produces WFA.

Treibacher

Schleifmittel

(owned by

Imerys) (total

fusion

capacity

worldwide

330,000 short

tons)

Austria Largest plant and headquarters of the group.

United States

(New York

and Georgia)

General Abrasives (New York) plant was purchased in 1991 and

Georgia plant was acquired from Imerys sister company C-E

Minerals in 2000.

Italy Acquired remainder of joint venture Samatec in 1993.

Slovenia Tovarna Dusika Ruse Nekovine plant purchased in 1995.

Germany

Surfatec plant purchased in 2001 and H.C. Starck plant purchased

in 1996.

China Xia Xun plant purchased in 1999.

Czech

Republic Chemical Works Sokolov plant purchased in 2001.

Venezuela

Plant purchased from Imerys sister company C-E Minerals in

2001.

Brazil 33,000 (fusion)

Plant purchased from Alcoa in 2002. Ninety percent of sales are

to customers in Brazil and the remainder to other South American

countries. Produces BFA and WFA, among other products.

Washington

Mills United States 130,000 (fusion)

Washington Mills, the only company with fusion capacity in North

America, fuses material (both BFA and WFA) at a plant located in

Niagara Falls (on the Canadian side of the border) and produces

the refined products in the United States.

Australian

Fused

Materials Australia 24,000

Australian Fused Materials Pty Ltd. (Doral Mineral Industries Ltd.,

Japan Abrasive Co., Ltd., and Alcoa) has the capacity to produce

WFA

Table continued on next page.
I-42

Table I-14–Continued

Major world fused alumina producers (excluding China)

Firm Location

Capacity1

(short tons) Notes

Elfusa Brazil 130,000 (fusion)

Elfusa is part of Brazil’s Curimbaba Group, a major bauxite

producer and raw material supplier for Elfusa. Elfusa produces a 

wide range of BFA and WFA products, approximately 70 percent

of which is BFA.

PEMAR

(owned by

Alcan) France 44,000 (fusion)

PEMAR produces BFA, among other products. About 70 percent

of the companies production is exported, of which about 25

percent is exported outside of the EU.

Alumines

Durmax France 7,000 Alumine Durmax produces high purity BFA for high tech markets.

Delachaux France 11,000 Produces fused alumina “chromium corundum” for refractories.

Alcan France Alcan produces WFA and BFA.

Wester

Mineralien Germany 39,000

Wester Mineralien GmbH processes RBAO and RWAO sourced

from WFA and BFA produced in China. The company has

expanded its capacity to process microgrits.

Motim Hungary 55,000

Motim Electrocorundum Ltd. produces a wide range of fused

alumina products, including among others BFA and WFA.

Carborundum India 21,000

Carborundum Universal Ltd. produces both BFA and WFA,

approximately two-thirds of which is BFA. The company is an

integrated producer of BFA and WFA that focuses on local niche

markets.

Orient

Abrasives India 17,000

Orient Abrasives is an integrated producer of BFA and WFA that

focuses on local niche markets.

Japan Carlit Japan 11,000

Showa Denko Japan 11,000 The company produces BFA and WFA, among other products.

Dae Han

Ceramics Korea The company produces only WFA.

Union Corp. Korea 15,000

The company produces only WFA for high performance

refractories.

Polmineral

(subsidiary of

Wester) Poland 10,000

From crude product imported from China, the company produces

RBAO and RWAO, among other products.

Boxitogorsk

Glinozem Russia 121,000 Produces WFA.

Wester

Mineralien SA South Africa 28,000

From crude product imported from China, the company produces

RBAO. It has increased capacity to produce microgrits.

Zaporozhssky

Abrazivny

Combinat Ukraine 88,000

The company is a supplier to the German and Italian markets. 

Capacity to produce microgrits has increased.

 1 It is unclear as to the nature of Saint-Gobain’s U.S. operations in Massachusetts. Since the company’s website indicates that

it is a producer of microgrits, it is possible that the company imports RBAO and further refines the material in the United States;

however, information confirming that assumption is not publicly available. The domestic interested parties participating in this

review did not identify Saint-Gobain as a producer of the domestic like product.

Note.—Brown fused alumina (“BFA”), White fused alumina (“WFA”).

Source: Various Industrial Minerals publications.
 125 “Minerals to the Grindstone,” Industrial Minerals, January 2009, p. 47.

 126 The Commission’s questionnaire in the final phase of the original investigation asked purchasers to compare

pink and white aluminum oxide to RBAO. Ten of eleven responding purchasers reported differences in

characteristics between the white/pink products and RBAO, including friability, purity, and hardness. Four

purchasers reported that the white/pink products were not interchangeable with RBAO while eight reported that they

could be used to replace RBAO, although a number of these reported that RBAO could not be used in applications

that used the white/pink product. Most purchasers reported that refined white and pink aluminum oxides were not

perceived as the same as RBAO by either end users or sellers and all purchasers reported that RBAO was

“significantly” less expensive. Staff Report on Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from China, Investigation No.

731-TA-1022 (Final), October 9, 2003 (INV-AA-154), p. II-5.

 127 Staff Report on Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), October

9, 2003 (INV-AA-154), p. II-6. 

 128 “Refractories,” Industrial Minerals, November 2004, p. 86; “Refractories Reviewed in Beijing,” Industrial

Minerals, May 2007, p. 27; Backus, Rachel, “Calcined Aluminas: Quality, Not Quantity,” Industrial Minerals,

September 2007, pp. 37 and 46; Backus, Rachel, “Uphill Struggle,” Industrial Minerals, December 2007, pp. 32-38;

“Synthetic Alumina Steels Show,” Industrial Minerals, March 2008, pp. 39-45; “CMP’s Great Leap Forward,”

Industrial Minerals, April 2008, pp. 80-85; and Dickson, Ted, “Bauxite Supply in the Red,” Industrial Minerals,

August 2008, pp. 54-60.

 129 Backus, Rachel, “Uphill Struggle,” Industrial Minerals, December 2007, pp. 32-38.

 130 Olson, Donald W., Abrasives, Manufactured, U.S. Geological Survey, 2007 Minerals Yearbook, November

2008.

 131 Kendall, Tom, “Fused Alumina: Grinding Out a Living,” Industrial Minerals, October 2005, and Tran,

Alison, “Alumina: Fused and Abused,” Industrial Minerals, July 2007, pp. 37-43.

I-43

short term, but it could easily decline slightly over the next two or three years, if manufacturing levels

slow down further.”125

Substitute Products

In the final phase of the original investigation, the Commission reported that 13 out of 20

purchasers, 2 out of 4 U.S. producers, and 2 out of 7 U.S. importers that provided a response to the

Commission’s questionnaire indicated that there were no substitutes for RBAO. The remaining

questionnaire respondents indicated that the following products could be considered substitutes for

RBAO: out of specification material, refined white or pink aluminum oxide,126 tabular aluminum,

bauxite, garnet, Saint-Gobain stone blast, DuPont Strautolite, starblast, coal slag, steel grit and shot,

organic abrasives, plastic and glass beads, sinterball, emery, silicon carbide, sand, and zirconia aluminum. 

However, a number of those that named substitute products also reported that substitution would either

reduce quality or performance, greatly increase costs, or require reengineering.127

Since the antidumping duty order was issued, however, limited RBAO availability, increases in

prices of RBAO, and increased performance requirements of certain end-use products appear to have

heightened the industry’s interest in the use of substitute materials for RBAO.128 In fact, Industrial

Minerals reports that “{i}n all of fused alumina’s market applications, there are alternative raw minerals. 

Therefore, the future of fused alumina appears to depend on whether its benefits are not outweighed by its

availability and cost.”129

Prior to 2007, RBAO did not face any remarkable threat of substitution in abrasive applications

since it was considered a relatively cost-effective abrasive material.130 The uses of RBAO for abrasive

applications at that time were considered to be well-defined in the mature abrasives market, despite some

successful efforts to find substitute synthetic and nonmineral abrasives.131 The abrasives industry that was

supplied by RBAO at that time had already been “pared down to essential applications and most of the
 132 Tran, Alison, “Alumina: Fused and Abused,” Industrial Minerals, July 2007, pp. 37-43.

 133 Backus, Rachel, “Uphill Struggle,” Industrial Minerals, December 2007, pp. 32-38.

 134 Backus, Rachel, “Uphill Struggle,” Industrial Minerals, December 2007, pp. 32-38.

 135 RBAO can only be used in refractory applications where operating temperatures do not exceed 1,500 degrees

Celsius and can only compete with tabular alumina in refractory applications for the lower temperatures. Taylor,

Lindsey, “Hot Stuff: Tabular Alumina Takes the Heat,” Industrial Minerals, June 2003, pp. 38-43, and O’Driscoll,

Mike, “Mullite Makes Good,” Industrial Minerals, October 2004, p. 33.

 136 “Refractories,” Industrial Minerals, November 2004, p. 86; “Refractories Reviewed in Beijing,” Industrial

Minerals, May 2007, p. 27; Tran, Alison, “Alumina: Fused and Abused,” Industrial Minerals, July 2007, pp. 37-43;

and Backus, Rachel, “Uphill Struggle,” Industrial Minerals, December 2007, pp. 32-38.

 137 Backus, Rachel, “Uphill Struggle,” Industrial Minerals, December 2007, pp. 32-38; “Synthetic Alumina

Steels Show,” Industrial Minerals, March 2008, pp. 39-45; “CMP’s Great Leap Forward,” Industrial Minerals, April

2008, pp. 80-85; and Dickson, Ted, “Bauxite Supply in the Red,” Industrial Minerals, August 2008, pp. 54-60.

 138 Dickson, Ted, “Bauxite Supply in the Red,” Industrial Minerals, August 2008, pp. 54-60.

 139 Approximately 1.3-1.7 short tons of bauxite produces 1 short ton of brown fused alumina. 2007 Annual

Report on Chinese Artificial Corundum Market, Asian Metal Ltd. (reproduced in Response of domestic interested

parties, November 20, 2008, exh. III), and Crossley, Penny, “Abrasive Bauxite: Giving Proppants the Nod,”

Industrial Minerals, July 2002.

 140 Whereas brown fused alumina is produced from bauxite, white fused alumina is produced from calcined

alumina. “New Aluminations,” Industrial Minerals, January 2006, p. 48.

I-44

erosion of these applications by form to fit manufacturing and other abrasive products has ceased.”132 On

the other hand, due to the environmental concerns of the use of silica sand in abrasive blasting

applications, RBAO’s use in this application has increased as an acceptable substitute.133 Further, since

2007, increasing prices for RBAO and falling prices for higher performance abrasives (e.g., diamond and

cubic boron nitride super abrasives) reportedly gave customers an incentive to explore these higher

performance abrasives as potential replacements for RBAO.134

For certain RBAO refractory applications, other high alumina aggregates perform comparably

and could be considered acceptable substitutes for RBAO, depending on the price. Therefore, tabular

alumina, refined white aluminum oxide, calcined mullites, sintered mullites, and other specialty fused or

sintered aggregates can be substituted for RBAO in certain refractory applications.135 As early as 2004,

the trend for requirements in refractories applications was the increased use of purer, higher performance

materials (e.g., synthetic minerals) in an attempt to optimize refractory quality, performance, and

lifespan.136 This trend, along with the supply and price dynamics for RBAO, could provide the refractory

industry the incentive to upgrade refractory formulations and use these higher performance raw materials

in place of RBAO.137

Historically, there has been a substantial difference in price for RBAO and the more chemically

pure refined white aluminum oxide. However, by 2008, the sharp increase in prices for RBAO eroded the

price differential between the two products and substitutions of the higher purity white product for RBAO

in both the abrasives and refractory applications reportedly are expected. In addition, the increase in

RBAO prices may result in substitutions of tabular alumina for RBAO in refractory applications.138

Prices

Factors Affecting Prices

The basic raw material used in the production of RBAO is crude brown aluminum oxide (or crude

brown fused alumina), which is, in turn, produced from the mined raw material bauxite.139 140 The main

costs involved in the production of crude brown fused alumina are electrical power costs and raw material
 141 In China, more than half of the total production cost for crude brown fused alumina is the power cost. 2007

Annual Report on Chinese Artificial Corundum Market, Asian Metal Ltd. (reproduced in Response of domestic

interested parties, November 20, 2008, exh. III).

 142 Proprietary Customs import statistics indicate that during 2003-07, China was a supplier of crude aluminum

oxide to the major U.S. producers of RBAO. ***.

 143 Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide From China: Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), USITC Publication

3643, November 2003, pp. III-1, III-4, and V-1.

I-45

(mined bauxite) costs.141 Crude brown aluminum oxide from which RBAO is produced, however, is not

manufactured in the United States. Domestic RBAO producers with crushing capabilities import the

crude brown fused alumina in loose bulk form. During 2003-07, China accounted for the vast majority

(70.7 percent to 84.5 percent) of total U.S. crude fused alumina imports (table I-15).142 After importation,

the crude product is crushed, screened, sieved, and packaged into a final product, RBAO, in the United

States. Crude brown fused alumina is believed to account for approximately 50 to 60 percent of the total

cost to produce RBAO.143

Table I-15

Crude aluminum oxide: U.S. imports, by source, 2003-07

Source 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Quantity (short tons)

Canada 21,050 22,144 8,687 4,839 7,075

China 98,135 159,123 184,152 131,139 178,015

France 0 8 161 3,336 3

Germany 207 990 1,516 110 130

Guyana 0 0 0 0 4,286

Russia 806 335 50 1,376 1,060

Venezuela 15,463 16,621 22,811 44,511 21,805

Other1 272 84 453 119 180

 Total 135,934 199,304 217,830 185,429 212,554

Value ($1,000)

Canada 6,964 8,259 4,055 4,154 5,238

China 19,928 37,503 52,728 36,918 55,506

France 0 15 177 545 23

Germany 297 279 538 168 189

Guyana 0 0 0 0 742

Russia 361 171 33 1,483 753

Venezuela 5,160 6,283 8,157 11,928 12,423

Other1 406 169 254 185 186

 Total 33,116 52,679 65,943 55,381 75,061

Table continued on following page.
 144 Moore, Paul, “The Cutting Edge,” Industrial Minerals, May 2006, pp. 41-45.

 145 Tran, Alison, “Quest for Calcined Bauxite,” Industrial Minerals, March 2007, pp. 32-41.

 146 In the recent past, Australia has also been a commercial source for bauxite for abrasives applications;

however, Australian production of nonmetallurgical grades of bauxite has now ceased. Dickson, Ted, “Bauxite

Supply in the Red,” Industrial Minerals, August 2008, pp. 54-60.

 147 Crossley, Penny, “Abrasive Bauxite: Giving Proppants the Nod,” Industrial Minerals, July 2002; Tran,

Alison, “Quest for Calcined Bauxite,” Industrial Minerals, March 2007, pp. 32-41; Tran, Alison, “Alumina: Fused

(continued...)

I-46

Table I-15–Continued

Crude aluminum oxide: U.S. imports, by source, 2003-07

Source 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Unit value (per short ton)

Canada $331 $373 $467 $858 $740

China 203 236 286 282 312

France (2

) 1,976 1,103 163 6,895

Germany 1,432 282 355 1,522 1,453

Guyana (2

) (2) (2) (2) 173

Russia 448 509 673 1,078 710

Venezuela 334 378 358 268 570

Other1 1,493 2,012 561 1,555 1,033

 Average 244 264 303 299 353

Share of quantity (percent)

Canada 15.5 11.1 4.0 2.6 3.3

China 72.2 79.8 84.5 70.7 83.8

France 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.8 0.0

Germany 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.1 0.1

Guyana 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0

Russia 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.7 0.5

Venezuela 11.4 8.3 10.5 24.0 10.3

Other1 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1 Other sources include Australia, Austria, Brazil, Czech Republic, Hungary, India, Israel, Italy, Norway, Slovak Republic,

Switzerland, Trinidad and Tobago, and the United Kingdom.

 2

 Not applicable.

Note.–During January-October 2008, the quantity, value, and unit value of crude aluminum oxide imported into the United States

from China, the largest supplier, was 213,496 short tons, $104.4 million, and $491 per short ton, respectively.

Source: Official Commerce statistics, HTS statistical reporting number 2818.10.1000.

The largest global sources of bauxite suitable for fused alumina production are China, South

America, Africa, and Australia.144 Total world reserves of bauxite are estimated at 28 million short tons. 

In terms of annual production, bauxite from which brown fused alumina is made accounts for over 3

million short tons. However, there is a limited choice for sources of bauxite used for refractory grade

applications. The only two commercial world sources are China and Guyana. For abrasives applications,

commercial sources of bauxite include Guinea, China, Guyana, and Brazil.145 146 Due to its abundant

bauxite reserves, China has been the world’s primary feedstock source for over a decade for bauxite

suitable for use in brown fused alumina production and has been a leading supplier of brown fused

alumina.147 It is estimated that the country produces almost 2 million short tons of nonmetallurgical
 147 (...continued)

and Abused,” Industrial Minerals, July 2007, pp. 37-43; and Dickson, Ted, “Bauxite Supply in the Red,” Industrial

Minerals, August 2008, pp. 54-60.

 148 Tran, Alison, “Quest for Calcined Bauxite,” Industrial Minerals, March 2007, pp. 32-41.

 149 “Refractories,” Industrial Minerals, September 2003, p. 106; Moore, Paul, “Minerals in Refractory Shapes: 

Which Way Now?” Industrial Minerals, June 2004, pp. 42-47; O’Driscoll, Mike, “Mullite Makes Good,” Industrial

Minerals, October 2004, p. 33; “Great Lakes Minerals,” Industrial Minerals, August 2005, p. 61; Moore, Paul, “The

Cutting Edge,” Industrial Minerals, May 2006, pp. 41-45; Tran, Alison, “Quest for Calcined Bauxite,” Industrial

Minerals, March 2007, pp. 32-41; “Great Lakes Minerals,” Industrial Minerals, May 2007, p. 98; Tran, Alison,

“Alumina: Fused and Abused,” Industrial Minerals, July 2007, pp. 37-43; Backus, Rachel, “Calcined Aluminas: 

Quality, Not Quantity,” Industrial Minerals, September 2007, pp. 37 and 46; 2007 Annual Report on Chinese

Artificial Corundum Market, Asian Metal Ltd. (reproduced in Response of domestic interested parties, November

20, 2008, exh. III); O’Driscoll, Mike, “Made in the USA,” Industrial Minerals, May 2008, p. 57; Dickson, Ted,

“Bauxite Supply in the Red,” Industrial Minerals, August 2008, pp. 54-60; “Imerys 30m Aluminosilicate Investment

Plan,” Industrial Minerals, October 2008; and “Minerals to the Grindstone,” Industrial Minerals, January 2009, pp.

45 and 47.

 150 The number of bauxite producers in China, the largest of a handful of global bauxite suppliers, has dropped

dramatically over the past several years with only a very few suppliers of calcined bauxite remaining. In 2005,

reports indicated that there were over 60 bauxite producers in China. By 2007, this number stood at less than 20. 

The decline is due to environmental restrictions enforced by the Chinese government that have forced bauxite

producers to convert their round kilns to more costly rotary kilns or to simply shut down their operations. The

Chinese government plans to dismantle all the round/beehive kilns by 2010. This type of kiln has traditionally been

used for calcining bauxite. “Minerals to the Grindstone,” Industrial Minerals, January 2009, pp. 45 and 47.

 151 Tran, Alison, “Quest for Calcined Bauxite,” Industrial Minerals, March 2007, pp. 32-41; Backus, Rachel,

“Uphill Struggle,” Industrial Minerals, December 2007, pp. 32-38; and Moores, Simon, “Indian Refractories Hot

Under Collar,” Industrial Minerals, July 2008, pp. 40-46.

 152 “China’s New IM Export Taxes,” Industrial Minerals, November 2008.

 153 “Corundum Conundrum,” Industrial Minerals, October 2003, pp. 30-39; O’Driscoll, Mike, “Mullite Makes

Good,” Industrial Minerals, October 2004, p. 33; “Great Lakes Minerals,” Industrial Minerals, August 2005, p. 61;

and “Sharp Jump in Chinese Bauxite & BFA Prices,” Industrial Minerals, July 2008.

I-47

bauxite annually for refractory, abrasive, and other applications.148 Since the antidumping duty order was

issued, however, concerns regarding the availability of bauxite in China and rising bauxite prices have

been felt globally, contributing to tighter supplies and rising prices for downstream products, including

brown fused alumina and RBAO– a situation that is not expected to change in the near term.149 150

In an effort to conserve feedstock bauxite for its domestic needs, the Chinese government

implemented a number of measures that have included specific bauxite export reduction targets in an

effort to control the supply. Chinese export licenses and a string of export rebate cuts that began in 2002

have restricted such exports to the world market. In fact, reports indicate that the quantity of Chinese

nonmetallurgical bauxite available for export fell from 1.4 million short tons in 2004 to approximately 1.0

million short tons in 2007.151 Most recently, China imposed a 15-percent export duty on brown fused

alumina, effective December 1, 2008.152

Price Trends

Since the antidumping duty on RBAO from China was imposed, tighter supplies and higher

prices for raw materials have led to rising RBAO prices.153 In addition, China’s largest RBAO producers

have reportedly come to an agreement to allow prices of Chinese RBAO to rise. Industrial Minerals

reports that “{i}n July 2007, producers gathered to strike an agreement to allow ex-works prices of
 154 Backus, Rachel, “Uphill Struggle,” Industrial Minerals, December 2007, pp. 32-38.

 155 Three primary standards exist for classifying grit sizes. In the United States, the Coated Abrasives

Manufacturing Institute (“CAMI”) standard is used. In Europe, the Federation of European Producers of Abrasives

(“FEPA”) standard is used. In Japan, the Japanese Industrial Standards (“JIS”) are used. The scope of the subject

merchandise is defined to be in grit sizes of 0.375 inches or less in diameter, whereas FEPA 8 is equivalent to 0.087

inches in diameter and FEPA 220 is equivalent to 0.0025 inches in diameter. “Grit and Microgrit Conversion

Grading Chart,” http://www.reade.com/Sieve/grit_conversion.html, and “Abrasive Grains 101,” United Abrasive’s

Manufacturers Association, http://www.uama.org/Abrasives101/101Standards.html.

 156 Response of domestic interested parties, November 20, 2008, p. 6.

 157 Staff Report on Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), October

9, 2003 (INV-AA-154), pp. VII-1 - VII-2.

I-48

abrasive grade BFA finished grits to rise significantly. Since then, it is understood that producers have

had at least three more meetings to set higher prices.”154

Price data for the following two RBAO products are published monthly in issues of Industrial

Minerals magazine:

• Brown fused alumina, 94% AI2O3 CIF, FEPA 8-220,155 European/U.S.; and 

• Brown fused alumina, 94% AI2O3 CIF, FEPA 8-220, Chinese (EC duty paid for January

2003-April 2005).

Average monthly price data for these two products for January 2003-January 2009 are presented in figure

I-1. These data indicate that average prices of European and U.S. product have remained relatively stable 

over the past six years, with only a slight increase from $827 to $882 per short ton during that period. 

Average prices for the Chinese product increased from $441 per short ton in January 2003 to $496 per

short ton in October 2006, then fell to a low of $358 in December 2006 before increasing markedly to

$959 per short ton in the fourth quarter of 2008, a level greater than that reported for the European and

U.S. product. The domestic interested parties’ response to the Commission’s notice of institution in these

current five-year reviews did not specifically address the increase in prices since the antidumping duty

order was imposed. Instead, they simply indicated that “{s}ignificant underselling will certainly continue

or recur in the absence of the dumping order on RBAO.”156

THE SUBJECT INDUSTRY IN CHINA

In the original investigation, the Commission transmitted foreign producer questionnaires to 15

producers and six exporters of refined brown aluminum oxide in China that were believed to have

accounted for most of the subject merchandise exported to the United States at that time. Nine producers

and four exporters responded to the Commission’s request for information during the original

investigation. These producers’ exports of the subject merchandise to the United States accounted for

59.8 percent of the total U.S. imports of refined aluminum oxide (all grades) from China during 2002.

According to information provided in the petition, China’s level of production of brown aluminum oxide

(refined and crude) in 2001 was estimated to be 550,000 to 600,000 short tons. According to Chinese

customs figures, China exported nearly 490,000 short tons of fused alumina (85 to 90 percent is estimated

to have been brown aluminum oxide (refined and crude)). In 2000, the United States (28.7 percent) was

the top export market for Chinese exports, followed by Japan (27.0 percent), South Korea (7.7 percent),

the Netherlands (4.5 percent), and South Africa (4.3 percent). Other export destinations included Canada,

India, Italy, Taiwan, and Thailand.157
I-49

Figure I-1

RBAO: Average monthly prices for European/U.S. and Chinese brown fused alumina, 94% AI2O3,

CIF, FEPA 8-220, January 2003-January 2009

Source: Industrial Minerals, January 2003-January 2009.

Jan03 Jan04 Jan 05 Jan 06 Jan 07 Jan 08 Jan 09

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

Dollars per short ton

European/U.S. Chinese
 158 The 11 Chinese producers listed include the following firms: Bosai Minerals Group Co., Ltd.; Guizhou

Dazhong No.7 Grind Co.; Hainan Meida Import and Export Co., Ltd.; Henan Mianchi Great Wall Corundum Co.,

Ltd.; Xiyang Mianchi; Henan Yilong High & New Materials. Co., Ltd.; Sanmenxia Mingzhu Electric Smelting Co.,

Ltd.; Shanxi Qinxin Group; Taiyuan Twin-Tower Aluminum Oxide, Inc.; Qingdao Shunxingli Abrasives Co., Ltd.;

and Zibo Jinyu Abrasive Co. Response of domestic interested parties, November 20, 2008, exh. VI.

 159 Response of domestic interested parties, November 20, 2008, pp. 7 and 11.

 160 Response of domestic interested parties, November 20, 2008, p. 9.

 161 Response of domestic interested parties, November 20, 2008, p. 9.

 162 Backus, Rachel, “Uphill Struggle,” Industrial Minerals, December 2007, pp. 32-38.

 163 Backus, Rachel, “Uphill Struggle,” Industrial Minerals, December 2007, pp. 32-38.

 164 O’Driscoll, Mike, “Mineral Processing in Asia,” Industrial Minerals, March 2008, pp. 77-81.

I-50

The Commission did not receive any responses to the Commission’s notice of institution in this

review from Chinese producers of the subject merchandise. However, the domestic interested parties’

response to the Commission’s notice of institution listed 11 known producers of RBAO in China that

have exported the subject merchandise to the United States or other countries since 2002.158 They pointed

out that since the imposition of the antidumping duty order on RBAO, Chinese capacity to produce the

subject merchandise has “skyrocketed” and argued that the domestic industry remains threatened by

Chinese overcapacity and underselling.159 They further pointed out that Chinese RBAO capacity was at

least 1.1 million tons in 2007, a level far greater than the U.S. industry’s production capacity of

approximately *** short tons in 2007.160 They argued that “{w}hile demand from the Chinese steel

industry for RBAO for refractories has certainly grown over the POR, that demand is now placating along

with the worldwide steel industry decline, leaving the Chinese with a large amount of excess capacity.”161 

China has long been described as the leading global producer of brown fused alumina, the

feedstock material used in the production of RBAO. Table I-16 provides available information regarding

Chinese producers of brown fused alumina. As explained in greater detail in the section of this report

entitled “Factors Affecting Prices,” the supply shortages of bauxite and brown fused aluminum oxide in

China are well documented. In fact, U.S. RBAO producer Washington Mills described China’s supply

problems as “{t}he most significant recent development in the global fused alumina market.”162 China’s

supply problems have resulted in increasing prices globally and the tightening of global supply for brown

fused alumina and the RBAO from which it is made. In December 2007, Industrial Minerals reported

that the Chinese fused alumina supply problems were primarily due to the following factors:

• increased Chinese domestic demand;

• tighter Chinese environmental controls that restrict the supply of alumina as plants are

closed or operate less frequently;

• increased Chinese power costs and availability;

• efforts to divert scarce bauxite and power resources in China to other more strategic

industries;

• increased cost of domestic Chinese transportation; and

• increased sea freight cost and scarcity of bulk ocean vessels.163

By 2008, because of the shortages of bauxite and electrical power in China, the publication reported that

Chinese production of brown fused alumina was “well below peak levels, possibly as low as 50%

capacity.”164 
I-51

Table I-16 

Major Chinese brown fused alumina producers

Firm

Capacity

(metric tons) Notes

Bosai Minerals Group

Co., Ltd. 90,000

Main products include grain sands and segment sands, with more than

half of its output exported to overseas markets.

China Mineral

Processing Ltd.

A major player in China's mineral export and domestic markets, the

company has traditionally concentrated on hard mineral processing (i.e.

crushing, grinding, sizing, packing) for products such as BFA. Production

in 2007 amounted to 324,800 mt of processed minerals. New capacity

expansions in 2008 will add 40,000 tpa to the product lines.

China Qisha Group

Co. 100,000

Deng Feng Refractory

& Building Material

Co. Ltd.

Guizhou Dazhong

China No.7 Grinding

Wheel Co. Ltd. 85,000

Main products include brown fused alumina segment sands and grain

sands. In terms of capacity, it is the largest single producer of BFA in

China with estimated fusion capacity of 80-90,000 tpa for BFA. Products

include a wide range of refractory and abrasive products, including micro

powders. Combined fusion capacity for BFA and WFA is 100,000 tpa.

Henan Mianchi Great

Wall Corundum Co.

Ltd. 40-50,000 Products include BFA and WFA for abrasives and refractories.

Henan Yichuan

Tianlong Abrasives &

Refractories Co. Ltd. 7,000

Henan Yilong High &

New Material Co., Ltd. 50,000

Main products include RBAO, which are sold in foreign and Chinese

markets.

Henan Yinchuan

Zhongzhou Abrasives

Plant >10,000

Henan Zhongyuan

Abrasives and

Refractories Co., Ltd. 30,000-40,000 Main products include BFA for refractories and abrasives.

Huang He Cast Plant 55,000

Kaileng Special

Refractory Material

Group JSC Ltd. Main products include BFA and WFA.

Louyang Yichuan

Zhongyuan Abrasive

Powder Plant >10,000

Nanchuan Minerals

Group

(“NMG”)(including

Guizhou Guiyang

Emery Factory and

Nanchuan Jingshan

Fused Alumina) 130,000

Main products include BFA abrasive grits and refractory grains. NMG

owns the largest abrasive bauxite mine in the world with 150,000 tpa

mined and calcined bauxite. It is the largest BFA producer in Asia and the

only BFA producer in China with its own bauxite mine. The company's

three facilities operated at 77 percent capacity utilization in 2007.

Table continued on next page.
I-52

Table I-16–Continued 

Major Chinese brown fused alumina producers

Firm

Capacity

(metric tons) Notes

Pingguo Jingshan

Brown fused Alumina

Factory 20,000 Main product is RBAO in grit sizes 24 and 150.

San Feng Abrasives

Factory 21,000 Products include BFA crude, grains and powder.

Sanmenxia Mingzhu

Electric Smelting Co.,

Ltd. 50,000 Main products include crude and refined brown fused alumina

Shanxi Qinxin Group 100,000 Main products include crude and refined brown fused alumina.

Si Sha Co., Ltd. 20-25,000 Produces BFA.

Taiyuan Twin-Tower

Aluminum Oxide Inc.

60,000 (BFA)

30,000 (RBAO)

Products include BFA in lump, abrasive grains, and micro powders. In

2000, company produced 38,000 mt BFA, about 20 percent of which was

for the domestic market and most of the rest exported for both refractory

and abrasive markets in the United States.

United Abrasives

Factory >10,000

Xinyu Abrasives Co.

Ltd. A medium sized producer of BFA for refractory use.

Yichuan Sanhua

Mining Co. Ltd. >10,000

Zhengzhou

Saint-Gobain White

Dove Ceramic

Materials Co. Ltd. 30,000

Products include abrasive grade BFA and WFA. Company may no longer

be in operation.

Zhengzhou Shangjie

Abrasive Wheel

Factory 30,000 Products include BFA and WFA grains for abrasives and refractories.

Zhengzhou Songshan

Abrasives Co. Ltd. >10,000

Zhengzhou Yellow

River Abrasives Co. 

Zhengzhou Yulong

Abrasive Co. Ltd. >10,000

Zunyi Jingshan Brown

Fused Alumina

Factory 50,000

ZYR Abrasives Co. Products include BFA for abrasives.

 Total estimated

 BFA capacity 1,040,500

Note.—Brown fused alumina (“BFA”), White fused alumina (“WFA”), tons per annum (“tpa”).

Source: Various Industrial Minerals articles, and 2007 Annual Report on Chinese Artificial Corundum Market, Asian Metal Ltd.

(reproduced in Response of domestic interested parties, November 20, 2008, exh. III).
 165 Staff Report on Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), October

9, 2003 (INV-AA-154), table VII-1.

I-53

RBAO Operations

Table I-17 presents trade data for the Chinese RBAO industry compiled during the original

investigation (2002-02, January-June 2002, and January-June 2003) and U.S. imports from China for

2007. As these data show, Chinese production increased throughout the period for which data were

collected in the original investigation. Moreover, the Chinese producers also reported in their

questionnaire responses in the original investigation that they forecasted production to increase further in

2003 and 2004 over the 2002 level. During the period examined in the original investigation, the Chinese

producers operated their facilities at relatively low aggregate capacity utilization rates ranging from 69.3

to 75.2 percent.165

Export Profile

Global Trade Atlas statistics concerning exports of crude and refined fused alumina (HTS

subheading 2818.10) from China for 2003-07 are presented in table I-18. These data show that total

exports of fused aluminum oxide from China to the world increased by 25.7 percent from 740,349 short

tons in 2003 to 930,306 short tons in 2007. The two largest export markets for Chinese fused aluminum

oxide during 2003-07 were the United States and Japan, accounting for 22.2 percent and 18.9 percent of

total exports of fused aluminum oxide made by China during 2007, respectively.
I-54

Table I-17

RBAO: China’s capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2000-02, January-June 2002,

January-June 2003, and 20071

Item 2000 2001 2002

January-June

2002 2003 2007

Quantity (short tons)

Capacity 155,809 193,879 219,027 111,116 122,429 (2

)

Production 113,098 144,185 164,795 80,803 84,828 (2

)

End-of-period inventories 23,476 17,910 20,134 20,509 19,646 (2)

Shipments:

 Internal consumption 2,493 5,257 4,654 2,692 2,054 (2)

 Home market 64,310 88,940 94,279 46,927 44,300 (2

)

 Exports:

 United States 35,286 29,801 34,173 17,905 16,263 2,9223

 All other markets 91,941 123,830 124,807 54,620 71,779 (2)

 Total exports 127,227 153,631 158,980 72,525 88,042 (2

)

 Total shipments 194,030 247,828 257,913 122,144 134,396 (2

)

Ratios and shares (percent)

Capacity utilization 72.6 74.4 75.2 72.7 69.3 (2

)

Inventories to production 20.8 12.4 12.2 12.7 11.6 (2

)

Inventories to total shipments 12.1 7.2 7.8 8.4 7.3 (2

)

Share of total quantity of

shipments:

 Internal consumption 1.3 2.1 1.8 2.2 1.5 (2)

 Home market 33.1 35.9 36.6 38.4 33.0 (2

)

 Exports to:

 United States 18.2 12.0 13.2 14.7 12.1 (2

)

 All other markets 47.4 50.0 48.4 44.7 53.4 (2

)

 All export markets 65.6 62.0 61.6 59.4 65.5 (2

)

 1 Data presented for 2000-02, January-June 2002, and January-June 2003 were provided in the final phase of

the original investigation by nine producers and four exporters in China. These producers’ exports of the subject

merchandise to the United States accounted for 59.8 percent of the total U.S. imports of refined aluminum oxide

(all grades) from China during 2002.

 2

 Not available.

 3 Official import statistics for HTS statistical reporting number 2818.10.2090 (more specific to refined brown

aluminum oxide) is presented in lieu of export data because Global Trade Atlas Chinese export data are for HTS

subheading 2818.10, which includes all forms (i.e., crude and refined) and all grades (e.g., brown, white, pink, and

red) of fused aluminum oxide.

Source: Staff Report on Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final),

October 9, 2003 (INV-AA-154), table VII-1 (2000-02, January-June 2002, and January-June 2003), and official

Commerce statistics (HTS statistical reporting number 2818.10.2090 (2007)).
I-55

Table I-18

Fused aluminum oxide: China’s export shipments, 2003-07

Item 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Quantity (short tons)

Exports:

 United States 174,134 159,118 208,828 167,201 206,641

 Japan 155,235 148,362 137,716 144,841 175,796

 Netherlands 70,764 106,192 52,030 67,868 87,367

 India 30,596 37,282 32,192 37,027 64,240

 Korea 60,463 54,756 46,218 54,367 62,431

 Italy 29,612 39,535 46,765 37,376 50,662

 Russia 17,747 25,367 31,541 40,070 43,550

 Taiwan 26,160 27,063 24,796 29,265 28,700

 Thailand 19,585 17,177 21,335 21,446 27,823

 All other1 156,053 163,773 164,193 166,111 183,095

 World 740,349 778,624 765,615 765,571 930,306

Value ($1,000)

2

Exports:

 United States 34,158 36,504 50,691 37,792 58,196

 Japan 43,424 50,234 52,881 55,370 76,533

 Netherlands 13,653 28,085 14,429 16,711 25,728

 India 7,030 10,260 8,291 9,516 18,706

 Korea 14,999 16,676 14,483 16,913 23,721

 Italy 6,463 11,276 14,432 10,855 17,161

 Russia 4,094 7,640 9,059 11,164 13,432

 Taiwan 6,156 7,892 7,648 8,335 10,502

 Thailand 4,855 5,492 6,716 6,279 9,422

 All other1 38,211 47,413 49,255 52,041 66,549

 World 173,042 221,473 227,884 224,975 319,951

Table continued on following page.
I-56

Table I-18–Continued

Fused aluminum oxide: China’s export shipments, 2003-07

Item 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Unit value (per short ton)

Exports:

 United States $196 $229 $243 $226 $282

 Japan 280 339 384 382 435

 Netherlands 193 264 277 246 294

 India 230 275 258 257 291

 Korea 248 305 313 311 380

 Italy 218 285 309 290 339

 Russia 231 301 287 279 308

 Taiwan 235 292 308 285 366

 Thailand 248 320 315 293 339

 All other1 245 290 300 313 363

 World 234 284 298 294 344

Share of quantity (percent)

Exports:

 United States 23.5 20.4 27.3 21.8 22.2

 Japan 21.0 19.1 18.0 18.9 18.9

 Netherlands 9.6 13.6 6.8 8.9 9.4

 India 4.1 4.8 4.2 4.8 6.9

 Korea 8.2 7.0 6.0 7.1 6.7

 Italy 4.0 5.1 6.1 4.9 5.4

 Russia 2.4 3.3 4.1 5.2 4.7

 Taiwan 3.5 3.5 3.2 3.8 3.1

 Thailand 2.6 2.2 2.8 2.8 3.0

 All other1 21.1 21.0 21.4 21.7 19.7

 World 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1 The “all other” category includes data for 82 export markets for the Chinese material. The largest of these

other export markets for the Chinese product include Poland, Germany, Turkey, and Slovenia.

 2

 F.o.b. port in China.

Source: Global Trade Atlas, (HTS subheading 2818.10, which includes all forms (i.e., crude and raw) and all

grades (e.g., brown, white, pink, and red) of fused aluminum oxide. 
A-1

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 1, 2008 / Notices 57055 

the EAR are the foreign-produced direct 

product of U.S.-origin technology. 

In accordance with the provisions of 

Section 766.24(e) of the EAR, the 

Respondents may, at any time, appeal 

this Order by filing a full written 

statement in support of the appeal with 

the Office of the Administrative Law 

Judge, U.S. Coast Guard ALJ Docketing 

Center, 40 South Gay Street, Baltimore, 

Maryland 21202–4022. 

In accordance with the provisions of 

Section 766.24(d) of the EAR, BIS may 

seek renewal of this Order by filing a 

written request not later than 20 days 

before the expiration date. The 

Respondents may oppose a request to 

renew this Order by filing a written 

submission with the Assistant Secretary 

of Commerce for Export Enforcement, 

which must be received not later than 

seven days before the expiration date of 

the Order. 

A copy of this Order shall be served 

on the Respondents and the Related 

Persons and shall be published in the 

Federal Register. 

This Order is effective immediately 

and shall remain in effect for 180 days. 

Entered this 17th day of September, 2008. 

Darryl W. Jackson, 

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export 

Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. E8–23089 Filed 9–30–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DT–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 

751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’), the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is 

automatically initiating a five-year 

review (‘‘Sunset Review’’) of the 

antidumping duty order listed below. 

The International Trade Commission 

(‘‘the Commission’’) is publishing 

concurrently with this notice its notice 

of Institution of Five-Year Review which 

covers the same order. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 1, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

Department official identified in the 

Initiation of Review section below at 

AD/CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230. For 

information from the Commission 

contact Mary Messer, Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission at (202) 205–3193. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department’s procedures for the 

conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth 

in its Procedures for Conducting FiveYear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Orders, 63 FR 13516 (March 20, 1998) 

and 70 FR 62061 (October 28, 2005). 

Guidance on methodological or 

analytical issues relevant to the 

Department’s conduct of Sunset 

Reviews is set forth in the Department’s 

Policy Bulletin 98.3—Policies Regarding 

the Conduct of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Reviews of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Orders: Policy 

Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998). 

Initiation of Review 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.218(c), we are initiating the Sunset 

Review of the following antidumping 

duty order: 

DOC case No. ITC case No. Country Product Department 

contact 

A–570–882 ................. 731–TA–1022 ............ PRC .................... Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide ..... Brandon Farlander (202) 482–0182. 

Filing Information 

As a courtesy, we are making 

information related to Sunset 

proceedings, including copies of the 

pertinent statute and Department’s 

regulations, the Department schedule 

for Sunset Reviews, a listing of past 

revocations and continuations, and 

current service lists, available to the 

public on the Department’s sunset 

Internet Web site at the following 

address: ‘‘http://ia.ita.doc.gov/sunset/.’’ 

All submissions in these Sunset 

Reviews must be filed in accordance 

with the Department’s regulations 

regarding format, translation, service, 

and certification of documents. These 

rules can be found at 19 CFR 351.303. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(c), the 

Department will maintain and make 

available a service list for these 

proceedings. To facilitate the timely 

preparation of the service list(s), it is 

requested that those seeking recognition 

as interested parties to a proceeding 

contact the Department in writing 

within 10 days of the publication of the 

Notice of Initiation. 

Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews 

can be very short, we urge interested 

parties to apply for access to proprietary 

information under administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) immediately 

following publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation by 

filing a notice of intent to participate. 

The Department’s regulations on 

submission of proprietary information 

and eligibility to receive access to 

business proprietary information under 

APO can be found at 19 CFR 351.304– 

306. 

Information Required From Interested 

Parties 

Domestic interested parties defined in 

section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b) wishing 

to participate in a Sunset Review must 

respond not later than 15 days after the 

date of publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation by 

filing a notice of intent to participate. 

The required contents of the notice of 

intent to participate are set forth at 19 

CFR 351.218(d)(1)(ii). In accordance 

with the Department’s regulations, if we 

do not receive a notice of intent to 

participate from at least one domestic 

interested party by the 15-day deadline, 

the Department will automatically 

revoke the order without further review. 

See 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii). 

If we receive an order-specific notice 

of intent to participate from a domestic 

interested party, the Department’s 

regulations provide that all parties 

wishing to participate in the Sunset 

Review must file complete substantive 

responses not later than 30 days after 

the date of publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation. The 

required contents of a substantive 

response, on an order-specific basis, are 

set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3). Note 

that certain information requirements 

differ for respondent and domestic 

parties. Also, note that the Department’s 

information requirements are distinct 

from the Commission’s information 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
57056 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 1, 2008 / Notices 

1 In comments made on the interim final sunset 

regulations, a number of parties stated that the 

proposed five-day period for rebuttals to 

substantive responses to a notice of initiation was 

insufficient. This requirement was retained in the 

final sunset regulations at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(4). As 

provided in 19 CFR 351.302(b), however, the 

Department will consider individual requests to 

extend that five-day deadline based upon a showing 

of good cause. 

requirements. Please consult the 

Department’s regulations for 

information regarding the Department’s 

conduct of Sunset Reviews.1 Please 

consult the Department’s regulations at 

19 CFR Part 351 for definitions of terms 

and for other general information 

concerning antidumping and 

countervailing duty proceedings at the 

Department. 

This notice of initiation is being 

published in accordance with section 

751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218 

(c). 

Dated: September 24, 2008. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–23161 Filed 9–30–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 

Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation; Advance Notification of 

Sunset Reviews 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of upcoming sunset 

reviews. 

Background 

Every five years, pursuant to section 

751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended, the Department of Commerce 

(‘‘the Department’’) and the 

International Trade Commission 

automatically initiate and conduct a 

review to determine whether revocation 

of a countervailing or antidumping duty 

order or termination of an investigation 

suspended under section 704 or 734 

would be likely to lead to continuation 

or recurrence of dumping or a 

countervailable subsidy (as the case may 

be) and of material injury. 

Upcoming Sunset Reviews for 

November 2008 

The following Sunset Review is 

scheduled for initiation in November 

2008 and will appear in that month’s 

Notice of Initiation of Five-Year Sunset 

Reviews. 

Department contact 

Antidumping Duty Proceedings 

Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from the PRC (A–570–881) ................................................................ Juanita Chen (202) 482–1904. 

High and Ultra-High Voltage Ceramic Station Post Insulators From Japan (A–588–862) ...................... Brandon Farlander (202) 482–0182. 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings 

No Sunset Reviews of countervailing 

duty orders are scheduled for initiation 

in November 2008. 

Suspended Investigations 

No Sunset Reviews of suspended 

investigations are scheduled for 

initiation in November 2008. 

The Department’s procedures for the 

conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth 

in 19 CFR 351.218. Guidance on 

methodological or analytical issues 

relevant to the Department’s conduct of 

Sunset Reviews is set forth in the 

Department’s Policy Bulletin 98.3— 

Policies Regarding the Conduct of FiveYear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Orders; Policy Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 

(April 16, 1998). The Notice of Initiation 

of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews 

provides further information regarding 

what is required of all parties to 

participate in Sunset Reviews. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(c), the 

Department will maintain and make 

available a service list for these 

proceedings. To facilitate the timely 

preparation of the service list(s), it is 

requested that those seeking recognition 

as interested parties to a proceeding 

contact the Department in writing 

within 10 days of the publication of the 

Notice of Initiation. 

Please note that if the Department 

receives a Notice of Intent To Participate 

from a member of the domestic industry 

within 15 days of the date of initiation, 

the review will continue. Thereafter, 

any interested party wishing to 

participate in the Sunset Review must 

provide substantive comments in 

response to the notice of initiation no 

later than 30 days after the date of 

initiation. 

This notice is not required by statute 

but is published as a service to the 

international trading community. 

Dated: September 24, 2008. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–23160 Filed 9–30–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 

Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation; Opportunity To Request 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sheila E. Forbes, Office of AD/CVD 

Operations, Customs Unit, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, 

telephone: (202) 482–4697. 

Background 

Each year during the anniversary 

month of the publication of an 

antidumping or countervailing duty 

order, finding, or suspended 

investigation, an interested party, as 

defined in section 771(9) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended, may request, 

in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213, that 

the Department conduct an 

administrative review of that 

antidumping or countervailing duty 

order, finding, or suspended 

investigation. 

Respondent Selection 

In the event the Department limits the 

number of respondents for individual 

examination for administrative reviews 

initiated pursuant to requests made for 

the orders identified below, the 

Department intends to select 

respondents based on U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. 

imports during the period of review 

(POR). We intend to release the CBP 

data under Administrative Protective 

Order (APO) to all parties having an 

APO within five days of publication of 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 1, 2008 / Notices 57149 

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. 09–5–189, 

expiration date June 30, 2011. Public reporting 

burden for the request is estimated to average 15 

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. 

III. Programmatic Targets 

During Fiscal Year 2009, upon request 

of a self-governance tribe, MMS will 

negotiate funding agreements for its 

eligible programs beyond those already 

negotiated. 

Dated: September 24, 2008. 

Randall B. Luthi, 

Director, Minerals Management Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–23175 Filed 9–30–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

Flight 93 National Memorial Advisory 

Commission 

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of November 1, 2008 

Meeting. 

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the date 

of the November 1, 2008 meeting of the 

Flight 93 Advisory Commission. 

DATES: The public meeting of the 

Advisory Commission will be held on 

Saturday, November 1, 2008 from 10 

a.m. to 1 p.m. (Eastern). The 

Commission will meet jointly with the 

Flight 93 Memorial Task Force. 

Location: The meeting will be held at 

the Somerset County Courthouse, Court 

Room #1, located at 111 E. Union Street, 

Somerset, PA 15501. 

Agenda: 

The November 1, 2008 joint 

Commission and Task Force meeting 

will consist of 

1. Opening of Meeting and Pledge of 

Allegiance. 

2. Review and Approval of 

Commission Minutes from August 2, 

2008. 

3. Reports from the Flight 93 

Memorial Task Force and National Park 

Service. Comments from the public will 

be received after each report and/or at 

the end of the meeting. 

4. Old Business. 

5. New Business. 

6. Public Comments. 

7. Closing Remarks. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joanne M. Hanley, Superintendent, 

Flight 93 National Memorial, 109 West 

Main Street, Somerset, PA 15501, 

814.443.4557. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

meeting will be open to the public. Any 

member of the public may file with the 

Commission a written statement 

concerning agenda items. Address all 

statements to: Flight 93 Advisory 

Commission, 109 West Main Street, 

Somerset, PA 15501. 

Dated: September 8, 2008. 

Joanne M. Hanley, 

Superintendent, Flight 93 National Memorial. 

[FR Doc. E8–22924 Filed 9–30–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–25–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–1022 (Review)] 

Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide From 

China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of a five-year review 

concerning the antidumping duty order 

on refined brown aluminum oxide from 

China. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it has instituted a review 

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 

antidumping duty order on refined 

brown aluminum oxide from China 

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 November 20, 2008. 

Comments on the adequacy of responses 

may be filed with the Commission by 

December 15, 2008. For further 

information concerning the conduct of 

this review 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: October 1, 2008. 

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 

this review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—On November 19, 2003, 

the Department of Commerce issued an 

antidumping duty order on imports of 

refined brown aluminum oxide from 

China (68 FR 65249). The Commission 

is conducting a review to determine 

whether revocation of the order 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 a full review or an 

expedited review. The Commission’s 

determination in any expedited review 

will be based on the facts available, 

which may include information 

provided in response to this notice. 

Definitions.—The following 

definitions apply to this review: 

(1) Subject Merchandise is the class or 

kind of merchandise that is within the 

scope of the five-year review, as defined 

by the Department of Commerce. 

(2) The Subject Country in this review 

is China. 

(3) The Domestic Like Product is the 

domestically produced product or 

products which are like, or in the 

absence of like, most similar in 

characteristics and uses with, the 

Subject Merchandise. In its original 

determination, the Commission defined 

the Domestic Like Product as all 

merchandise corresponding to the scope 

of the investigation, as well as any 

refined brown aluminum oxide where 

particles with a diameter greater than 

3/8 inch constitute at least 50 percent of 

the total weight of the entire batch, as 

long as this product has been crushed, 

screened, and sorted into consistent 

sizes. 

(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 determination, 

the Commission defined the Domestic 

Industry as all U.S. producers of the 

domestic like product, as defined above, 

with the exception of Great Lakes 

Minerals, which was excluded from the 

domestic industry as a related party. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
57150 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 1, 2008 / Notices 

(5) The Order Date is the date that the 

antidumping duty order under review 

became effective. In this review, the 

Order Date is November 19, 2003. 

(6) 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 review 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 review 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 review. 

Former Commission employees who 

are seeking to appear in Commission 

five-year reviews are advised that they 

may appear in a review even if they 

participated personally and 

substantially in the corresponding 

underlying original investigation. The 

Commission’s designated agency ethics 

official recently has advised that a fiveyear review is no longer considered the 

‘‘same particular matter’’ as the 

corresponding underlying original 

investigation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 

207, the post employment statute for 

Federal employees, and Commission 

rule 201.15(b)(19 CFR 201.15(b)), 73 FR 

24609 (May 5, 2008). This advice was 

developed in consultation with the 

Office of Government Ethics. 

Consequently, former employees are no 

longer required to seek Commission 

approval to appear in a review under 

Commission rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if 

the corresponding underlying original 

investigation was pending when they 

were Commission employees. For 

further ethics advice on this matter, 

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 this review available to 

authorized applicants under the APO 

issued in the review, 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 review. 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 this 

review 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 November 20, 2008. 

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 an 

expedited or full review. The deadline 

for filing such comments is December 

15, 2008. 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 

review must be served on all other 

parties to the review (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 review 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 

determination in the review. 

Information to be Provided in 

Response to this Notice of Institution: 

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 Product, 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 this review by providing information 

requested by the Commission. 

(4) A statement of the likely effects of 

the revocation of the antidumping duty 

order on the Domestic Industry 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 Industry. 

(5) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. producers of the 

Domestic Like Product. 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 the Subject 

Country that currently export or have 

exported Subject Merchandise to the 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 1, 2008 / Notices 57151 

United States or other countries since 

the Order Date. 

(7) If you are a U.S. producer of the 

Domestic Like Product, provide the 

following information on your firm’s 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2007 (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 the Domestic 

Like Product accounted for by your 

firm’s(s’) production; 

(b) The quantity and value of U.S. 

commercial shipments of the Domestic 

Like Product produced in your U.S. 

plant(s); and 

(c) the quantity and value of U.S. 

internal consumption/company 

transfers of the 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 Country, provide the 

following information on your firm’s(s’) 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2007 (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 duties) of U.S. imports 

and, if known, an estimate of the 

percentage of total U.S. imports of 

Subject Merchandise from the Subject 

Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) 

imports; 

(b) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. commercial shipments of Subject 

Merchandise imported from the Subject 

Country; and 

(c) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. internal consumption/company 

transfers of Subject Merchandise 

imported from the 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 Country, 

provide the following information on 

your firm’s(s’) operations on that 

product during calendar year 2007 

(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 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 the 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 the 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 Country since the Order 

Date, 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 Product produced in the 

United States, Subject Merchandise 

produced in the Subject Country, and 

such merchandise from other countries. 

(11) (OPTIONAL) A statement of 

whether you agree with the above 

definitions of the Domestic Like Product 

and Domestic Industry; if you disagree 

with either or both of these definitions, 

please explain why and provide 

alternative definitions. 

Authority: This review is 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: September 19, 2008. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E8–22490 Filed 9–30–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Proposed 

Settlement Agreement Under the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) 

Notice is hereby given that on 

September 19, 2008, a proposed 

Settlement Agreement regarding the 

East Helena Superfund Site, Operable 

Unit No. 2 (the Site), was filed with the 

United States Bankruptcy Court for the 

Southern District of Texas in In re 

Asarco LLC, No. 05–21207 (Bankr. S.D. 

Tex.) (Docket No. 9231). The settlement 

reserves claims for any liabilities for 

property owned by Debtors and for 

groundwater contamination, among 

other things. The proposed Agreement 

entered into by the United States on 

behalf of the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), the State of Montana, 

and Asarco LLC and Asarco Master Inc. 

(the Debtors), provides, inter alia, that 

with respect to the Site, (1) the United 

States on behalf of EPA shall have an 

allowed general unsecured claim of 

$13,209,783 for past and future response 

costs, and (2) the Debtors will not 

oppose disbursements out of the Asarco 

Environmental Trust up to $5,773,371 to 

perform work described by EPA’s 

proposed plan for Site remediation. 

The Department of Justice will receive 

comments relating to the proposed 

Agreement for a period of thirty (30) 

days from the date of this publication. 

Comments should be addressed to the 

Assistant Attorney General, 

Environment and Natural Resources 

Division, and either e-mailed to 

pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov or 

mailed to P.O. Box 7611, U.S. 

Department of Justice, Washington, DC 

20044–7611, and should refer to In re 

Asarco LLC, DJ Ref. No. 90–11–3–08633. 

The proposed Agreement may be 

examined at the Office of the United 

States Attorney for the Southern District 

of Texas, 800 North Shoreline Blvd, 

#500, Corpus Christi, TX 78476–2001, at 

the office of the Environmental 

Protection Agency Region 8, 1595 

Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. During the public 

comment period, the proposed 

Agreement may also be examined on the 

following Department of Justice Web 

site, http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/ 

Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the 

proposed Agreement may also be 

obtained by mail from the Consent 

Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. 

Department of Justice, Washington, DC 

20044–7611 or by faxing or e-mailing a 

request to Tonia Fleetwood 

(tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov), fax no. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
1706 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2009 / Notices 

1The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 

CFR 207.2(f)). 

2Commissioners Charlotte R. Lane, Irving A. 

Williamson, and Dean A. Pinkert based their 

affirmative determinations on findings of present 

material injury. Chairman Shara L. Aranoff, Vice 

Chairman Daniel R. Pearson, and Commissioner 

Deanna Tanner Okun based their affirmative 

determinations on findings of threat of material 

injury, and further determined that they would not 

have found material injury but for the suspension 

of liquidation. 

3On April 4, 2008, Wheatland Tube Co. (Sharon, 

PA) separately filed an entry of appearance in 

support of the petition. Council for petitioning firm 

Tex-Tube Co. amended its entry of appearance on 

October 31, 2008, to also include domestic 

producers Northwest Pipe Co. (Vancouver, WA); 

Stupp Corp. (Baton Rouge, LA); and TMK IPSCO 

Tubulars (Lisle, IL); the same council once again 

amended its entry of appearance on November 3, 

2008, to add domestic producer American Steel 

Pipe Division of ACIPCO (Birmingham, AL). 

1A 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. 

Township 47 North, Range 78 West, 

Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, 

Group No. 773, was accepted November 

17, 2008. 

Copies of the preceding described 

plats and field notes are available to the 

public at a cost of $1.10 per page. 

Dated: January 7, 2009. 

John P. Lee, 

Chief Cadastral Surveyor, Division of Support 

Services. 

[FR Doc. E9–454 Filed 1–12–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–22–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 701–TA–455 (Final)] 

Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel 

Line Pipe From China 

Determination 

On the basis of the record 1 developed 

in the subject investigation, the United 

States International Trade Commission 

(Commission) determines, pursuant to 

section 705(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 

(19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)) (the Act), that an 

industry in the United States is 

materially injured or threatened with 

material injury by reason of imports 

from China of circular welded carbon 

quality steel line pipe from China, 

provided for in subheadings 7306.19.10 

and 7306.19.51 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States, that have 

been found by the Department of 

Commerce (Commerce) to be subsidized 

by the Government of China.2

Background 

The Commission instituted this 

investigation effective April 3, 2008, 

following receipt of a petition filed with 

the Commission and Commerce by 

Maverick Tube Corp. (Houston, TX), 

Tex-Tube Co. (Houston, TX), U.S. Steel 

Corp. (Pittsburgh, PA), and the United 

Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, 

Manufacturing, Energy, Allied 

Industrial and Service Workers 

International Union, AFL–CIO–CLC 

(Pittsburgh, PA).3 The final phase of the 

investigation was scheduled by the 

Commission following notification of a 

preliminary determination by 

Commerce that imports of circular 

welded carbon quality line pipe from 

China were being subsidized within the 

meaning of section 703(b) of the Act (19 

U.S.C. 1671b(b)). Notice of the 

scheduling of the final phase of the 

Commission’s investigation and of a 

public hearing to be held in connection 

therewith was given by posting copies 

of the notice in the Office of the 

Secretary, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, Washington, DC, and by 

publishing the notice in the Federal 

Register of September 22, 2008 (73 FR 

54618). The hearing was held in 

Washington, DC, on November 24, 2008, 

and all persons who requested the 

opportunity were permitted to appear in 

person or by counsel. 

The Commission transmitted its 

determination in this investigation to 

the Secretary of Commerce on January 7, 

2009. The views of the Commission are 

contained in USITC Publication 4055 

(January 2009), entitled Circular Welded 

Carbon Quality Line Pipe from China: 

Investigation No. 701–TA–455 (Final). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: January 7, 2009. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–446 Filed 1–12–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–1022 (Review)] 

Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide From 

China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Scheduling of an expedited fiveyear review concerning the antidumping 

duty order on refined brown aluminum 

oxide from China. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of an expedited 

review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(3)) (the Act) to determine 

whether revocation of the antidumping 

duty order on refined brown aluminum 

oxide from China would be likely to 

lead to continuation or recurrence of 

material injury within a reasonably 

foreseeable time. For further 

information concerning the conduct of 

this review 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: January 5, 2009. 

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 

this review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—On January 5, 2009, the 

Commission determined that the 

domestic interested party group 

response to its notice of institution (73 

FR 57149, October 1, 2008) of the 

subject five-year review was adequate 

and that the respondent interested party 

group response was inadequate. The 

Commission did not find any other 

circumstances that would warrant 

conducting a full review.1 Accordingly, 

the Commission determined that it 

would conduct an expedited review 

pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act. 

Staff report.—A staff report 

containing information concerning the 

subject matter of the review will be 

placed in the nonpublic record on 

February 2, 2009, and made available to 

persons on the Administrative 

Protective Order service list for this 

review. A public version will be issued 

thereafter, pursuant to section 

207.62(d)(4) of the Commission’s rules. 

Written submissions.—As provided in 

section 207.62(d) of the Commission’s 

rules, interested parties that are parties 

to the review and that have provided 

individually adequate responses to the 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2009 / Notices 1707 

2The Commission has found the responses 

submitted on behalf of C–E Minerals, Inc.; Great 

Lakes Minerals, LLC; Treibacher Schleifmittel 

North America, Inc.; and Washington Mills 

Company, Inc. to be individually adequate. 

Comments from other interested parties will not be 

accepted (see 19 CFR 207.62(d)(2)). 

notice of institution,2 and any party 

other than an interested party to the 

review may file written comments with 

the Secretary on what determination the 

Commission should reach in the review. 

Comments are due on or before 

February 5, 2009 and may not contain 

new factual information. Any person 

that is neither a party to the five-year 

review nor an interested party may 

submit a brief written statement (which 

shall not contain any new factual 

information) pertinent to the review by 

February 5, 2009. However, should the 

Department of Commerce extend the 

time limit for its completion of the final 

results of its review, the deadline for 

comments (which may not contain new 

factual information) on Commerce’s 

final results is three business days after 

the issuance of Commerce’s results. If 

comments contain business proprietary 

information (BPI), they must 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). 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the rules, each document 

filed by a party to the review must be 

served on all other parties to the review 

(as identified by either the public or BPI 

service list), and a certificate of service 

must be timely filed. The Secretary will 

not accept a document for filing without 

a certificate of service. 

Authority: This review is 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. 

Issued: January 8, 2009. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–480 Filed 1–12–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms 

and Explosives 

[OMB Number 1140–0049] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Proposed Collection; 

Comments Requested 

ACTION: 30-Day Notice of Information 

Collection Under Review: Application 

for National Firearms Examiner 

Academy. 

The Department of Justice (DOJ), 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms 

and Explosives (ATF) will be submitting 

the following information collection 

request to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for review and approval 

in accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed 

information collection is published to 

obtain comments from the public and 

affected agencies. This proposed 

information collection was previously 

published in the Federal Register 

Volume 73, Number 207, page 63512– 

63513 on October 24, 2008, allowing for 

a 60-day comment period. 

The purpose of this notice is to allow 

for an additional 30 days for public 

comment until February 12, 2009. This 

process is conducted in accordance with 

5 CFR 1320.10. 

Written comments and/or suggestions 

regarding the items contained in this 

notice, especially the estimated public 

burden and associated response time, 

should be directed to The Office of 

Management and Budget, Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Attention Department of Justice Desk 

Officer, Washington, DC 20503. 

Additionally, comments may be 

submitted to OMB via facsimile to (202) 

395–5806. 

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: 

—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. 

Overview of This Information 

Collection 

(1) Type of Information Collection: 

Extension of a currently approved 

collection. 

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: 

Application for National Firearms 

Examiner. 

(3) Agency form number, if any, and 

the applicable component of the 

Department of Justice sponsoring the 

collection: Form Number: ATF F 6330.1. 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms 

and Explosives. 

(4) Affected public who will be asked 

or required to respond, as well as a brief 

abstract: Primary: State, Local, or Tribal 

Government. Other: Federal. Abstract: 

The information requested on this form 

is necessary to process requests from 

prospective students to attend the ATF 

National Firearms Examiner Academy 

and to acquire firearms and tool mark 

examiner training. The information 

collection is used to determine the 

eligibility of the applicant. 

(5) An estimate of the total number of 

respondents and the amount of time 

estimated for an average respondent to 

respond: There will be an estimated 75 

respondents, who will complete the 

form within approximately 12 minutes. 

(6) An estimate of the total burden (in 

hours) associated with the collection: 

There are an estimated 15 total burden 

hours associated with this collection. 

If additional information is required 

contact: Lynn Bryant, Clearance Officer, 

United States Department of Justice, 

Policy and Planning Staff, Justice 

Management Division, Suite 1600, 

Patrick Henry Building, 601 D Street, 

NW., Washington, DC 20530. 

Dated: January 8, 2009. 

Lynn Bryant, 

Department Clearance Officer, PRA, United 

States Department of Justice. 

[FR Doc. E9–464 Filed 1–12–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–FY–P 

4138 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 14 / Friday, January 23, 2009 / Notices 

Original Net Subsidy Rate Amended Net Subsidy Rate 

Huludao Companies ............................................................................................ 35.63% 31.29% 

Liaoning Northern Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. ............................................................... 40.05% (no change) 

All Others Rate .................................................................................................... 37.84% 35.67% 

Countervailing Duty Order 

On January 7, 2009, in accordance 

with section 705(d) of the Act, the ITC 

notified the Department of its final 

determination that the industry in the 

United States producing line pipe is 

materially injured within the meaning 

of section 705(b) (1)(A)(i) of the Act by 

reason of subsidized imports of line 

pipe from the PRC. Therefore, 

countervailing duties will be assessed 

on all unliquidated entries of line pipe 

from the PRC entered or withdrawn 

from warehouse, for consumption, on or 

after September 9, 2008, the date on 

which the Department published its 

preliminary affirmative countervailing 

duty determination in the Federal 

Register. See Circular Welded Line Pipe 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing 

Duty Determination, 73 FR 52297 

(September 9, 2008). 

In accordance with section 706 of the 

Act, the Department will direct CBP to 

continue to suspend liquidation, 

effective the date of publication of this 

order in the Federal Register and to 

assess, upon further advice by the 

Department pursuant to section 

706(a)(1) of the Act, countervailing 

duties for each entry of the subject 

merchandise in an amount based on the 

amended net countervailable subsidy 

rates for the subject merchandise as 

noted above. Further, with respect to 

Huludao, we are directing CBP to 

require a cash deposit for such entries 

of subject merchandise in the amount 

indicated above that are entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date of this amended final 

determination in the Federal Register. 

We are further directing CBP to grant a 

refund for any over collection on entries 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date of the Final 

Determination and on or before the 

publication date of the amended final 

determination and order in the Federal 

Register, provided the importer makes 

such a request pursuant to 19 USC 

§ 1520(a)(4). 

Regarding the rate applied to all other 

companies not individually investigated 

for the amended final, we are directing 

CBP to require a cash deposit for such 

entries of subject merchandise in the 

amount indicated above that are 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date of the amended final 

determination in the Federal Register. 

We are further directing CBP to grant a 

refund for any over collection on entries 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date of the Final 

Determination and on or before the 

publication date of the amended final 

determination in the Federal Register, 

provided the importer makes such a 

request pursuant to 19 USC § 1520(a)(4). 

This notice constitutes the 

countervailing duty order with respect 

to line pipe from the PRC, pursuant to 

section 706(a) of the Act. Interested 

parties may contact the Department’s 

Central Records Unit, Room 1117 of the 

Main Commerce Building, for copies of 

an updated list of countervailing duty 

orders currently in effect. 

This order is issued and published in 

accordance with section 736(a) of the 

Act, 19 CFR 351.211(b) and 19 CFR 

351.224(e). 

Dated: January 14, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–1446 Filed 1–22–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–570–882 

Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from 

the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of Expedited Sunset Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On October 1, 2008, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) initiated a sunset review of 

the antidumping duty order on refined 

brown aluminum oxide (RBAO) from 

the People’s Republic of China (PRC) 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The 

Department conducted an expedited 

(120–day) sunset review of this order. 

As a result of this sunset review, the 

Department finds that revocation of the 

antidumping duty order would be likely 

to lead to continuation or recurrence of 

dumping. The dumping margins are 

identified in the Final Results of Review 

section of this notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 23, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: David 

Goldberger 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) 482–4136 or (202) 482– 

0182, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background: 

On October 1, 2008, the Department 

published the notice of initiation of the 

sunset review of the antidumping duty 

order on RBAO from the PRC pursuant 

to section 751(c) of the Act. See 

Initiation of Five–Year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Review, 73 FR 57055, October 1, 2008. 

The Department received a Notice of 

Intent to Participate from the following 

domestic producers of RBAO: C–E 

Minerals, Inc., Great Lakes Minerals 

LLC, Treibacher Schleifmittel North 

America, Inc., U.S. Electrofused 

Minerals, Inc., and Washington Mills 

Company, Inc. (collectively ‘‘the 

domestic interested parties’’), 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 manufacturers of a domestic– 

like product in the United States. We 

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 

received no substantive responses from 

any 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 an expedited (120–day) 

sunset review of the order. 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise covered by this 

order is ground, pulverized or refined 

brown artificial corundum, also known 

as brown aluminum oxide or brown 

fused alumina, in grit size of 3/8 inch 

or less. Excluded from the scope of the 

order is crude artificial corundum in 

which particles with a diameter greater 

than 3/8 inch constitute at least 50 

percent of the total weight of the entire 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 14 / Friday, January 23, 2009 / Notices 4139 

batch. The scope includes brown 

artificial corundum in which particles 

with a diameter greater than 3/8 inch 

constitute less than 50 percent of the 

total weight of the batch. The 

merchandise under investigation is 

currently classifiable under subheadings 

2818.10.20.00 and 2818.10.20.90 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS). Although the 

HTSUS subheading is provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the merchandise 

covered by the order is dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in this review are 

addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Final Results of 

the Expedited Sunset Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Refined 

Brown Aluminum Oxide from the PRC’’ 

(Decision Memo), which is hereby 

adopted by this notice. The issues 

discussed in the Decision Memo include 

the likelihood of continuation or 

recurrence of dumping and the 

magnitude of the margins likely to 

prevail if the order were to be revoked. 

Parties can find a complete discussion 

of all issues raised in this review and 

the corresponding recommendations in 

this public memorandum which is on 

file in the Central Records Unit, room 

1117 of the main Commerce building. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memo can be accessed directly 

on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/ 

index.html. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Decision Memo 

are identical in content. 

Final Results of Review 

We determine that revocation of the 

antidumping duty order on RBAO from 

the PRC would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

at the following weighted–average 

percentage margins: 

Manufacturers/Exporters/Producers 

Weighted– 

Average 

Margin 

(percent) 

Zibo Jinyu Abrasive Co., Ltd. ..... 135.18 

PRC–wide ................................... 135.18 

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 orders 

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 the 

results and notice in accordance with 

sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act. 

Dated: January 14, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–1504 Filed 1–22–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

Board of Visitors Meeting 

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition 

University, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: The next meeting of the 

Defense Acquisition University (DAU) 

Board of Visitors (BoV) will be held at 

Defense Acquisition University, Fort 

Belvoir, VA. The purpose of this 

meeting is to report back to the BoV on 

continuing items of interest. 

DATES: January 28, 2009 from 0900– 

1500. 

ADDRESSES: Defense Acquisition 

University, Bldg. 226, Fort Belvoir, VA 

22060. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Christen Goulding at 703–805–5134. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

meeting is open to the public; however, 

because of space limitations, allocation 

of seating will be made on a first-come, 

first served basis. Persons desiring to 

attend the meeting should call Ms. 

Christen Goulding at 703–805–5134. 

Dated: January 14, 2009. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. E9–1407 Filed 1–22–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

Defense Science Board 

AGENCY: Department of Defense. 

ACTION: Notice of advisory committee 

meetings. 

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board 

Task Force on the Fulfillment of Urgent 

Operational Needs will meet in closed 

session on February 12 and 13, 2009, in 

Arlington, VA. The exact meeting 

location is still to be determined. 

The mission of the Defense Science 

Board is to advise the Secretary of 

Defense and the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Acquisition, Technology & 

Logistics on scientific and technical 

matters as they affect the perceived 

needs of the Department of Defense. 

These meetings will assess the 

effectiveness of the processes used by 

the Department of Defense for the 

generation of urgent operational need 

requirements and the acquisition 

processes used to fulfill such 

requirements. Consequently, this Task 

Force will have access to all levels of 

classified information needed to 

develop its assessment and 

recommendations. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

LtCol Charles Lominac, USAF, Defense 

Science Board, 3140 Defense Pentagon, 

Room 3B888A, Washington, DC 20301– 

3140, via e-mail at 

charles.lominac@osd.mil, or via phone 

at (703) 571–0081. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The task 

force’s findings and recommendations, 

pursuant to 41 CFR 102–3.140 through 

102–3.165, will be presented and 

discussed by the membership of the 

Defense Science Board prior to being 

presented to the Government’s decision 

maker. 

Pursuant to 41 CFR 102–3.120 and 

102–3.150, the Designated Federal 

Officer for the Defense Science Board 

will determine and announce the 

Federal Register when the findings and 

recommendations of the February 12 

and 13 meetings are deliberated by the 

Defense Science Board. 

Interested persons may submit a 

written statement for consideration by 

the Defense Science Board. Individuals 

submitting a written statement must 

submit their statement to the Designated 

Federal Official at the address detailed 

above, at any point, however, if a 

written statement is not received at least 

10 calendar days prior to the meeting, 

which is the subject of this notice, then 

it may not be provided to or considered 

by the Defense Science Board. The 

Designated Federal Official will review 

all timely submissions with the Defense 

Science Board Chairperson, and ensure 

they are provided to members of the 

Defense Science Board before the 

meeting that is the subject of this notice. 

Dated: January 15, 2009. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. E9–1403 Filed 1–22–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

 
B-1

APPENDIX B

COMMISSION’S STATEMENT ON ADEQUACY

EXPLANATION OF COMMISSION DETERMINATION ON ADEQUACY

in

Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from China

Inv. No. 731-TA-1022 (Review)

On January 5, 2009, the Commission determined that it should proceed to an expedited

review in the subject five-year review pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930,

as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3)(B).

The Commission received a joint response to its notice of institution from C-E Minerals,

Inc.; Great Lakes Minerals, LLC; Treibacher Schleifmittel North America, Inc.; and Washington

Mills Company, Inc., domestic producers of refined brown aluminum oxide. The Commission

determined that the individual responses of these four domestic producers were adequate. The

Commission also determined that the domestic interested party group response was adequate. 

The Commission received no response from any respondent interested party, and

therefore determined that the respondent interested party group response to the notice of

institution was inadequate. In the absence of an adequate respondent interested party group

response, or any other circumstances warranting a full review, the Commission determined to

conduct an expedited review.

A record of the Commissioners’ votes is available from the Office of the Secretary and

the Commission’s web site (http://www.usitc.gov).
 
C-1

APPENDIX C

TABLE C-2 FROM COMMISSION’S STAFF REPORT IN THE FINAL PHASE

OF THE ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION
 
C-3

The Commission excluded Great Lakes Minerals from the domestic industry in the final phase of

the original investigation. Therefore, the Commission relied on data presented in table C-2 of the staff

report, which excludes all “domestic” data of Great Lakes Minerals, in making its determination. Since

the original investigation, however, domestic producer Great Lakes Minerals has ceased importing the

subject merchandise and is no longer an interested party. Therefore, for comparison purposes with data

provided by the domestic interested parties in their response to the Commission’s notice of institution in

this review for calendar year 2007, the data presented in the body of this staff report for the period

examined in the original investigation include the data provided by Great Lakes Minerals. Table C-2

from the Commission’s original staff report has been reproduced in this appendix.
 
Table C-2 

RBAO: Summary data concerning the U.S. market (excluding all “domestic” data reported by Great Lakes),’ : 

June2002andJanuaryJune2003 

(Quantity=Shorf tons; value=7,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per ton; and period cl 

where noted) 

li 

- 

C 

000-2002, Januaryanges=percent, except 

2002Jan.- 

I *** *** I *** I *** 

*** I +**I 

***I *** I 

*** t** 

*** *** 

*** *** 

-3.6 -30.0 

-1.81 -22.21 

1.91 11.21 

-22.1 I -27.1 I 

-66.2 I -28.11 

49.7 14.3 

(3) (3) 

-21.5 I -29.81 

-17.81 -21.31 

c-5 
(Quantity=Shorf tons; value= 7,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per ton; and period changes=percent, except 

where noted) 

Calendar year 

I Item 

~ 

JanuaryJune Period changes 

U . S . producers’-- 

*** Capacity quantity 

Production quantity 

Capacity utilization’ 

U.S. shipments: 

*** 

*** 

*** Quantitv 

I 2000 I 2001 I 2002 I 2002 I 2003 12000-200212000-2001 

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** 

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** 

*** *** *** *** *** *** t  

ttt ** * *** *** *** *** *** ** 

2001 -2002 I June 2002Jan.’ ZOO? 

Export shipments: 

Quantity 

Value 

Unit value 

Ending inventory quantity 

Inventorieshotal shipments’ 

Production workers 

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** 

*** *** fft *** *** *** *** 

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** 

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** 

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** 

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** 

I Value 

Wages paid *** (7,000 dollars) 

Hourly wages 

Productivity (tons per 7,000 

Unit labor costs 

*** 

*** hours) 

*** 

I *** I *** I 

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** 

*** *** *** *** *** *** **t ** 

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** 

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** 

*** I *** I 

Unit operating income or 

COGSkales’ 

*** (loss) 

*** 

*** I 

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** 

*** *** *** ttt *** *** *** ** 

*** I 

Operating income or 

*** (loss)/sales’ 

*** I 

*** *** *t* *** *** *** *** ** 

*** I ** 

*** I *** I *** I *** I Unitvalue I *** I *** I *** I + 

** *** I 

** *** I 

** *** I 

*** I ** 

*** I *** I *tt I *** I *** I ** I Hours worked (7,000 hours) I *** I *** I *** I 

*** I *** I *** I *** I *** I ** I Unit SG&A expenses I *** I *** I *** I 

C-6