U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4103 October 2009

Washington, DC 20436

Cut-To-Length Carbon Steel Plate from

China, Russia, And Ukraine

Investigation Nos. 731-TA-753, 754, and 756 (Second 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

Staff assigned

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

Robert A. Rogowsky

Director of Operations

Dana Lofgren, Investigator

Ioana Mic, Economist

Karen Taylor, Commodity-Industry Analyst

David Boyland, Accountant/Auditor

David Fishberg, Attorney

Douglas Corkran, Supervisory Investigator

Special assistance from

Steven Hudgens, Senior Statistician
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4103 October 2009

Cut-To-Length Carbon Steel Plate from

China, Russia, And Ukraine

Investigation Nos. 731-TA-753, 754, and 756 (Second Review)

i

CONTENTS

Page

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

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

Part I: Introduction and overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

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

The original investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2

Subsequent proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

Summary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

Related investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

Antidumping and countervailing duty investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

Safeguard investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-17

Statutory criteria and organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-19

Statutory criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-19

Organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-21

Commerce’s reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-21

Administrative reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-21

New shipper review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-23

Circumvention review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-23

Five-year reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-23

Distribution of continued dumping and subsidy offset act funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-24

The subject merchandise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-26

Commerce’s scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-26

Tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-26

The product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-27

Description and applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-27

Manufacturing processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-28

Domestic like product issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-31

U.S. market participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-33

U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-33

U.S. importers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-37

U.S. purchasers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-40

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-40

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

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

Channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-2

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

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

U.S. demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-7

Substitutability issues ........................................................... II-14

Factors affecting purchasing decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-14

Comparisons of domestic products and subject imports .............................. II-20

Comparisons of domestic products and nonsubject imports ........................... II-21

Comparisons of subject imports and nonsubject imports ............................. II-22
ii

CONTENTS

Page

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

Elasticity estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-23

U.S. supply elasticity ......................................................... II-23

U.S. demand elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-23

Substitution elasticity ........................................................ II-23

Part III: Condition of the U.S. industry ............................................ III-1

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-1

Background ................................................................. III-5

Existing operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-5

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

U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization ............................ III-5

Constraints on capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-7

Alternative products ........................................................ III-7

U.S. producers’ domestic shipments, company transfers, and export shipments ............. III-9

U.S. producers’ order books ...................................................... III-12

U.S. producers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-12

U.S. producers’ imports and purchases ............................................. III-14

U.S. producers’ employment, wages, and productivity ................................ III-14

Financial experience of the U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-17

Background ................................................................ III-17

Producers operations on CTL plate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-18

Research and development expenses, capital expenditures, assets, and return on

investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-25

Part IV: U.S. imports and the foreign industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1

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

U.S. importers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-7

Cumulation considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-9

Fungibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-9

Geographic markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-12

Presence in the market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-12

The subject foreign industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-13

Actual and anticipated changes in capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-13

Exports, imports, and net trade balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-16

Tariff or non-tariff barriers to trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-17

The industry in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-19

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-19

CTL plate operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-20

The industry in Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-21

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

CTL plate operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-23

Product mix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-26
iii

CONTENTS

Page

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

The industry in Ukraine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-27

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-27

CTL plate operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-28

Product mix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-30

Global market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-31

Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-31

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

Prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-32

Additional global supply and demand factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-34

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

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

Raw material costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

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

Transportation costs to the U.S. market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3

Pricing practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-4

Pricing methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-4

Sales terms and discounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-5

Price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-5

Price trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-12

Price comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-14

Appendixes

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

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

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

D. Comments by U.S. producers, importers, purchasers, and foreign producers/exporters 

regarding the effects of the suspension agreements and the order and the likely effects of 

revocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

E. Overview of variance calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

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

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

asterisks.
 
 1

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

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation Nos. 731-TA-753, 754, and 756 (Second Review)

Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from China, Russia, and Ukraine

DETERMINATION

On the basis of the record1

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

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

1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1675d(c)) (the Act), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on cut-to-length

carbon steel plate from China, and termination of the suspended antidumping duty investigations on

imports of cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Russia and Ukraine, 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 these reviews on August 1, 2008 (73 FR 45071) and determined on

November 4, 2008 that it would conduct full reviews (73 FR 70368, November 20, 2008). Notice of the

scheduling of the Commission’s reviews 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 on March 11, 2009 (74 FR 10614). 

The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on September 9, 2009, and all persons who requested the

opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel.
 
 1

 Certain Carbon Steel Plate from China, Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine, Inv. No.731-TA-753-756 (Final),

USITC Pub. 3076 (December 1997) (“Original Determinations”).

 2

 62 Fed. Reg. 61766 (Nov. 19, 1997) (Ukraine); 62 Fed. Reg. 61751 (Nov. 19, 1997) (South Africa); 62 Fed.

Reg. 61780 (Nov. 19, 1997) (Russia); 62 Fed. Reg. 61773 (Nov. 19, 1997) (China).

 3

 62 Fed. Reg. 61754 (Nov. 19, 1997) (Ukraine); 62 Fed. Reg. 61731 (Nov. 19, 1997) (South Africa); 62 Fed.

Reg. 61787 (Nov. 19, 1997) (Russia); 62 Fed. Reg. 61964 (Nov. 20, 1997) (China).

 4

 Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from China, Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine, Inv. No.731-TA-753-756

(Review), USITC Pub. 3626 (Sept. 2003) (“First Reviews”). The order on CTL plate from South Africa was

subsequently revoked.

 5

 68 Fed. Reg. 54417 (Sept. 17, 2003).

3

VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

Based on the record in these five-year reviews, we determine under section 751(c) of the Tariff

Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on cut-to-length

carbon steel plate (“CTL plate”) from China, and termination of the suspended investigations on CTL

plate from Russia and Ukraine, 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

A. Original Determinations

In December 1997, the Commission determined that an industry in the United States was being

threatened with material injury by reason of imports of CTL plate from China, Russia, South Africa, and

Ukraine that were being sold at less than fair value (“LTFV”).1

 Prior to the Commission determinations,

Commerce issued final LTFV determinations on November 19 and 20, 1997, and, on the basis of

suspension agreements that it had entered into with each of the subject countries on October 24, 1997,2

Commerce continued the investigations.3 There were no appeals from the Commission’s original

determinations.

B. First Five-Year Reviews

After conducting a full review of the grouped transition orders, on August 29, 2003, the

Commission determined that termination of the suspended investigations on CTL plate from China,

Russia, and Ukraine would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry

in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time, and that termination of the suspended

investigation on CTL plate from South Africa would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of

material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.4

 On September

17, 2003, Commerce published notices of the continuation of the suspended investigations on CTL plate

from China, Russia, and Ukraine.5

 There were no appeals from the Commission’s first five-year review

determinations.
 6

 Confidential Staff Report (“CR”) at I-3; Public Report (“PR”) at I-3. The CR was revised by memoranda INVGG-097 and INV-GG-099, dated October 5, 2009 and October 8, 2009, respectively.

 7

 68 Fed. Reg. 60081 (Oct. 21, 2003).

 8

 CR at I-4; PR at I-4.

 9

 68 Fed. Reg. 3859 (Jan. 27, 2002).

 10 68 Fed. Reg. 3859 (Jan. 27, 2002). The cost-based normal values are calculated by Commerce.

 11 CR at I-5; PR at I-4.

 12 CR at I-5; PR at I-5.

 13 73 Fed. Reg. 57602 (Oct. 3, 2008).

4

C. Background and Terms of the Terminated Suspension Agreement for China and the

Current Suspension Agreements for Russia and Ukraine

1. China

On October 24, 1997, Commerce signed a non-market economy (“NME”) suspension agreement

with the Government of the People’s Republic of China suspending the antidumping duty investigation of

CTL plate from China.6

 The agreement provided for five years of quotas, and was extended through

October 31, 2003. After the Commission’s and Commerce’s affirmative determinations in the first

reviews, on August 29, 2003 the Government of China announced its intention to withdraw from the

suspension agreement. Therefore, Commerce terminated the agreement with respect to China and issued

an antidumping duty order effective November 3, 2003.7

2. Russia

On October 24, 1997, Commerce signed a NME suspension agreement with the Government of

the Russian Federation suspending the antidumping duty investigation of CTL plate from Russia.8

 The

agreement provided for quotas and was replaced by a market economy agreement on December 20,

2002.9

 On January 23, 2003, the agreement was revised to eliminate the quotas, and each CTL plate

producer/exporter individually agreed to make any necessary price revisions to eliminate completely any

amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the U.S. price of its merchandise subject

to the agreement.10 The agreement remains in effect for the signatory producers/exporters of CTL plate

from Russia: JSC Severstal (“Severstal”), OJSC Magnitogorsk Iron & Steel Works (“MMK”), and JSC

NOSTA Integrated Iron-Steel Works, although only Severstal had reportedly applied for normal values

under the agreement for the current period.11

3. Ukraine

On October 24, 1997, Commerce signed a NME suspension agreement with the Government of

Ukraine suspending the antidumping duty investigation of CTL plate from Ukraine.12 The agreement set

a quota, or export limit, for shipments of CTL plate and set a minimum reference price at which

Ukrainian mills were required to sell their CTL plate products. On February 17, 2006, Commerce

revoked Ukraine’s status as a NME country. Effective November 1, 2008, Commerce converted the

NME suspension agreement to a market economy agreement based on a request by certain Ukrainian

producers of CTL plate.13 Under the current agreement, signatory producers/exporters in Ukraine agree
 14 Two companies have applied for normal values in the first half of 2010. CR at I-7; PR at I-6.

 15 73 Fed. Reg. 45071 (Aug. 1, 2008).

 16 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(5).

 17 73 Fed. Reg. 70368 (Nov. 4, 2008); see also Explanation of Commission Determination on Adequacy, CR/PR

at Appendix A.

 18 Id.

 19 73 Fed. Reg. 74143 (Dec. 5, 2008) (China); 73 Fed. Reg. 74461 (Dec. 8, 2008) (Russia).

 20 74 Fed. Reg. 11910 (March 20, 2009).

5

to make any necessary price revisions to eliminate completely any amount by which the normal value of

their merchandise exceeds the U.S. price of the merchandise subject to the agreement.14 

D. The Current Reviews

On August 1, 2008, the Commission instituted the present reviews pursuant to section 751(c) of

the Act to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on CTL plate from China and/or

the termination of the suspended investigations on CTL plate from Russia and Ukraine would be likely to

lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to a domestic industry within a reasonably

foreseeable time.15

The Commission received a joint response to the notice of institution that was filed on behalf of

domestic producers ArcelorMittal USA (“ArcelorMittal”), Evraz NA Claymont (“Claymont”), Evraz NA

Oregon Steel Mills (“Oregon Steel Mills”), Nucor Corp. (“Nucor”), and SSAB North America Division

(“SSAB NAD”) (hereinafter collectively referred to as “domestic interested parties”). Three additional

responses to the notice of institution were filed by the following respondent interested parties: Severstal,

a Russian producer and exporter of the subject merchandise; MMK, a Russian producer of the subject

merchandise; and Azovstal Iron & Steel Works (“Azovstal”) and Ilyich Iron & Steel Works (“Ilyich”),

producers/exporters of the subject merchandise in Ukraine.

On November 4, 2008, the Commission determined to conduct full reviews pursuant to section

751(c)(5) of the Act.16 17 The Commission found that the domestic interested party group response to its

notice of institution was adequate and that the respondent interested party group responses with respect to

Russia and Ukraine were adequate, but that the respondent interested party group response with respect to

China was inadequate. The Commission decided to conduct full reviews concerning CTL plate imports

from China to promote administrative efficiency in light of its decision to conduct full reviews with

respect to CTL plate from Russia and Ukraine.18

Commerce expedited its second reviews with respect to subject imports from China and Russia

and published final affirmative review determinations on December 5, 2008 and December 8, 2008,

respectively.19 Commerce conducted a full second review with respect to subject imports from Ukraine

and published a final affirmative review determination on March 20, 2009.20 

Domestic interested parties SSAB NAD, Claymont, and Oregon Steel Mills filed joint prehearing

and posthearing briefs with the Commission, and representatives from the companies appeared at the

Commission hearing. ArcelorMittal and Nucor filed a joint prehearing brief and separate posthearing

briefs with the Commission, and representatives from both companies appeared at the hearing. U.S. Steel

filed a posthearing brief with the Commission, but did not appear at the hearing. A representative from

the United Steelworkers Union appeared at the hearing. No foreign producers or importers of CTL plate

appeared at the hearing or filed briefs in these reviews.
 21 CR at I-42; PR at I-33 & CR/PR at Table I-9 

 22 CR at IV-1; PR at IV-1.

 23 CR at IV-36, IV-47; PR at IV-22, IV-28.

 24 CR at I-51; PR at I-39.

 25 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 26 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10); see, e.g., Cleo, Inc. v. United States, 501 F.3d 1291, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2007); NEC Corp.

v. Department of Commerce, 36 F. Supp. 2d 380, 383 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 19

CIT 450, 455 (1995); 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).

 27 See, e.g., Internal Combustion Industrial Forklift Trucks From Japan, Inv. No. 731-TA-377 (Second Review),

USITC Pub. 3831 at 8-9 (Dec. 2005); Crawfish Tail Meat From China, Inv. No. 731-TA-752 (Review), USITC Pub.

3614 at 4 (Jul. 2003); Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Turkey, Inv. No. 731-TA-745 (Review), USITC Pub.

3577 at 4 (Feb. 2003).

6

Eleven U.S. mills and six U.S. processors, accounting for virtually all U.S. shipments of CTL

plate in 2008, provided information and/or data.21 The Commission received importers’ questionnaires

from 16 firms regarding imports of CTL plate; these firms accounted for *** percent of subject imports in

2008.22 No producer of CTL plate from China provided a questionnaire response; two producers of CTL

plate from Russia, Severstal and MMK, which combined represent approximately *** percent of total

CTL plate production in Russia, provided questionnaire responses; and one producer of CTL plate from

Ukraine, Azovstal, accounting for approximately *** percent of total CTL plate production in Ukraine,

provided a questionnaire response.23 Thirty-seven purchasers of CTL plate also provided questionnaire

responses.24

II. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT

In making its determination under section 751(c) of the Tariff Act, the Commission defines “the

domestic like product” and the “industry.”25 The Tariff Act defines “domestic like product” as “a product

which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to

an investigation under this subtitle.”26 The Commission’s practice in five-year reviews is to look to the

like product definition from the original determinations and any completed reviews and consider whether

the record indicates any reason to revisit the prior finding(s).27

A. Product Description

The imported product subject to the antidumping duty order and suspended investigations under

review, as defined by Commerce, consists of the following:

hot-rolled carbon steel universal mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on four

faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 millimeters but not

exceeding 1,250 millimeters and of a thickness of not less than 4 millimeters, not in

coils and without patterns in relief), of rectangular shape, neither clad, plated nor

coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other

nonmetallic substances; and certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat-rolled products in

straight lengths, of rectangular shape, hot-rolled, neither clad, plated, nor coated 
 28 73 Fed. Reg. 74143 (Dec. 5, 2008).

 29 CR at I-36; PR at I-29.

 30 CR at I-33; PR at I-28.

 31 CR at I-33; PR at I-28.

 32 Original Determinations at 8-9.

 33 Original Determinations at 7-8.

 34 First Reviews at 8-9. 

7

with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other

nonmetallic substances, 4.75 millimeters or more in thickness and of a width which

exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness.

Included as subject merchandise . . . are flat-rolled products which have been

beveled or rounded at the edges . . . Excluded from the subject merchandise within

the scope . . . is grade X-70 plate, and certain carbon CTL steel plate with a

maximum thickness of 80 millimeters in steel grades BS 7191, 355 EM, and 355

EMZ.28

Most CTL plate is hot-rolled on a reversing mill, although it may also be rolled in Steckel mills

and in continuous hot-strip mills.29 CTL plate can be made in a variety of widths, thicknesses, and shapes

for incorporation into other manufactured products or for further processing into other steel products. 

Among other applications, it is used in load-bearing and structural applications, such as bridge work, and

for machine parts, transmission towers, light poles, buildings, mobile equipment and heavy transportation

equipment.30 It is also used in, inter alia, the production of tanks, sills, offshore drilling rigs, pipes,

petrochemical plant and machinery, and various fabricated pieces.31

B. Whether to Expand the Domestic Like Product

1. Background and Prior Treatment of this Issue

In the original investigations the Commission defined the domestic like product to consist of CTL

plate produced by U.S. mills or cut from coiled plate by service centers.32 The Commission also

considered whether plate in coil form itself warranted inclusion in the domestic like product definition. 

Based on different physical characteristics and end uses, limited interchangeability, different

manufacturing facilities for the majority of CTL plate and coiled plate, and differences in price, the

Commission did not include coiled plate in its domestic like product definition.33

In the first reviews of the antidumping duty order and suspension agreements, domestic producer

U.S. Steel argued, without opposition from any of the parties to those reviews, that the domestic like

product definition should be expanded beyond the scope to include micro-alloy steel because there was no

clear dividing line between the two types of CTL plate. Reviewing its traditional domestic like product

factors, the Commission determined that “the differences between carbon steel CTL plate and micro-alloy

steel CTL plate are not so pronounced as to constitute clear dividing lines and, accordingly, we include

micro-alloy steel CTL plate within our domestic like product definition. . . .”34 The Commission stated
 35 Id. at 9. Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Products from Australia, India, Japan, Sweden, and Thailand, Invs. Nos.

731-TA-965, 971-72, 979, and 981 (Final), USITC Pub. 3536 (Sept. 2002); Hot-Rolled Steel Products from

Argentina and South Africa, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-404 (Final) and 731-TA-898 and 905 (Final), USITC Pub. 3446

(Aug. 2001); Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Products from Argentina, Brazil, Japan, Russia, South Africa, and Thailand,

Inv. Nos. 701-TA-393 and 731-TA-829 to 830, 833 to 834, 836, and 838 (Final), USITC Pub. 3283 (Mar. 2000);

Certain Cut-to-Length Steel Plate from France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, and Korea, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-387 to

391 (Final) and 701-TA-816 to 821 (Final), USITC Pub. 3273 at 5 (Jan. 2000); Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products

from Japan, Inv. No. 731-TA-807 (Final), USITC Pub. 3202 (June 1999); Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products from

Brazil, Japan, and Russia, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-384 (Prelim.) and 731-TA-806 to 808 (Prelim.), USITC Pub. 3142 at 6

(Nov. 1998). In each of those cases, micro-alloy products were included in the scope.

 36 Since the first reviews, the Commission has twice considered whether or not micro-alloy steel should be

included in the definition of the domestic like product in reviews of other orders affecting CTL plate. In Certain

Cut-to-Length Steel Plate from France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, and Korea, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-387-391 (Final)

and 701-TA-816-821 (Review), USITC Pub. 3816 at 4-6 (Nov. 2005), the Commission found no reason to alter its

finding in the original investigations of a single domestic like product consisting of all domestically produced CTL

plate that corresponds to the scope description, which in that case included micro-alloy plate, X-70 plate, and plate

cut from coils. In Certain Carbon Steel Products from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France,

Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom, Inv. Nos.

AA1921-197 (Second Review), 701-TA-319, 320, 325- 327, 348, and 350 (Second Review), and 731-TA-573, 574,

576, 578, 582-587, 612, and 614-618 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 3899, (January 2007) at 31 (“2007 CTL Plate

Reviews”), three Commissioners expanded the like product definition to include micro-alloy products and three

Commissioners declined to expand the domestic like product to include micro-alloy products.

 37 ArcelorMittal’s Posthearing Brief at 40; SSAB NAD Posthearing Brief at 12; Nucor’s Posthearing Brief at 17-

18 (“the micro-alloy question is often a distinction without commercial significance.”).

8

that this approach was consistent with its treatment of the issue in numerous original investigations that

were conducted between 1998 and 2002 involving CTL plate and other forms of flat rolled steel.35 36

2. Analysis and Conclusion

 No new facts have been presented to warrant a like product definition that is different from that

reached by the Commission in the first reviews of these suspension agreements and antidumping duty

order. Moreover, domestic interested parties stated that they agree with a domestic like product definition

that includes micro-alloy CTL plate.37 The respondent interested parties did not address this issue. 
 38 Chairman Aranoff was among the three Commissioners who determined not to expand the domestic like

product to include micro-alloy CTL plate in the 2007 CTL Plate Reviews. In those reviews, the Commission noted

that it had not expanded the domestic like product in either the original investigations or the first reviews of the

orders at issue there. USITC Pub. 3899 (Jan. 2007) at 26. In determining not to expand the domestic like product,

Chairman Aranoff explained that she “relied primarily on the fact that no party advocated . . . an expansion during

these reviews.” Id. at 31 n.118. She allowed that she might reach a contrary conclusion in a future investigation or

review, “[d]epending on the facts found and the arguments presented . . . .” Id. With respect to the order and

suspension agreements at issue here, the Commission determined in the first reviews to include micro-alloy CTL

plate in the domestic like product (the issue was not presented in the original investigations). In these second

reviews, no party has advocated a change and no new facts suggest that one is warranted. Given these

circumstances, Chairman Aranoff joins her colleagues in defining the domestic like product to include micro-alloy

CTL plate for purposes of the current reviews. In any regard, the volume of domestic micro-alloy CTL plate

production is too small to have a significant impact on the data in the record. 

 39 Commissioner Lane includes micro-alloy CTL plate within the Commission’s domestic like product definition

for purposes of these reviews. Commissioner Lane notes that in these reviews, unlike the 2007 CTL Plate Reviews,

domestic interested parties support including micro-alloy plate in the domestic like product definition and the

Commission included micro-alloy plate in these underlying first reviews. Commissioner Lane did not participate in

the first reviews of these investigations. She notes that evidence on the record of these reviews indicates that “the

micro-alloy question is often a distinction without commercial significance.” Domestic interested party, Nucor’s,

posthearing brief at 17-18. See also CR at I-35; PR at I-29. Depending on the facts found and the arguments

presented in any future investigation or review, Commissioner Lane could reach a contrary conclusion on whether to

include micro-alloy CTL plate in the domestic like product.

 40 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). The definitions in 19 U.S.C. § 1677 are applicable to the entire subtitle containing the

antidumping and countervailing duty laws, including 19 U.S.C. §§ 1675 and 1675a. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677. The

related party provision provides that producers that are related to an exporter or importer of subject merchandise or

which are themselves importers may be excluded in appropriate circumstances. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B).

 41 Original Determinations at 9-12.

 42 First Reviews at 9-10.

9

Therefore, consistent with our domestic like product definition in the first reviews, we include microalloy CTL plate within our domestic like product definition of CTL plate.38 39

III. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY

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

{w}hole of a domestic like product, or those producers whose collective output of a domestic like product

constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”40 In defining the domestic

industry, the Commission’s general practice has been to include in the industry producers of all domestic

production of the like product, whether toll-produced, captively consumed, or sold in the domestic

merchant market. 

In the original determinations, the Commission considered whether the domestic industry should

include the processors that changed a non-like product (coiled plate) into the domestic like product. The

Commission analyzed the production-related activities of the processors and concluded that processors

were properly considered a part of the domestic industry. The Commission therefore defined the

domestic industry to include all producers of CTL carbon steel plate, whether toll producers, integrated

producers, or processors.41 

In the first reviews of these suspension agreements and antidumping duty order, the Commission

once again included processors within the definition of the domestic industry.42
 43 The Commission also determines whether any producer of the domestic like product should be excluded from

the domestic industry pursuant to section 771(4)(B) of the Act. That provision of the statute allows the Commission,

if appropriate circumstances exist, to exclude from the domestic industry producers that are related to an exporter or

importer of subject merchandise or which are themselves importers. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B). 

In the original determinations, the Commission found that North Star Steel Co., Cargill Inc., and Feralloy

Corp. were related parties due to either their direct importation of subject merchandise, or through common

ownership with an importer of subject merchandise, but found that appropriate circumstances did not exist to

exclude any of these related parties. Original Determinations at 13. In the first reviews, the Commission found no

related party issues. First Reviews at 10 n.44. 

There are two related party issues in these reviews. Domestic producer *** holds a *** in foreign producer

***. CR at I-46; PR at I-36. *** are not themselves importers of the subject merchandise. CR/PR at Table I-10. 

We find that *** and *** are not related parties as defined by the statute because ***. ArcelorMittal/Nucor’s

Prehearing Brief at 5 n.6. 

Domestic processor *** imported subject merchandise during the period of review and therefore qualifies

as a related party as defined by the statute. CR/PR at Table III-10. We find, however, that appropriate

circumstances do not exist to exclude *** from the domestic industry. First, *** supports continuation of the orders. 

Second, as a ratio to *** domestic production in 2006 and 2007, *** imports of subject merchandise from *** were

only *** percent and *** percent, respectively. CR/PR at Table III-10. *** interests therefore would appear to be in

domestic production rather than in importation.

Based on the available facts, and the lack of any contention of the parties to the contrary, we find that

appropriate circumstances do not exist to warrant the exclusion of any producers from the domestic industry as a

related party under the Act. 

10

No new facts have been presented to warrant a conclusion different from that in the original

investigations and the first reviews. Moreover, no party raised any objections to this domestic industry

definition. Therefore, based on our definition of the domestic like product, we define the domestic

industry to include all producers of the domestic like product.43

IV. CUMULATION

A. Original Investigations and First Reviews

In the original investigations, the Commission found that the statutory criteria for cumulation

were met. The Commission found that subject imports compete with each other and with the domestic

like product, and it therefore cumulated subject imports from China, Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine

for purposes of analyzing whether the domestic industry was materially injured by reason of LTFV

imports from those countries. Because the Commission ultimately found no present material injury, it

also considered cumulation for purposes of its threat analysis. The Commission exercised its discretion to

cumulate the LTFV imports from China, Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine for the same reasons it

determined cumulation was warranted for its material injury analysis. 

In the first reviews, the Commission found that based on the available information regarding

capacity, production, product mix, importance of price considerations to purchasers, and export

orientation, as well as the “prevailing conditions of competition in the U.S. market,” the subject imports

from China, Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine would each be likely to have a discernible adverse impact

on the domestic industry if the suspended investigations were terminated. The Commission also found

that there likely would be a reasonable overlap of competition between subject imports from all countries

under review and the domestic like product, and among the subject imports from all of the countries, if

the suspended investigations were terminated. The Commission did not find any likely significant

differences in the conditions of competition among imports from the subject countries, except with
 44 The Commission found that significant differences in conditions of competition were likely to exist for subject

imports from South Africa, and therefore declined to exercise its discretion to cumulate the likely volume and price

effects of subject imports from South Africa. See First Reviews at 16-17.

 45 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7).

 46 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(G)(i); see also, e.g., Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States, 475 F. Supp. 2d 1370,

1378 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2006) (recognizing the wide latitude the Commission has in selecting the types of factors it

considers relevant in deciding whether to exercise discretion to cumulate subject imports in five-year reviews);

Nucor v. United States, 569 F. Supp. 2d 1328, 1337-38 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2008); United States Steel Corp. v. United

States, Slip Op. 08-82 (Aug. 5, 2008).

 47 Vice Chairman Pearson and Commissioner Okun note that while they consider the same issues discussed in this

section in determining whether to exercise their discretion to cumulate the subject imports, their analytical

framework begins with whether imports from the subject countries are likely to face similar conditions of

competition. For those subject imports which are likely to compete under similar conditions of competition, they

next proceed to consider whether there is a likelihood of a reasonable overlap of competition whereby those imports

(continued...)

11

respect to imports from South Africa.44 As a result, the Commission exercised its discretion to cumulate

subject imports from China, Russia and Ukraine.

B. Legal Standard

With respect to five-year reviews, section 752(a) of the Tariff Act provides as follows:

the Commission may cumulatively assess the volume and effect of imports of the subject

merchandise from all countries with respect to which reviews under section 1675(b) or

(c) of this title were initiated on the same day, if such imports would be likely to compete

with each other and with domestic like products in the United States market. The

Commission shall not cumulatively assess the volume and effects of imports of the

subject merchandise in a case in which it determines that such imports are likely to have

no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.45

Cumulation therefore is discretionary in five-year reviews, unlike original investigations, which are

governed by section 771(7)(G)(I) of the Act.46 The Commission may exercise its discretion to cumulate,

however, only if the reviews are initiated on the same day, the Commission determines that the subject

imports are likely to compete with each other and the domestic like product in the U.S. market, and

imports from each such subject country are not likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the

domestic industry in the event of revocation. Our focus in five-year reviews is not only on present

conditions of competition, but also on likely conditions of competition in the reasonably foreseeable

future.

The statutory threshold for cumulation is satisfied in these reviews, because all of the reviews of

CTL plate were initiated on the same day.

We consider three issues in deciding whether to exercise our discretion to cumulate the subject

imports: (1) whether imports from any of the subject countries are precluded from cumulation because

they are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry; (2) whether there is a

likelihood of a reasonable overlap of competition among imports of CTL plate from the subject countries

and the domestic like product; and (3) other considerations, such as whether there are similarities and

differences in the likely conditions of competition under which subject imports are likely to compete in

the U.S. market for CTL plate.47 In so doing, we take into account the various arguments by the parties. 
 47 (...continued)

are likely to compete with each other and with the domestic like product. Finally, if based on that analysis they

intend to exercise their discretion to cumulate one or more subject countries, they analyze whether they are

precluded from cumulating such imports because the imports from one or more subject countries, assessed

individually, are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry. See Steel Concrete

Reinforcing Bar From Belarus, China, Indonesia, Korea, Latvia, Moldova, Poland, and Ukraine, Invs. Nos. 731-TA873 to 875, 877 to 880, and 882 (Review), USITC Pub. 3933 (Jul. 2007) (Separate and Dissenting Views of

Chairman Daniel R. Pearson and Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun Regarding Cumulation). Accord Nucor Corp.

v. United States, Slip Op. 09-16 at 23-25 (Ct. Int’l Trade Mar. 9, 2009); Nucor Corp. v. United States, Slip Op. 08-

141 at 39-43 (Ct. Int’l Trade Dec. 23, 2008).

 48 See, e.g., ArcelorMittal/Nucor’s Prehearing Brief at 5-26; SSAB NAD’s Prehearing Brief at 3-7; U.S. Steel’s

Posthearing Brief at 3-4.

 49 As explained in footnote 71, Commissioners Lane and Pinkert, applying a different analytical framework, find

no justification for exercising their discretion not to cumulate the subject imports from China, Russia, and Ukraine.

 50 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7).

 51 SAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. I at 887 (1994).

 52 In the current reviews, no responses to the Commission’s questionnaires were received from producers of CTL

plate in China. Consequently, data for China are based on information collected in the original investigations, the

first reviews, and published sources. In the current reviews, the Commission received responses to its questionnaires

from two Russian producers of CTL plate, Severstal and MMK, which combined reportedly represent *** percent of

CTL plate production in Russia. In the current reviews, the Commission identified and issued questionnaires to

three Ukrainian firms believed to produce CTL plate, and received a response from one, ***, which estimated it

accounted for *** percent of Ukrainian production of CTL plate in 2007.

12

In these reviews, domestic interested parties ask the Commission to exercise its discretion to cumulate

imports from all three subject countries.48

Based on the record, we find that subject imports from each of the three countries would not be

likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry were the suspended investigations

terminated or antidumping duty order revoked. We also find a likely reasonable overlap of competition

among the imports from the subject countries and between the subject imports and the domestic like

product were the suspended investigations terminated or antidumping duty order revoked. We do not find

significant differences in the likely conditions of competition affecting imports from China, Russia, and

Ukraine.49 We therefore exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports from China, Russia, and

Ukraine. 

C. Likelihood of No Discernible Adverse Impact

The statute precludes cumulation if the Commission finds that subject imports from a country are

likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.50 Neither the statute nor the

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”) Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”) provides

specific guidance on what factors the Commission is to consider in determining that imports “are likely to

have no discernible adverse impact” on the domestic industry.51 With respect to this provision, the

Commission generally considers the likely volume of subject imports and the likely impact of those

imports on the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time if the orders are revoked.

Based on the record, we do not find that subject imports from any of the subject countries are

likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry in the event of revocation of the

order or termination of the suspended investigations covering those imports.52 
 53 During the period examined in the original investigations, the volume of subject imports from China increased

from 8,639 short tons in 1994 to 301,652 short tons in 1996, the volume of subject imports from Russia increased

from 230,156 short tons in 1994 to 252,396 short tons in 1996, and the volume of subject imports from Ukraine

increased from 295,775 short tons in 1994 to 627,796 short tons in 1996. CR/PR at Table I-1. 

 54 In the current reviews, based on official Commerce import statistics, the volume of subject imports from China

declined irregularly from 6,036 short tons in 2003 to 4,360 short tons in 2008, subject imports from Russia increased

irregularly from 3,742 short tons in 2003 to a period high of 84,992 short tons in 2008, and subject imports from

Ukraine increased irregularly from 4,724 short tons in 2003 to a period high of 173,945 short tons in 2008. CR/PR at

Table C-1.

 55 Based on published data, CTL plate capacity in China has grown *** since the original investigations and first

reviews, and was at least *** short tons in 2007. CR at IV-32; PR at IV-20. Reported Russian production capacity

increased irregularly from *** short tons in 2003 to *** short tons in 2008. CR/PR at Table IV-18. Ukrainian

production capacity, based on the single responding producer, declined from *** short tons in 2004 to *** short tons

in 2008. CR/PR at Table IV-22. 

 56 CR/PR at Tables IV-17 & IV-21. We do not have reported data on excess capacity in China due to the lack of

participation in these proceedings by Chinese producers, but given the greatly increased capacity of the Chinese

industry since the imposition of the order, and the negative impact of the recent global collapse in the market for

CTL plate, we find that China likely has significant excess capacity. CR at IV-19-IV-21; PR at IV-19-IV-21.

 57 Since 2003, China’s exports of CTL plate have increased from 1.2 million short tons to 5.6 million short tons,

and were estimated to be 10.3 million short tons in 2007. CR/PR at Table IV-15. Exports from CTL plate producers

in Russia declined irregularly from *** percent of shipments in 2003 to *** percent in 2008; exports accounted for

*** percent of shipments in interim 2009 as compared to *** percent in interim 2008. CR/PR at Table IV-18. 

Exports from the sole reporting Ukrainian producer remained above *** percent of total shipments throughout the

period of review, declining irregularly from a *** percent of shipments in 2004 to *** percent in 2008; exports

accounted for *** percent of shipments in interim 2009 as compared to *** percent of shipments in interim 2008. 

CR/PR at Table IV-22.

 58 CR/PR at Table II-8.

 59 CR/PR at Table II-6.

 60 In the original investigations, subject imports from China undersold the domestic like product in 69 of 78 price

comparisons, and in the first reviews subject imports from China undersold the domestic like product in 33 of 59

comparisons. In these reviews, subject imports from China undersold the domestic like product in four of nine

comparisons, with margins ranging from 0.9 to 16.5 percent. CR/PR at Table V-7. In the original investigations,

subject imports from Russia undersold the domestic like product in 54 of 55 price comparisons, and in the first

(continued...)

13

The volume of subject imports from China, Russia, and Ukraine rose rapidly during the original

investigations.53 Subject imports from each of the three countries have remained in the U.S. market even

after the impositions of the antidumping duty order and signing of the suspension agreements, albeit at

smaller volumes.54

The size of the CTL plate industry in each of these countries is significant, both absolutely and

relative to the U.S. market.55 Each country also has significant excess capacity56 as well as capacity to

produce a large range of plate products. Moreover, the CTL plate industries in all of the subject countries

produce significant volumes of subject plate and export subject plate, although to varying degrees.57

Imports from each of the subject countries are likely to be substitutable for, and competitive

with, domestically produced CTL plate.58 Such competition is likely to be based, at least in part, on price,

due to the importance of price in purchasing decisions.59 Producers in each of the subject countries

undersold U.S. producers in the large majority of pricing comparisons during the original investigations

and the first reviews, and continued to undersell U.S. producers during the period examined in the current

reviews.60 
 60 (...continued)

reviews subject imports undersold the domestic like product in 39 of 47 comparisons. In the current reviews, subject

imports from Russia undersold the domestic like product in 22 of 49 price comparisons, with margins of underselling

ranging from *** percent. CR/PR at Table V-7. In the original investigations, subject imports from Ukraine

undersold the domestic like product in all 59 price comparisons, and undersold the domestic like product in 20 of 39

comparisons during the first reviews. In the current reviews, subject imports from Ukraine undersold the domestic

like product in 16 of 27 price comparisons, with margins of underselling ranging from *** percent. CR/PR at Table

V-7 as revised in Memorandum INV-GG-099.

 61 The four factors generally considered by the Commission in assessing whether imports compete with each

other and with the domestic like product are as follows: (1) the degree of fungibility between the imports from

different countries and between imports and the domestic like product, including consideration of specific customer

requirements and other quality related questions; (2) the presence of sales or offers to sell in the same geographical

markets of imports from different countries and the domestic like product; (3) the existence of common or similar

channels of distribution for imports from different countries and the domestic like product; and (4) whether the

imports are simultaneously present in the market. See, e.g., Wieland Werke, AG v. United States, 718 F. Supp. 50

(Ct. Int’l Trade 1989).

 62 See Mukand Ltd. v. United States, 937 F. Supp. 910, 916 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996); Wieland Werke, 718 F. Supp.

at 52 (“Completely overlapping markets are not required.”); United States Steel Group v. United States, 873 F. Supp. 

673, 685 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1994), aff’d, 96 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1996). We note, however, that there have been

investigations where the Commission has found an insufficient overlap in competition and has declined to cumulate

subject imports. See, e.g., Live Cattle From Canada and Mexico, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-386 and 731-TA-812 to 813

(Prelim.), USITC Pub. 3155 at 15 (Feb. 1999), aff’d sub nom, Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Foundation v.

United States, 74 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1999); Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from the

Republic of Korea and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-761 to 762 (Final), USITC Pub. 3098 at 13-15 (Apr. 1998).

 63 See generally Chefline Corp. v. United States, 219 F. Supp. 2d 1313, 1314 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002).

14

Accordingly, in light of the prevailing conditions of competition in the U.S. market, including the

general interchangeability of CTL plate from different sources and the importance of price considerations

to purchasers, and given that producers in China, Russia, and Ukraine have a demonstrated history of

rapid increases in volume and underselling, we do not find that subject imports from China, Russia, and

Ukraine would likely have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.

D. Likelihood of a Reasonable Overlap of Competition

The Commission generally has considered four factors intended to provide a framework for

determining whether the imports compete with each other and with the domestic like product.61 Only a

“reasonable overlap” of competition is required.62 In five-year reviews, the relevant inquiry is whether

there likely would be competition even if none currently exists because the subject imports are absent

from the U.S. market.63

In the original determinations and the first reviews, the Commission found a reasonable overlap

of competition among the subject countries and the domestic like product. In these reviews, no party has

argued that circumstances have changed so as to warrant a different result concerning the likely overlap of

competition for cumulation purposes.
 64 Commissioner Lane notes that, with respect to fungibility, her analysis does not require such similarity of

products that a perfectly symmetrical fungibility is required and that this factor would be better described as an

analysis of whether subject imports from each country and the domestic like product could be substituted for each

other. See Separate Views of Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane, Certain Lightweight Thermal Paper from China,

Germany, and Korea, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-451 and 731-TA-1126-1128 (Prelim.), USITC Pub. 3964 at 32-33 (Nov.

2007).

 65 CR/PR at Table II-8.

 66 Id. Although the majority of imports for CTL plate from Russia were less than or equal to three inches in

thickness in 2008, and the majority of imports of CTL plate from China were greater than three inches in thickness

in 2008, (CR/PR at Table IV-6), we note that these countries’ exports to the United States represent only a small

percentage of their total production in 2008, and there is no evidence on the record that producers in these countries

can not produce the full range of CTL plate thicknesses. In fact, pricing data from the original investigations showed

that producers in China did in fact ship to the United States ***. Original Determinations, Confidential Staff Report

at V-8 and Table V-1. Moreover, U.S. importers’ shipments of CTL plate from China were *** in the “all other cutto-length plate” category in 2008, which overlaps with the *** of Ukrainian producers' reported exports and home

market shipments of CTL plate, and shipments by the responding Russian producers to their ***. CR/PR at Tables

IV-7, IV-20 & IV-24. 

 67 First Reviews at 15. In 2002, 63 percent of U.S. produced CTL plate shipments went to distributors or service

centers. 

 68 CR/PR at Table II-2.

 69 First Reviews at 16; CR at IV-17; PR at IV-12. 

15

1. Fungibility64

In general, U.S. producers and importers reported that domestic CTL plate and subject

imports are used interchangeably. All responding producers that had knowledge of CTL plate from

various sources, as well as nine out of 11 importers, reported that the products are “always” or

“frequently” used interchangeably.65 The majority of responding purchasers also reported that U.S.-

produced CTL plate can “always” or “frequently” be used interchangeably with the subject product. The

vast majority of market participants also reported that CTL plate from the various subject countries is

“always” or “frequently” used interchangeably.66

Accordingly, in these reviews, subject imports and the domestic like product appear no less

fungible than they did in the original investigations or the first reviews. 

2. Common or Similar Channels of Distribution

In the first reviews, the Commission found that virtually all shipments of subject imports are to

distributors or service centers, and that domestic producers and importers ship plate to end users,

distributors and service centers.67 This is generally consistent with the record in the current reviews. In

these reviews, domestic producers’ U.S. shipments of CTL plate to distributors or service centers ranged

from 54.6 percent in 2003 to 46.0 percent in 2008, while the large majority of shipments of subject

imports from each of the subject countries were to distributors or service centers throughout the review

period.68 

3. Same Geographic Markets

The domestic like product and subject imports continue to be sold nationwide.69
 70 CR at IV-18; PR at IV-12 & CR/PR at Table IV-9.

 71 Commissioners Lane and Pinkert explain their analysis of other considerations as follows. Where, in a fiveyear review, they do not find that the subject imports would be likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the

domestic industry if the orders were revoked, and find that such imports would be likely to compete with each other

and with the domestic like product in the U.S. market, they cumulate such imports unless there is a condition or

propensity – not merely a trend – that is likely to persist for a reasonably foreseeable time and that significantly

limits competition such that cumulation is not warranted.

Based on the record in these reviews, they find that there is no such condition or propensity with respect to

the subject imports. Therefore, they find no justification for exercising their discretion not to cumulate the subject

imports from China, Russia, and Ukraine, and they have cumulated them in these reviews.

 72 See, e.g., Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 475 F. Supp. 2d at 1378 (recognizing the wide latitude the Commission has

in selecting the type of factors it considers relevant in deciding whether to exercise discretion to cumulate subject

imports in five-year reviews); Nucor v. United States, 569 F. Supp. 2d at 1337-38; United States Steel, Slip Op. 08-

82.

16

4. Simultaneous Market Presence

While subject import volumes from each subject country are significantly lower in this review

than they were during the original investigations, subject imports from each country have continued to

enter the U.S. market in each year of the current review period.70

5. Conclusion

Based on the traditional four competition factors that the Commission considers, we conclude that

subject imports from the subject countries likely would be generally fungible, move in the same channels

of distribution, and compete simultaneously in the same geographic markets if the suspended

investigations were terminated and/or the antidumping duty order was revoked. No party has asserted an

argument that a reasonable overlap of competition is not likely. Accordingly, we conclude that there

likely would be a reasonable overlap of competition between subject imports and the domestic like

product, and among the subject imports themselves, if the suspended investigations were terminated

and/or the antidumping duty order was revoked.

E. Other Considerations71

In determining whether to exercise our discretion to cumulate the subject imports, we assess

whether the subject imports from China, Russia, and Ukraine are likely to compete under similar or

different conditions in the U.S. market after revocation of the order and termination of the suspended

investigations.72 Based on the current record, we do not find, and no party has asserted, any significant

differences in likely conditions of competition among imports from China, Russia, and Ukraine. 

Accordingly, we exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports from China, Russia, and Ukraine.
 73 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

 74 SAA at 883-84. 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.” Id. at 883.

 75 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.

 76 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 mem., 140 Fed. Appx. 268

(Fed. Cir. 2005); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 26 CIT 1416, 1419 (2002) (same); Usinor Industeel, S.A. v.

United States, 26 CIT 1402, 1404 nn.3, 6 (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, 26 CIT 767, 794 (2002)

(“‘likely’ is tantamount to ‘probable,’ not merely ‘possible’”).

 77 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, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-362

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

 78 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), 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 these reviews and all

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

addresses this issue. 

 79 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).

17

V. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY IF

THE SUSPENDED INVESTIGATIONS ARE TERMINATED AND THE ANTIDUMPING

DUTY ORDER IS REVOKED

A. Legal Standards

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

antidumping or countervailing 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 or countervailing duty order “would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of

material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.”73 The 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 restraining effects on volumes and prices of imports.”74 Thus, the

likelihood standard is prospective in nature.75 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.76 77 78

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.”79 According to
 80 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.

 81 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

 82 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). We note that no duty absorption findings have been made by Commerce. 

 83 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5). Although the Commission must consider all factors, no one factor is necessarily

dispositive. SAA at 886.

 84 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

 85 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A-D).

 86 See 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.

18

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.”80

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.”81 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

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

§ 1675(a)(4).82 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.83

In evaluating the likely volume of imports of subject merchandise if the orders under review are

revoked and the suspended investigations are terminated, 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.84 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.85

In evaluating the likely price effects of subject imports if the orders under review were revoked

and the suspended investigations are terminated, 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.86

In evaluating the likely impact of imports of subject merchandise if the orders under review are

revoked and the suspended investigations are terminated, 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,
 87 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 88 The SAA states that in assessing whether the domestic industry is vulnerable to injury if the order is revoked,

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

these factors, in some cases, may account for the injury to the domestic industry, they may also demonstrate that an

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

885.

 89 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 any other

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

manner requested, significantly impedes a proceeding, or provides information that cannot be verified pursuant to 19

U.S.C. § 1677m(i). The verification requirements in 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(i) are applicable only to Commerce. See

Titanium Metals Corp. v. United States, 155 F. Supp. 2d 750, 765 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002) (“the 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 Commission investigations.”).

 90 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. See 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, 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.

 91 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

19

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.87 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. 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 orders at issue and whether the industry

is vulnerable to material injury if the orders were revoked.88

As stated above, the Commission received responses to its questionnaires from two Russian

producers of CTL plate, Severstal and MMK, which combined reportedly represent *** percent of CTL

plate production in Russia, a questionnaire response from one Ukrainian firm, ***, which estimated it

accounted for *** percent of Ukrainian production of CTL plate in 2007. The Commission did not

receive any foreign producer questionnaire responses from CTL plate producers in China. Accordingly,

we have relied on the facts otherwise available when appropriate in these reviews, which consist primarily

of information from the original investigations, information submitted in these reviews, and information

available from published sources.89 90

B. Conditions of Competition and 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.”91
 92 Original Determinations at 14.

 93 Original Determinations at 14.

 94 Original Determinations at 20.

 95 First Reviews at 20. In 2002, service centers accounted for 63.0 percent of U.S.-produced shipments and

purchased all reported subject imports. 

 96 Id. at 21.

 97 CR at II-17; PR at II-11. According to domestic interested parties, the current market for CTL plate does not

simply reflect a downturn in a normal business cycle, but is directly caused by the economic collapse in global steel

demand which, combined with the financial collapse, resulted in an unprecedented global economic reversal. 

Hearing Tr. at 72-73 (Blume) (Whiteman).

20

1. The Commission’s Original Determinations

In the original investigations, the Commission highlighted several conditions of competition

pertinent to its analysis of the domestic CTL plate market. The Commission found that demand for CTL

plate had increased overall during the period examined in the original investigations. Producers,

importers and end-user purchasers attributed the increase in demand to a strong economy and to such

specific factors as low interest rates, increased spending on capital goods, and increased general

construction spending.92 The Commission also identified the growing importance of steel service centers,

which accounted for 23.8 percent of domestic production of CTL plate in 1996.93 The Commission also

found that CTL plate is essentially a commodity-type product and that price is a significant factor for

purchasers.94

2. The Commission’s First Reviews

In the first reviews, the Commission highlighted several conditions of competition pertinent to its

analysis of the domestic CTL plate market. The Commission found that demand for CTL plate had

declined overall during the period. Market participants attributed the decrease to general economic

conditions, with specific factors cited such as decreased spending on capital goods and decreased general

construction spending.95 The Commission also noted that the domestic industry had consolidated over the

period, and that productivity had increased. The Commission identified the growing importance of steel

service centers as a factor in increased price competition because of their buying leverage due to their

ability to make large purchases and hold sizable quantities of CTL plate in inventory.96 Finally, the

Commission noted that safeguard duties not to exceed three years had been imposed on imported CTL

plate, among other steel products, in 2002, and that imports from China, Russia, and Ukraine were subject

to this temporary import relief.

3. The Current Proceedings

We find the following conditions of competition relevant to our determinations in these reviews.

a. Demand

The majority of market participants agree that U.S. demand for CTL plate increased from 2003 to

mid-2008, and then collapsed in late 2008 due to the sudden and unforeseen global economic recession.97

Apparent U.S. consumption of CTL plate increased irregularly from 6.4 million short tons in 2003 to 8.6
 98 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 99 CR/PR at Tables IV-29 & IV-30.

 100 CR/PR at Table III-8.

 101 CR at IV-70; PR at IV-35. 

 102 Hearing Tr. at 51 (Rosenthal). Some producers noted that demand for CTL plate will remain low in the next

2-3 years, but expect demand to improve with the help of transportation funding and stimulus spending. CR at II-20;

PR at II-13.

 103 CR at II-20 n.19; PR at II-13 n.19. 

 104 CR at II-11; PR at II-7.

 105 We note that the vast majority of purchasers reported that there was no specific business cycle to the CTL

plate industry. CR at II-15; PR at II-10. 

 106 CR at I-41; PR at I-33.

 107 CR at I-41; PR at I-33.

 108 Those five mills are ArcelorMittal, Evraz Claymont, Evraz Inc., Nucor, and SSAB NAD.

21

million short tons in 2008, and was 4.5 million short tons in interim 2008 and 2.2 million short tons in

interim 2009.98 Global consumption grew from 2003 to 2008 and then is forecast to decline in 2009.99 

Looking forward, domestic producers report that the quantity of CTL plate entered into their

“order books” was dramatically lower through September 30, 2009 when compared to the same period in

2008.100 Domestic interested parties also report that U.S. and global CTL plate demand is currently weak

and will remain weak for the reasonably foreseeable future as the U.S. industry is “suffering through the

worst steel market in decades.”101 According to domestic interested parties, they have seen little, if any,

impact on demand for CTL plate spurred by stimulus spending in the American Recovery and

Reinvestment Act of 2009.102 CTL plate industry analysts reported that “infrastructure development

projects, the types of things the federal stimulus package was intended to spark, have not yet had a

significant impact on plate demand.”103 Collectively, these reports as to order books, demand projections,

and the lack of a large impact by stimulus spending indicate that demand is likely to remain weak for the

reasonably foreseeable future.

Consistent with our finding that demand for CTL plate is derived from demand for end-use

applications,104 and in light of the wide variety of customers and multiplicity of distinct industries for

which CTL plate is used, we do not find that the CTL plate market is characterized by a regular and

measurable business cycle that might be characteristic of other industries.105 Although the various

industries that use CTL plate may each be characterized by a specific business cycle, CTL plate producers

respond to several different end-user industries and their individual business cycles. 

b. Supply

Since the original investigations and first reviews, there have been a number of changes in the

identity of the suppliers to the U.S. market, although the U.S. market continues to be supplied primarily

by the U.S. industry. During the original investigations, 14 mills, representing virtually all domestic mill

production of CTL plate, and 21 processors, supplied the Commission with information on their

operations with respect to CTL plate.106 In the first reviews, 10 mills and eight processors, accounting for

approximately 90 percent of production over that period, supplied the Commission with information.107

In these reviews, 11 mills and six processors producing CTL plate provided the Commission with

information, with five mills accounting for *** percent of reported shipments.108
 109 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 110 CR at III-6; PR at III-5.

 111 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 112 CR/PR at Table III-1. Since 2003, the steel service center industry has also experienced substantial

consolidation. CR at III-5; PR at III-4.

 113 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 114 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 115 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 116 Original Determinations Staff Report at Table III-3 & CR/PR at Table I-9.

 117 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 118 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 119 CR/PR at Table C-1.

22

The CTL plate assets of several U.S. mills changed ownership over the course of the review

period. In May 2003, International Steel Group (“ISG”) acquired most of the assets of Bethlehem Steel

Corporation, including the facilities at Burns Harbor, Indiana; Sparrows Point, Maryland; and Coatesville

and Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.109 ISG exchanged its pickle line at Indiana Harbor Works for U.S.

Steel’s Gary Works’ plate mill.110 In 2004, Nucor purchased substantially all of the steelmaking assets of

Corus’ Tuscaloosa, Alabama facility.111 Cargill, Inc., the parent company of North Star Steel, sold the

fixed assets and working capital of North Star to Gerdau Ameristeel.112

The domestic CTL plate market has also become increasingly global as multinational

corporations entered the U.S. market through acquisitions. In April 2005, ISG, the company that

accounted for the ***, at the time of the first reviews, was merged into Mittal Steel Company, N.V.

(formerly Ispat International N.V.), and the U.S. CTL plate facilities of ISG are now referred to as Mittal

Steel USA.113 In June 2006, Mittal Steel Company, N.V. merged with Arcelor S.A. to form

ArcelorMittal, the world’s largest steelmaker.114 In 2007, IPSCO was acquired by Sweden’s SSAB. 

Finally, Russia-based Evraz acquired Oregon Steel mills in 2007 and Claymont Steel in 2008.115 As a

result of consolidation, the domestic CTL plate industry is better able to respond to changes in demand by

idling production facilities. Whereas in 1996 no domestic producer operated more than two production

locations, by 2008 one producer operated eleven production locations, another operated seven, and

another operated four.116

The domestic industry’s capacity grew irregularly by 13.2 percent from 2003-2008, from 9.6

million in 2003 to a period high of 10.9 million in 2008, but was 9.3 percent lower in interim 2009 as

compared to interim 2008.117 ArcelorMittal *** in late 2008 citing the precipitous drop in demand, and in

May 2009, Evraz Inc. announced a multi-week work stoppage at one of its plants and JSW Steel USA

announced the possible suspension of one of its plate mill operations that had been running at only 10-15

percent of capacity.118

Although U.S. producers accounted for the vast majority of domestic shipments, there were also

subject and non-subject imports supplying the U.S. market during the period of review. Non-subject

imports were the second-largest source of CTL plate in the U.S. market during the period of review,

reaching a period high in market share in 2006 and a period low in 2008.119 Market share for the subject

countries was smaller over the period, reaching a period high in 2008.
 120 When asked to list the three most important factors considered when choosing a supplier, price and quality

were the most commonly cited factors overall; 16 of 37 responding purchasers reported that quality was the most

important factor, and 12 reported that price was the most important factor. CR/PR at Table II-4. Thirty-one of 37

purchasers reported that price is “very important” to their purchasing decisions. CR/PR at Table II-6.

 121 CR at I-37; PR at I-30.

 122 CR at V-1; PR at V-1.

 123 CR at V-1; PR at V-1; CR/PR at Figure V-1.

 124 CR at V-1; PR at V-1; CR/PR at Figure V-2.

 125 CR at V-1; PR at V-1.

 126 CR at II-10, V-2; PR at II-7, V-2.

 127 Original Determinations at 24-25.

23

(c) Other Conditions

As indicated in our cumulation discussion, market participants find subject imports from China,

Russia, and Ukraine to be generally interchangeable with one another and for the domestic like product.

Purchasers listed price and quality as the two most important factors affecting their purchasing decisions

regarding CTL plate.120

Raw material costs vary depending on the production process, with steel scrap playing a

relatively larger role in the raw material costs for electric arc furnace (“EAF”) non-integrated mills, for

example.121 Regardless of the production methodology used, the cost of raw materials (e.g., iron ore,

coal, and steel scrap) and energy are important components of the total cost of producing CTL plate.122

Prices in the United States of iron ore and coal remained relatively stable from 2003 through 2007, and

began to increase in 2008.123 The price of iron and steel scrap in the United States increased between

2003 and 2004, fluctuated at higher levels before rising steeply, then declined sharply in 2008; scrap

prices have recovered somewhat in 2009.124 The prices of both natural gas and electricity in the United

States generally rose over the period of review, with notable increases for each in 2008.125 The majority

of market participants indicated that CTL plate prices follow the raw material price trends closely.126

C. Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Order and Termination of the Suspended

Investigations Is Likely to Lead to Continuation or Recurrence of Material Injury

1. Likely Volume of Cumulated Subject Imports

a. The Commission’s Original Determinations

 In the original determinations, the Commission found that the CTL plate industry was threatened

with material injury by reason of cumulated subject imports. The Commission noted in its threat analysis

that the volume of cumulated subject imports from China, Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine rose from

650,038 short tons in 1994 to 1,263,389 short tons in 1996, an overall increase of 94.4 percent, and that

there was a further increase of 76.3 percent when the interim periods were compared (first quarter 1996

and first quarter 1997). The Commission found that the dramatic surge of subject imports in interim 1997

demonstrated the ability of respondents to ship very large volumes of subject imports to the United States

and the likelihood that respondents would do so in the absence of affirmative determinations.127 The

Commission also noted that the rate of increase far outpaced growth in domestic demand, resulting in

increased market share for subject imports. The Commission also considered it significant that each of

the subject countries was facing at least one and, in some cases, several antidumping findings,
 128 Original Determinations at 25.

 129 First Reviews at 24-25.

 130 CR/PR at Table C-1. Cumulated subject imports were *** in interim 2009 as compared to *** in interim

2008.

 131 CR/PR at Table C-1. The U.S. market share accounted for by cumulated imports was *** percent in interim

2009 as compared to *** percent in interim 2008.

24

investigations, or quantitative restrictions in other major export markets indicating that export markets

other than the United States were and might be further restricted.128

b. The Commission’s First Reviews

In the first reviews the Commission found that the likely volumes of cumulated subject imports

from China, Russia, and Ukraine, both in absolute terms and as a share of the U.S. market, would be

significant for several reasons. First, the Commission found that in the three years prior to the suspension

agreements, the volume of subject imports increased by 121.1 percent, thus demonstrating the ability of

subject countries to increase exports to the United States rapidly without the restraining effects of the

suspension agreements. Second, despite limitations in the scope of coverage of data on foreign

production, the data collected by the Commission showed considerable production capacity in the

cumulated subject countries, and that this capacity had increased over the period. Third, the Commission

found that producers in all three countries had the ability to shift production capacity between subject

merchandise and other products. Fourth, the Commission found that the industries in the cumulated

countries were somewhat export oriented. Fifth, the Commission found that the United States was an

attractive market for foreign producers because of its size and its established distribution system, and that

evidence on the record showed that U.S. prices for CTL plate are often higher than prices in other

markets. Finally, the Commission found that exports of subject merchandise from each of the subject

countries were subject to a number of tariff and non-tariff barriers in third-country markets, further

increasing the attractiveness of the U.S. market. Accordingly, the Commission found that the likely

volume of subject imports, both in absolute terms and as a share of the U.S. market, would be

significant.129

c. The Current Reviews

Several factors support the conclusion that cumulated subject import volume is likely to be

significant if the order is revoked and the suspended investigations terminated. 

First, during the period examined in these reviews, cumulated subject imports maintained a

growing presence in the U.S. market, even with the order and suspension agreements in place. Based on

official Commerce statistics, subject imports increased irregularly from 14,502 short tons in 2003 to

263,298 short tons in 2008, an increase of 1,756 percent.130 By quantity, subject imports increased their

U.S. market share from 0.2 percent in 2003 to 3.0 percent in 2008.131 Thus, even under the restraining

effects of the order and suspension agreements, CTL plate producers in subject countries have shown the

ability to increase exports to the United States rapidly.

Second, despite certain limitations in the scope of coverage of data on foreign production noted

previously, the data collected by the Commission show considerable production capacity and excess

capacity in each of the subject countries and, further, that the capacity has increased over the period of

review. As of 2007, *** reports available reversing plate capacity of mills in China of approximately ***
 132 CR at IV-32; PR at IV-20 citing ***.

 133 CR at IV-18 n.12, PR at IV-13 n. 12 & CR/PR at Tables IV-13 & IV-26-IV-27. Figures on reversing mill

plate likely understate total CTL plate production because they do not account for CTL plate cut from coiled plate. 

CR at IV-24; PR at IV-16.

 134 CR/PR at Tables IV-29-IV-30. 

 135 CR at IV-32; PR at IV-20.

 136 CR at IV-19-20; PR at IV-13-IV-14 & CR/PR at Table IV-11.

 137 CR/PR at Table IV-18. Reported capacity to produce CTL plate in Russia was *** short tons in interim 2009

as compared to *** short tons in interim 2008.

 138 CR at IV-21-22; PR at IV-14. For example, ***.

 139 CR at IV-48; PR at IV-28. Azovstal reported its overall production capacity for 2003 and explained that it was

***. Therefore, the apparent ***. CR at IV-49; PR at IV-28.

 140 CR at IV-47; PR at IV-28. Ilyich did not respond to the Commission’s questionnaire in these reviews.

 141 CR/PR at Table IV-26.

 142 CR/PR at Tables IV-13-IV-14. 

 143 By way of another comparison, Chairman Aranoff notes that CTL plate production capacity in the nine

countries that were cumulated in the 2007 CTL Plate Reviews was *** in comparison to production capacity in

China, Russia, and Ukraine. ***.

25

short tons.132 *** acknowledges that this capacity figure may be understated, and indeed reported that

reversing mill plate production in China *** from *** short tons to *** short tons.133 We recognize that

this same report also notes that consumption of reversing mill plate in China has also more than ***

during this period from *** short tons to *** short tons.134 Based on this report, China produced

approximately *** short tons in excess of its consumption in 2008, when demand for CTL plate was still

strong. A *** lists China’s 2008 reversing mill plate capacity as *** short tons.135 Moreover, published

reports indicate that CTL plate producers in China are planning to add *** tons of additional CTL plate

capacity in the reasonably foreseeable future.136 

Reported capacity to produce CTL plate in Russia has increased from *** short tons in 2003 to

*** short tons in 2008.137 Russian producers have indicated that they will be expanding capacity in the

reasonably foreseeable future.138 

Only one Ukranian producer, ***, provided data to the Commission in these reviews. Its

reported capacity to produce CTL plate in Ukraine declined from *** short tons in 2004 to *** short tons

in 2008.139 In its response to the Commission’s notice of institution, Azovstal reported that Ukranian

production of CTL plate in 2007 totaled *** short tons of which Ukrainian producer Ilyich accounted for

*** short tons.140 *** reports that reversing mill plate capacity in CIS countries (mainly Russia and

Ukraine combined) grew from *** short tons in 2003 to *** short tons in 2008.141 Collectively, reversing

mill plate production in China, Russia, and Ukraine is estimated to be *** short tons in 2008, while

consumption is estimated to be ***. 142 143 The excess capacity for these countries represents a large

potential ability to produce subject imports in relation to the U.S. market.

Having examined subject CTL plate capacity in China, Russia, and Ukraine, we now consider

evidence of unused capacity in those countries. In 2008, reversing mill plate production in China, Russia,

and Ukraine exceeded consumption in the three countries by a figure that is about as large as apparent
 144 CR/PR at Tables IV-13, IV-14, and C-1.

 145 Commissioners Lane and Pinkert note that, according to *** data covering 2008, subject country plate

production of reversing mill plate *** subject country consumption by *** short tons (imports but not exports are

included in subject country consumption). CR/PR at Tables IV-13 and IV-14. This *** is nearly as much as total

U.S. consumption. 

 146 CR/PR at Tables IV -17 & IV-21.

 147 CR/PR at Table IV-11, CR at IV-19-IV-21, IV-31-IV-33; PR at IV-13-IV-14, IV-19-IV-21.

 148 Nucor’s Posthearing Brief at Ex. 1 at 25-31.

 149 First Reviews at 24.

 150 CR at IV-40; PR at IV-24.

 151 CR at IV-52; PR at IV-29.

 152 CR/PR at Tables IV-17 & IV-21. The record does not contain a reported percentage of China’s exports as a

share of total shipments due to the lack of participation in these proceedings by Chinese producers.

 153 CR/PR at Table IV-15. 

26

U.S. consumption of *** short tons.144 145 Reported 2008 excess capacity in Russia equaled

approximately *** short tons, and in Ukraine, for the one responding producer, excess capacity equaled

approximately *** short tons.146 We do not have reported data on excess capacity for China due to the

lack of participation in these proceedings by Chinese producers. Given the greatly increased capacity of

the Chinese industry since imposition of the order, the evidence of production in substantial excess of

consumption, and the negative impact of the recent collapse in the market for CTL plate, we find that

Chinese producers likely have significant excess capacity that could be a source of increased exports to

the United States should the order be revoked. Moreover, despite poor global economic conditions, the

record contains unrebutted evidence of numerous capacity expansions planned for the CTL plate industry

in China in the reasonably foreseeable future.147 Accordingly, using even the most conservative

estimates, cumulated excess capacity is equal to a significant percentage of apparent U.S. consumption in

2008. Given reports that demand for CTL plate in China, Russia, and Ukraine has fallen sharply in 2009,

and that prospects for a rapid recovery are remote, we conclude that unused capacity will likely be

substantially higher during the reasonably foreseeable future than in 2008.148 This excess capacity, which

includes new capacity added at considerable expense, will likely provide a strong incentive for foreign

producers of CTL plate in China, Russia, and Ukraine to increase shipments to export markets. 

In addition, it would appear that the CTL plate industries in all three countries have the capacity

to increase production of subject merchandise by shifting away from the production of other products. 

CTL plate producers in China indicated in the first reviews that they had the ability to produce other

products on the same equipment, including alloy, low-alloy, shipbuilding, high-grade structural, and

pressure plate, and no evidence to the contrary has been provided in these reviews.149 In Russia, firms

produce *** on the same equipment used to produce CTL plate.150 In Ukraine, *** were reportedly

produced on the same equipment used to produce CTL plate.151

Third, the industries in the cumulated countries range from somewhat to highly export-oriented. 

Exports constituted *** percent of Ukraine’s total shipments in 2008 and *** percent of Russia’s

shipments.152 Since 2003, China’s exports of CTL plate have increased from *** short tons to *** short

tons, and were estimated to be *** short tons in 2007.153 Moreover, as of 2005, China’s status changed
 154 CR/PR at Table IV-15. In 2007, it was estimated that China’s trade balance for CTL plate equaled *** short

tons. Ukraine is a consistent net exporter of CTL plate. While Russia recently became a net importer of CTL plate,

its exports of CTL plate are still considerable. CR/PR at Table IV-15.

 155 CR/PR at Table IV-33.

 156 CR at IV-33 (China), IV-44 (Russia), and IV-53 (Ukraine); PR at IV-21 (China), IV-26 (Russia), and IV-29

(Ukraine).

 157 Domestic interested parties note that Canada has imposed antidumping duties on the subject product from

China, and that Australia has imposed duties on hot-rolled steel plate from China. CR at IV-28; PR at IV-17. ***

have imposed antidumping duties on CTL plate from Russia, and CTL plate from Russia is subject to ***. *** have

imposed antidumping duties on CTL plate from Ukraine, and CTL plate from Ukraine is also subject to a ***. CR at

IV-29; PR at IV-17-IV-19. 

 158 Apparent U.S. consumption of CTL plate in interim 2009 was 2.2 million short tons; it was 50.6 percent lower

than in interim 2008, indicating a significantly smaller U.S. CTL plate market for which the domestic industry would

have to compete against unfairly traded subject imports. CR/PR at Table C-1; see SSAB NAD’s Posthearing Brief

at 9-10.

 159 Original Determinations at 20-21. 

27

from a net importer of CTL plate to a net exporter, and by 2006, China was the largest exporter of CTL

plate among the subject countries.154

Fourth, the United States is an attractive market for foreign producers because of its size and

established distribution system. Service centers have consolidated and enhanced their ability to hold

sizable quantities of imports in inventory. CTL plate prices in the United States tend to be higher than

prices in Asia, and comparable to prices in Europe.155 Asian markets have been leading export

destinations for foreign producers of the subject merchandise in China, Russia, and Ukraine.156

Finally, exports of subject merchandise from China, Russia, and Ukraine are also subject to a

number of tariff and non-tariff barriers in third-country markets, further increasing the attractiveness of

the U.S. market.157

Accordingly, based on the demonstrated ability of the CTL plate industries in China, Russia, and

Ukraine to increase imports into the U.S. market rapidly, their ability to shift production, their substantial

production capacity, production, and unused capacity, lower home market demand, their reliance on

export markets (despite numerous barriers), and their strong motivation to increase imports into the

United States in the absence of the order and/or suspension agreements, we find that the likely volume of

subject imports, both in absolute terms and as a share of the U.S. market, would be significant.158

2. Likely Price Effects of Cumulated Subject Imports

a. The Commission’s Original Determinations

In the original determinations, the Commission found that the CTL plate industry was threatened

with material injury by reason of cumulated subject imports. The Commission noted that large or rapidly

increasing volumes of low-priced imports can have significant adverse price effects in this industry. The

Commission found that subject imports undersold the domestic product in the overwhelming majority of

comparisons, with margins of underselling ranging from 0.3 to 36.2 percent. The Commission also found

that prices obtained by domestic producers for sales to distributors peaked in early 1995, as did prices for

two of three pricing products sold to end users, before declining through early 1996.159 In its threat

analysis, the Commission found evidence that increased subject imports would enter at prices likely to

depress or suppress domestic prices to a significant degree. Sales to distributors of products 1, 2, and 3

(the categories with the greatest volume among products investigated) started to show declines in price in
 160 Original Determinations at 26.

 161 First Reviews at 26.

 162 Id. at 27.

 163 CR/PR at Table II-6.

 164 CR at V-4; PR at V-4.

 165 CR at V-4-V-5; PR at V-4-V-5.

 166 The pricing products were: hot-rolled CTL carbon steel plate, ASTM A-36 or equivalent as rolled, sheared

edge, not heat treated, not cleaned or oiled, in cut lengths, 72" through 96" in width, 0.250" thick (Product 1); hotrolled CTL carbon steel plate, ASTM A-36 or equivalent as rolled, sheared edge, not heat treated, not cleaned or

oiled, in cut lengths, 72" through 96" in width, 0.3125" thick (Product 2); hot-rolled CTL carbon steel plate, ASTM

A-36 or equivalent as rolled, sheared edge, not heat treated, not cleaned or oiled, in cut lengths, 72" through 120" in

width, 0.375" through 2.00" thick (Product 3); and hot-rolled CTL carbon steel plate, high strength low alloy

(HSLA), ASTM A-572, Grade 50, sheared edges, not cleaned or oiled, in cut lengths, 72" through 120" in width,

0.5" through 1.5" in thickness thick (Product 4). CR at V-6; PR at V-5.

 167 CR at V-6; PR at V-5.

28

mid-to-late 1996 which continued through early 1997, notwithstanding a strong growth in demand.160

The Commission found that these price trends reflected imminent price depression and suppression. 

B. The Commission’s First Reviews

In its first reviews, the Commission found that price was an important factor in the purchase of

CTL plate, and that, with the increasing role of service centers in the distribution of CTL plate in the U.S.

market, price competition had increased since the original investigations.161 The Commission noted that

even with the suspension agreements in place, there was significant underselling of the imported product,

and that prices for all pricing products sold to service centers generally trended downward over the

period. Accordingly, the Commission found a likelihood of significant negative price effects from the

subject imports. The Commission therefore concluded that if the suspended investigations were

terminated, significant volumes of subject imports from China, Russia, and Ukraine likely would

significantly undersell the domestic like product to gain market share, and likely would have significant

depressing or suppressing effects on the prices of the domestic like product.162

C. The Current Reviews

Price remains an important factor in the purchase of CTL plate, with a vast majority of purchasers

reporting that price is “very important” to their purchasing decisions.163 Prices generally are determined

on a transaction-by-transaction basis.164 CTL plate is commonly sold on a spot basis and, to a lesser

extent, under short- and long-term contracts.165

Even under the discipline of the order and suspension agreements, the pricing data in these

reviews indicate a mixture of both overselling and underselling by subject imports. The Commission

collected pricing data on four pricing products.166 These products accounted for approximately

15.1 percent of U.S. shipments and 55.3 percent of U.S. commercial shipments of imports from China,

44.7 percent of U.S. commercial shipments of imports from Russia, and 9.1 percent of U.S. commercial

shipments of imports from Ukraine during January 2003 - June 2009.167 The data indicate that cumulated
 168 CR/PR at Table V-7. Subject imports from China undersold the domestic like product in four of nine

comparisons; subject imports from Russia undersold the domestic like product in 22 of 49 comparisons, and subject

imports from Ukraine undersold the domestic like product in 16 of 27 comparisons. Id.

 169 CR at V-17; PR at V-12; CR/PR at Fig. V-4.

 170 CR at V-17; PR at V-12; CR/PR at Fig. V-4.

 171 CR/PR at Table IV-33.

 172 CR/PR at Appendix D and ArcelorMittal/Nucor’s Prehearing Brief at 89.

29

subject imports undersold the domestic like product in these reviews in 42 out of 85 quarterly

comparisons.168

Quarterly prices for both U.S. produced and subject imported CTL plate fluctuated, but generally

increased from 2003 to the third quarter of 2008.169 There were two major price increases, one in 2004

and another in 2008. Prices declined sharply in the final three quarters of the period examined, coincident

with the decrease in consumption due to the onset of global economic turmoil in late 2008.170

As discussed above, the United States is an attractive market because of its size and established

distribution system. Prices for CTL plate in the U.S. market are generally higher than prices for CTL

plate in Asia, and comparable to prices in Europe.171 Moreover, several importers and purchasers

indicated in their questionnaire responses to the Commission that they expected that producers in the

subject countries would ***, should the Commission revoke the order and terminate the suspended

investigations.172

Given the factors motivating foreign producers of the subject merchandise to increase shipments

to the United States, and the degree of substitutability between subject and domestic CTL plate, foreign

producers in the subject countries are likely to use underselling as a means to increase market share in the

United States. Considering the likely significant volume of cumulated subject imports, the importance of

price in the CTL plate market, the interchangeability of subject imports and the domestic like product, and

the price effects of low-priced imports in the original investigations and first reviews, underselling by

subject imports is likely to result in significant negative price effects from the subject imports in the event

of revocation of the order and termination of the suspended investigations. We conclude that, if the

antidumping duty order were revoked and the suspended investigations were terminated, significant

volumes of subject imports from China, Russia, and Ukraine likely would significantly undersell the

domestic like product to gain market share and likely would have significant depressing or suppressing

effects on the prices of the domestic like product.
 173 The SAA states that in assessing whether the domestic industry is vulnerable to injury if the order is revoked,

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

these factors, in some cases, may account for the injury to the domestic industry, they may also demonstrate that an

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

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

magnitude of the margin of dumping or the magnitude of the net countervailable subsidy” 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.

In the final results of its full sunset review of the suspended antidumping duty investigation on CTL plate

from Ukraine, Commerce determined that termination of the suspended investigation would likely lead to a

continuation or recurrence of dumping at weighted-average margins as follows: 81.43 percent for Azovstal; 155.00

percent for Ilyich; and 237.91 percent for a Ukranian-wide rate. 74 Fed. Reg. at 11910. (March 20, 2009).

In the final results of its expedited sunset review of suspended antidumping duty investigations on CTL

plate from Russia, Commerce determined that termination of the suspended investigation would likely lead to a

continuation or recurrence of dumping at weighted-average margins as follows: 53.81 percent for Severstal and

185.00 percent for a Russia-wide rate. 73 Fed. Reg. at 74461 (Dec. 8, 2008). 

In the final results of its expedited sunset review of the antidumping duty order on CTL plate from China,

Commerce determined that revocation of the antidumping duty order would likely lead to a continuation or

recurrence of dumping at weighted-average margins as follows: 30.68 percent for Anshan; 30.51 percent for

Baoshan; 17.33 percent for Liaoning; 38.16 percent for Shanghai Pudong; 128.59 percent for WISCO; and 128.59

percent for a PRC-wide rate. 73 Fed. Reg. 74143 (Dec. 5, 2008).

 174 The Commission determined that the adverse impact of the subject imports on the domestic industry was not

of sufficient magnitude to conclude that the domestic industry was materially injured by reason of subject imports. 

The Commission found that, although volume and market penetration of subject imports rose during the period

examined in the original investigations, the data on the condition of the industry were mixed and any deterioration in

the domestic industry’s condition was reflected primarily in the interim 1997 data, upon which the Commission

placed less weight than pre-petition data. Original Determination at 22-23.

 175 Original Determinations at 26.

30

3. Likely Impact of Cumulated Subject Imports173

a. The Commission’s Original Determinations

In the original determinations, the Commission found that the CTL plate industry was threatened

with material injury by reason of cumulated subject imports.174 The Commission found that, in the

absence of affirmative threat determinations, the volume of subject imports and the price pressure exerted

by these imports would increase, resulting in further reductions in prices or suppression of price increases

that, in turn, would lead to declines in domestic industry revenues and profitability. The Commission

considered declines in the industry’s financial performance at the end of the period examined in the

original investigations to be a strong indication that the industry’s condition would further deteriorate in

the near future if the escalating volume and price pressure of subject imports continued. The Commission

noted that most mills and processors reported that they anticipated negative effects from subject imports

in the future.175

b. The Commission’s First Reviews

In the first reviews, the Commission noted that, despite an initial improvement as a result of the

suspension agreements, the domestic industry’s condition deteriorated significantly during the review
 176 First Reviews at 28.

 177 Id. The Commission noted that there was a drop-off in demand for CTL plate after 1999.

 178 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 179 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 180 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 181 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 182 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 183 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 184 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 185 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 186 CR/PR at Table C-1.

31

period due to a wave of unfairly traded imports from non-subject countries, particularly in 1998.176 The

Commission found that although demand, as measured by apparent U.S. consumption, grew markedly in

1998, the industry’s overall profitability improved only marginally in that year, and declined significantly

thereafter, with the industry operating at a loss from 1999 through 2002.177 Thus, the Commission found

that the domestic industry’s performance over the period indicated that it was vulnerable to material

injury from subject imports. The Commission concluded that, if the suspended investigations were

terminated, subject imports from China, Russia, and Ukraine would be likely to have a significant adverse

impact on the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.

c. The Current Reviews

The years 2003 through 2008 included several prosperous years characterized by strong demand

and rising prices for CTL plate. Apparent U.S. consumption rose by 35.1 percent from 6.4 million short

tons in 2003 to 8.6 million short tons in 2008.178 Corresponding to increases in consumption from 2003-

2008, U.S. production of CTL plate increased by 32.8 percent to 8.6 million short tons in 2008.179 U.S.

shipments increased over this period by 30.0 percent to 7.8 million short tons in 2008, and net sales also

increased by 34.6 percent to 7.7 million short tons in 2008.180 The domestic industry’s capacity also

increased by 13.2 percent to 10.9 million short tons in 2008.181 Capacity utilization increased irregularly

by 11.6 percentage points to 78.9 percent in 2008. Inventories as a share of total shipments declined by

*** percentage points, to a full-year period low of *** percent in 2008.

The domestic industry’s employment-related indicators also improved irregularly from 2003 to

2008.182 The industry’s production and related workers (PRWs) increased slightly to 4,191 in 2008. The

number of PRW hours worked increased by 4.5 percent to 9,488 in 2008.183 Worker productivity and

hourly wages followed a similar pattern of increasing irregularly from 2003 to 2008.184

By 2004, the domestic industry began to reap the benefits of restructuring and increased demand

for CTL plate, which led to significant increases in prices, and robust profit margins from 2004 to 2008. 

From 2004 to 2008, the domestic industry experienced operating margins above 20.0 percent in each

year, as well as increasing gross profits and operating income.185 These strong financial results allowed

capital expenditures to increase by 258 percent from 2003 to 2008, as deferred maintenance was

performed and facilities modernized and expanded.186

The domestic industry’s performance and financial indicators deteriorated dramatically, however,

in 2009 due in large part to the sudden global economic crisis that began in late 2008. Apparent U.S.
 187 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 188 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 189 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 190 CR/PR at Table III-2, & CR at III-2-4 & III-9; PR at III-2-4 & III-5.

 191 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 192 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 193 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 194 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 195 Although the domestic industry’s “order books” are showing some improvement by September 2009, they are

still well below the comparable period in 2008. CR/PR at Table III-8.

 196 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 197 ArcelorMittal’s Posthearing Brief at Ex. 1 at 4-5. See Tr. at 66-70 (Britten, Rosenthal, and Conway).

 198 CR/PR at Table C-1.

32

consumption of 2.2 million short tons in interim 2009 was 50.6 percent lower than in interim 2008.187 As

demand slumped in 2009, U.S. production of 2.1 million short tons was 55.5 percent lower than in interim

2008. U.S. shipments of 2.0 million short tons in interim 2009 were 51.9 percent lower than in interim

2008, while net sales of 1.9 million short tons in interim 2009 were 55.0 percent lower than in interim

2008.188 Capacity was 9.3 percent lower in interim 2009 as compared to interim 2008. Capacity

utilization was only 40.8 percent in interim 2009, 42.3 percentage points lower than in interim 2008. 

Inventories were 6.2 percent of total shipments in interim 2009, 0.5 percentage points higher than their

share of total shipments in interim 2008.189

The domestic industry’s employment-related indicators also declined precipitously in 2009 as

many U.S. producers were forced to idle plate mills, temporarily cease production, reduce shift levels, or

extend summer maintenance outages as a result of the current market conditions.190 The industry’s PRWs

were 15.6 percent lower in interim 2009 than in interim 2008.191 The number of PRW hours worked were

33.4 percent lower in interim 2009 than in interim 2008.192 Worker productivity and hourly wages were

both lower in interim 2009 than in interim 2008.193

In 2009, confronted with a global economic crisis, which led to a substantial decline in demand

for CTL plate and a significant drop in CTL plate prices, the domestic industry suffered an abrupt decline

in profitability. In interim 2009, the domestic industry’s operating margin of negative 7.1 percent was

28.9 percentage points lower as compared to positive 21.8 percent in interim 2008.194 In interim 2009, the

domestic industry suffered a gross loss of $53.6 million and an operating loss of $100 million as

compared to a gross profit of $920 million and an operating income of $847 million, respectively, in

interim 2008.195 Capital expenditures were 26.0 percent lower in interim 2009 than in interim 2008.196

Despite several years of very favorable financial returns, industry consolidation, and an enhanced

ability to respond to anticipated changes in demand, we find the domestic industry vulnerable to the

effects of subject imports. Although favorable financial returns have allowed the domestic industry to

make needed capital investments, the income generated does not insulate the domestic industry from a

deep and extended downturn in the demand and price of CTL plate. Not only is the need for investment

ongoing, but income generated in recent years was devoted to a number of needs, including, among

others, debt servicing, employee profit sharing, and returns to shareholders.197 Additionally, while the

consolidated domestic industry has responded to the drop in demand by idling production facilities and

laying off production workers, the magnitude of the decline has resulted in a sharp fall in the industry’s

financial and trade indicators in interim 2009, including operating losses.198 Furthermore, prospects for a

substantial recovery in demand are unlikely in the reasonably foreseeable future. In such an environment,
 199 Vice Chairman Pearson notes that for the vast majority of the period of review, the CTL plate industry was

extremely profitable, with operating margins ranging from 21.2 percent in 2008 to 27.7 percent in 2006, and that the

industry’s current losses are almost entirely attributable to the significant reduction in demand for plate associated

with a severe general economic recession. Thus, notwithstanding the industry’s losses in the first two quarters of

2009, Vice Chairman Pearson believes that the industry’s robust profit margins during the period 2004-2008 leave it

relatively well positioned to thrive in the CTL plate market when the economic climate improves.

 200 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 201 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 202 Certain Carbon Steel Products from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan,

Korea, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom, Inv. Nos. AA1921-197

(Second Review); 701-TA-319, 320, 325- 327, 348, and 350 (Second Review); and 731-TA-573, 574, 576, 578,

582-587, 612, and 614-618 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 3899 (January 2007). 

 203 We find that the domestic industry has taken steps to enhance its ability to respond to more incremental or

anticipated changes in demand. This is evident in the industry's continued favorable performance as apparent U.S.

consumption fluctuated during the period of review. CR/PR at Table C-1.

 204 Commissioners Lane and Pinkert do not join the preceding footnote.

33

the domestic industry is vulnerable to the likely significant additional volume of subject merchandise

which is likely to undersell the domestic like product to a significant degree.199

We also have considered the likely role of nonsubject imports in the U.S. market. In the last year

of the original investigations, nonsubject imports accounted for 6.9 percent of the U.S. market.200 Since

that time, nonsubject imports have maintained a relatively steady presence in the U.S. market, never

exceeding 15.1 percent. In the current reviews, nonsubject imports increased from 6.0 percent of the U.S.

market in 2003 to a period high of 12.8 percent in 2006, before declining to 6.6 percent in 2008.201

Nonsubject imports maintained a steady presence in the U.S. market, even while demand was growing

and prices were rising from 2004 to 2008, and even after antidumping duty orders and countervailing

duty orders were revoked on CTL plate from eleven subject countries in 2007.202 Accordingly, we find

that subject imports are likely to have a significant adverse impact upon the domestic industry if the order

were revoked and the suspended investigations were terminated, notwithstanding the presence of

nonsubject imports in the U.S. market.

We have considered the likely future effects of suppressed demand for CTL plate on the domestic

industry. The global economic crisis has contributed to the domestic industry's vulnerability through

lower industry sales volumes and prices. We expect negative effects to continue as U.S. demand is

unlikely to become robust in the foreseeable future.203 204 Nevertheless, for the reasons described above,

we find that subject imports would further reduce domestic sales volumes and prices significantly and

thereby would be likely to have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry in the event of

revocation of the order and termination of the suspended investigations. 

Based on the record in these reviews, we conclude that revocation of the order and termination of

the suspended investigations would likely lead to a significant increase in the volume of subject imports

that would undersell the domestic like product and significantly suppress or depress U.S. prices. We also

find that the volume and price effects of the subject imports would likely have a significant adverse

impact on the production, shipment, sales, market share, and revenues of the domestic industry. This

reduction in the industry’s production, shipments, sales, market share, and revenues would have a direct

adverse impact on the industry’s profitability as well as its ability to raise capital and make and maintain

necessary capital investments. We conclude that, if the antidumping duty order were revoked and the

suspended investigations were terminated, subject imports from China, Russia, and Ukraine would be

likely to have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.
34

CONCLUSION 

For the above-stated reasons, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on CTL

plate from China and termination of the suspended investigations on CTL plate from Russia and Ukraine

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

within a reasonably foreseeable time.
 1

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

 2 All interested parties were requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information requested by the

Commission. Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from China, Russia, and Ukraine, 73 FR 45071, August 1, 2008. 

 3

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

notice of initiation of five-year reviews of the subject antidumping duty order and suspended investigations

concurrently with the Commissions’s notice of institution. Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Review, 73 FR 44968,

August 1, 2008. 

 4

 The Commission found that the domestic interested party response to its notice of institution was adequate

based on the information and expressions of willingness to participate in these second reviews by ArcelorMittal

USA (“ArcelorMittal”), Evraz NA Claymont (“ Evraz Claymont”), Evraz NA Oregon Steel Mills (“Evraz Inc.”),

Nucor Corp. (“Nucor”), and SSAB North America Division (“SSAB”). The Commission also found that the

respondent interested party group responses with respect to Russia and Ukraine were adequate based on the

information and expressions of willingness to participate in these second reviews by Azovstal Iron and Steel Works

(“Azovstal”), Ilyich Iron and Steel Works (“Ilyich”), OJSC Magnitogorsk Iron and Steel Works (“Magnitogorsk”),

and JSC Severstal (“Severstal”). The Commission determined that the respondent interested party group response

with respect to China was inadequate, but determined to conduct full reviews to promote administrative efficiency. 

Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from China, Russia, and Ukraine, 73 FR 70368, November 20, 2008. 

 5

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

adequacy appear in appendix A and may also be found at the Commission’s web site (internet address

www.usitc.gov). Commissioners’ votes on whether to conduct expedited or full reviews may also be found at the

web site. Appendix B contains a list of witnesses who appeared at the Commission’s hearing. 

I-1

PART I: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

BACKGROUND

On August 1, 2008, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission” or “USITC”) gave

notice, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”),1

 that it had instituted

reviews to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on cut-to-length carbon steel plate

(“CTL plate”) from China and/or the termination of the suspended investigations on CTL plate from

Russia and Ukraine would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to a domestic

industry.2 3

 On November 4, 2008, the Commission determined that it would conduct full reviews

pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Act.4

 Selected information relating to the schedule of the current

five-year reviews appears in the following tabulation.5
 6 Suspension of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa,

62 FR 61751, November 19, 1997; Suspension of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon

Steel Plate from Ukraine, 62 FR 61766, November 19, 1997; Suspension of Antidumping Duty Investigation: 

Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the People’s Republic of China, 62 FR 61773, November 19, 1997;

and Suspension of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the Russian

(continued...)

I-2

Effective date Action

October 24, 1997

Commerce and the Governments of China, Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine

sign suspension agreements (62 FR 61773, 61780, 61751, and 61766,

November 19, 1997)

December 17, 1997

Commission’s final affirmative determinations regarding imports from China,

Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine (62 FR 66128) 

October 24, 2002

Commerce’s termination of the suspended antidumping duty investigation on

CTL plate from South Africa (68 FR 54417, September 17, 2003)

August 29, 2003

In the first reviews the Commission reached a negative determination regarding

imports from South Africa and affirmative determinations regarding imports from

China, Russia, and Ukraine (68 FR 52614, September 4, 2003) 

November 3, 2003

Commerce’s termination of the suspended antidumping duty investigation on

CTL plate from China and notice of antidumping duty order (68 FR 60081,

October 21, 2003) 

August 1, 2008 Commission’s institution of five-year reviews (73 FR 45071)

August 1, 2008 Commerce’s institution of five-year reviews (73 FR 44968) 

November 4, 2008

Commission’s determinations to conduct full five-year reviews (73 FR 70368,

November 20, 2008)

December 5, 2008

Commerce’s final results of expedited five-year review of the antidumping duty

order on CTL plate from China (73 FR 74143) 

December 8, 2008

Commerce’s final results of expedited five-year review of the suspension

agreement on CTL plate from Russia (73 FR 74461) 

March 5, 2009 Commission’s scheduling of the reviews (74 FR 10614, March 11, 2009)

March 20, 2009

Commerce’s final results of full five-year review of the suspension agreement on

CTL plate from Ukraine (74 FR 11910)

September 9, 2009 Commission’s hearing

October 13, 2009 Commission’s vote

October 26, 2009 Commission’s determinations transmitted to Commerce

The Original Investigations

The original investigations resulted from petitions filed by counsel on behalf of Geneva Steel Co.,

Provo, UT; and Gulf States Steel, Inc., Gadsen, AL, on November 5, 1996, alleging that an industry in the

United States is materially injured and threatened with material injury by reason of dumped imports of

CTL plate from China, Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine. On October 24, 1997, Commerce signed

suspension agreements with the subject countries.6

 The Commission determined that the domestic CTL
 6

 (...continued)

Federation, 62 FR 61780, November 19, 1997.

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

USITC Publication 3076, December 1997. 

 8

 In the first reviews the Commission reached a negative determination regarding imports from South Africa and

affirmative determinations regarding imports from China, Russia, and Ukraine. Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate

from China, Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine, 68 FR 52614, September 4, 2003. 

 9 Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from China, Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-753-756

(Review), USITC Publication 3626, September 2003, pp. I-5-I-6.

 10 Continuation of Suspended Antidumping Duty Investigations: Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From the

People’s Republic of China, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine, 68 FR 54417, September 17, 2003. 

 11 Suspension Agreement on Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From the People’s Republic of China;

Termination of Suspension Agreement and Notice of Antidumping Duty Order, 68 FR 60081, October 21, 2003. 

I-3

plate industry was threatened with material injury by reason of the subject imports from China, Russia,

South Africa, and Ukraine on December 17, 1997.7

Subsequent Proceedings

The following is a summary of the terms of, and activities under, the subject country suspension

agreements, as well as the results of the first reviews for China, Russia, and Ukraine.8

China9

On October 24, 1997, Commerce signed a non-market economy (“NME”) agreement with the

Government of China suspending the antidumping duty investigation of CTL plate from China. The

agreement provided for a quota lasting five years, and was amended on January 9, 2003, to extend the

quota through October 31, 2003. This amendment allowed continued shipments of CTL plate from China

pending the results of the first review in late August 2003. Following the Commission’s and Commerce’s

affirmative determinations with respect to China as part of the first reviews, the suspended investigation

was continued.10 On August 29, 2003, the Government of China announced its intention to withdraw

from the suspension agreement. Commerce subsequently terminated the agreement with respect to China

and issued an antidumping duty order effective November 3, 2003.11
 12 Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from China, Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-753-756

(Review), USITC Publication 3626, September 2003, p. I-6. 

 13 Suspension of Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the Russian

Federation, 68 FR 3859, January 27, 2002. 

 14 Suspension of Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the Russian

Federation, 68 FR 3859, January 27, 2003. 

 15 Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From China, Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine, Determinations, 68 FR

52614, September 4, 2003.

 16 Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From The People’s Republic of China, the Russian Federation, and South

Africa; Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review of Suspended Antidumping Duty Investigations, 68 FR 1038,

January 8, 2003. 

 17 Continuation of Suspended Antidumping Duty Investigations: Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From the

People’s Republic of China, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine, 68 FR 54417, September 17, 2003. 

 18 Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Russia; Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review of the

Suspension Agreement, 73 FR 74461, December 8, 2008. 

I-4

Russia12

On October 24, 1997, Commerce signed an NME agreement with the Government of the Russian

Federation suspending the antidumping duty investigation of CTL plate from Russia. The agreement

provided for a quota and was replaced by a market economy agreement on December 20, 2002.13 Under

the original NME agreement, the export products, limits, and reference prices for CTL plate from Russia

were as follows:

Period Products Reference price 

(dollars per short ton)

1

Export quota

(short tons)

2

Initial level

A36

A572

272

295 110,231

 1 Commerce adjusted reference prices quarterly (based on changes to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Producer

Price Index (“PPI”). If the PPI fell by more than 2.6 percent from the average of the first two months of the period, the reference

price was adjusted for the last month of the period. There was no cap on PPI changes.

 2

 Commerce recalculated upward or downward annual adjustments in export limits based on apparent U.S.

consumption of CTL plate (based on statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau and the American Iron and Steel Institute),

calculated on the most recent 12 months of data, with a maximum adjustment +/- 6 percent.

Source: Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from China, Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-753-756 (Review),

USITC Publication 3626, September 2003, p. I-6. 

The suspension agreement was revised on January 23, 2003, based on an agreement between

Commerce and the Russian CTL plate producers. The quota was eliminated and each signatory

producer/exporter individually agreed to make any necessary price revisions to eliminate completely any

amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the U.S. price of its merchandise subject

to the agreement.14 Under this current agreement, signatory manufacturers/exporters in Russia must sell

at or above their cost-based normal values as calculated by Commerce. Following the Commission’s15

and Commerce’s16 affirmative determinations with respect to Russia as part of the first reviews, the

suspension agreement was continued.17 The suspension agreement remains in effect for the signatory

producers/exporters of CTL plate from Russia: Severstal, Magnitogorsk, and JSC NOSTA Integrated

Iron-Steel works (“Nosta”).18 However, only one Russian producer, Severstal, has applied for normal
 19 Staff telephone interview with ***. 

 20 Staff telephone interview with ***. 

 21 Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from China, Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-753-756

(Review), USITC Publication 3626, September 2003, p. I-7. 

I-5

values under the agreement for the current period, July 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009.19 Reference

prices are not available under the current agreement because they are based on confidential business

proprietary information that is provided to Commerce by the signatory companies.20 

Ukraine21

On October 24, 1997, Commerce signed an NME agreement with the Government of Ukraine

suspending the antidumping duty investigation of CTL plate from Ukraine. The agreement set a quota, or

export limit, for shipments of CTL plate and set a minimum reference price at which Ukrainian mills were

required to sell their CTL plate products. Whereas the Russian and Chinese producers accepted a lower

quota in exchange for a lower reference price, the Ukrainian producers opted to accept a high reference

price in exchange for a higher quota.

The export products, limits, and reference prices for CTL plate from Ukraine under the terms of

the initial agreement are as follows:

Period Products Reference price 

(dollars per short ton)

2

Export quota

(short tons)

3

Initial level1

A36

A516

A572

API-2H

326

354

351

481 174,165

 1 Not more than 22,046 short tons of CTL plate 0.375 inch or less in actual or nominal thickness may be sold. 

A 5 percent increase in export tonnage is allowed under the following circumstances: (1) if the weighted-average f.o.b. sales

price for A36 plate over 0.375 inch exceeds the reference price by more than 5 percent; (2) increased tonnage can be only for

A36 over 0.375 inch in thickness; and (3) the Government of Ukraine has complied with data reporting requirements set down by

Commerce.

 2

 Commerce adjusts reference prices quarterly (based on changes to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Producer

Price Index (“PPI”). If the PPI falls by more than 2.6 percent from the average of the first two months of the period, the reference

price will be adjusted for the last month of the period. There is no cap on PPI changes.

 3

 Commerce recalculates upward or downward annual adjustments in export limits based on apparent U.S.

consumption of CTL plate (based on statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau and the American Iron and Steel Institute, calculated

on the most recent 12 months of data, with a maximum adjustment +/- 6 percent).

Source: Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from China, Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-753-756 (Review),

USITC Publication 3626, September 2003, p. I-8 and Reference Prices Pertaining to Suspension Agreement, Cut-to-Length

Carbon Steel Plate from Ukraine, Case Number A-823-808, found at the United States Department of Commerce, International

Trade Administration, Import Administration, http://ia.ita.doc.gov/reference-price/refprice-a823808.html, retrieved August 11,

2009. Staff telephone interview with ***. 
 22 Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from China, Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-753-756

(Review), USITC Publication 3626, September 2003, p. I-7. 

 23 Final Results of Five-Year Sunset Review of Suspended Antidumping Duty Investigation on Certain Cut-toLength Carbon Steel Plate from Ukraine, 68 FR 24434, May 7, 2003. 

 24 Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From China, Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine, Determinations, 68 FR

52614, September 4, 2003. 

 25 Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Ukraine; Final Results of Administrative Review of the

Suspension Agreement and Determination Not To Terminate, 68 FR 35626, June 16, 2003.

 26 Continuation of Suspended Antidumping Duty Investigations: Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From the

People’s Republic of China, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine, 68 FR 54417, September 17, 2003. 

 27 Amendment to the Antidumping Suspension Agreement on Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate Between

the United States Department of Commerce and the Government of Ukraine, 69 FR 6254, February 10, 2004. 

 28 Suspension of Antidumping Investigation: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Ukraine, 73 FR

57602, October 3, 2008. 

 29 Ibid. 

 30 Staff telephone interview with ***. 

I-6

Pursuant to the agreement, the export limit remained in effect until November 1, 2002. Effective

December 20, 2002, Commerce agreed to an amendment to the agreement that allowed imports of CTL

plate from Ukraine until November 1, 2003.22 Following Commerce’s23 and the Commission’s24

affirmative determinations with respect to Ukraine as part of the first reviews, and the final results of

administrative review of the suspension agreement,25 Commerce continued the suspension agreement on

CTL plate from Ukraine.26 In order to provide for the continuation of exports of CTL plate from Ukraine

to the United States following the expiration of the one-year extension, the agreement was amended on

January 16, 2004.27 On February 17, 2006, based on the evidence of economic reforms to that date,

Commerce revoked Ukraine’s status as a non-market economy country, effective February 1, 2006. 

Based on a request by certain Ukrainian producers of CTL plate, Commerce converted the non-market

economy suspension agreement to a market economy agreement, effective November 1, 2008.28 Under

the current agreement, signatory manufacturers/exporters in Ukraine agree to make any necessary price

revisions to eliminate completely any amount by which the normal value of their merchandise exceeds the

U.S. price of the merchandise subject to the agreement.29 Azovstal and Alchevsk Iron & Steel Works

(“Alchevsk”) have obtained normal values for the current period, July 1, 2009 through December 31,

2009.30
 31 Antidumping and countervailing duty orders were issued in February 2000 covering six countries. Notice of

Amended Final Determinations: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Quality Steel Plate from India and the Republic of

Korea; and Notice of Countervailing Duty Orders: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Quality Steel Plate from France,

India, Indonesia, Italy, and the Republic of Korea, 65 FR 6587, February 10, 2000; Notice of Amendment of Final

Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon

Quality Steel Plate Products from France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, and the Republic of Korea, 65 FR 6585,

February 10, 2000. 

 32 Termination of Suspended Antidumping Duty Investigation: Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South

Africa, 68 FR 54417, September 17, 2003. 

I-7

Summary Data

Table I-1 presents a summary of data from the original investigations, the first five-year reviews,

and the current reviews. 

The quantity of apparent U.S. consumption has fluctuated since the period examined in the

original investigations, while U.S. producers’ share of consumption, was at its lowest level in 1996, and

reached its highest level in 2003. Since the original investigations, the share of subject imports declined

overall, while the share of nonsubject imports increased following the suspension of the antidumping duty

investigations covering China, Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine. Nonsubject imports (including those

from South Africa) peaked as a share of the U.S. market in 1998 and since then have fluctuated between

6.0 and 12.8 percent.31 

In the original investigations the largest source of subject imports was Ukraine. By the first

reviews China had replaced Ukraine as the largest subject source. The situation has reversed again in

these reviews and Ukraine was the source of half a million more tons of CTL plate than China during

2003-08. Russia has consistently been the second largest source of subject imports. U.S. imports from

South Africa, the smallest supplier during the period examined in the original investigations, were smaller

still during the first reviews but have since increased since the revocation of the antidumping duty order

in September 2003 (effective October 24, 2002).32

Since 2002, the final calendar year examined in the first five-year reviews, the U.S. industry’s

capacity and production have increased in nearly every calendar year, and both reached their highest

levels in 2008. Capacity utilization has fluctuated, but from 2004 forward remained above capacity

utilization levels reported in the original investigations and the first reviews. The quantity of U.S.

shipments generally followed a similar trend, peaking in 2008. The average unit value of U.S. shipments

increased each year after 2003 and peaked in 2008, consistent with sustained levels of strong demand and

rising costs (notably those for scrap and energy). Employment diminished from the end of the first

reviews but was highest in 2008, while average wages increased during 2003-08. The trend in

productivity gains witnessed in the first reviews continued. The unit cost of goods sold increased steadily

each year, reflecting higher scrap prices and energy costs. After five consecutive years of operating

losses, the U.S. industry generated positive operating income starting in 2004, which reached its peak for

the period in 2008. 
I-8

Table I-1

CTL plate: Summary data from the original investigations, the first five-year reviews, and the current five-year reviews,

1994-2008

(Quantity = short tons; Value = 1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit financial data are per short ton) 

Item 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount 7,918,112 7,745,003 8,675,485 7,348,408 8,938,897 6,538,528

 Producers’ share1 82.9 82.6 79.4 83.0 79.6 88.8

 Importer's share:

 Chinal1

 0.1 2.3 3.5 2.2 1.7 0.4

 Russia1 2.9 3.0 2.9 2.2 1.3 0.3

 Ukraine1 3.7 6.5 7.2 2.5 1.7 0.1

 Subtotal, 3 subject countries: 6.7 11.8 13.6 6.9 4.7 0.8

 South Africa 1.5 0.7 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.2

 Subtotal, 4 countries 8.2 12.6 14.6 7.0 4.9 0.9

 All other countries 8.9 4.9 6.0 10.0 15.4 10.3

 Total imports1 17.1 17.4 20.6 17.0 20.4 11.2

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount 3,367,692 3,495,951 3,795,297 3,198,639 3,887,182 2,467,720

 Producers’ share:1 84.3 83.8 81.6 84.1 80.6 88.3

Importer's share:

 China1 0.1 1.8 2.8 1.8 1.5 0.4

 Russia1 2.1 2.2 2.1 1.7 1.0 0.2

 Ukraine1 2.7 5.1 5.7 2.0 1.5 0.1

 Subtotal, 3 subject countries: 4.9 9.1 10.6 5.5 4.0 0.7

 South Africa 1.2 0.7 0.8 0.1 0.2 0.1

 Subtotal, 4 countries: 6.1 9.8 11.4 5.5 4.2 0.8

 All other countries 9.6 6.4 6.9 10.4 15.1 10.9

 Total imports1 15.7 16.2 18.4 15.9 19.4 11.7

Table continued on next page.
I-9

Table I-1--Continued

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

6,448,960 6,123,347 5,814,031 6,393,512 7,217,372 7,536,148 8,988,128 8,531,296 8,635,333

87.6 88.1 89.2 93.8 91.1 89.4 85.0 87.9 90.3

2.3 1.5 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

1.4 1.3 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.4 1.0

0.4 0.5 0.1 0.1 1.8 1.2 1.4 0.7 2.0

4.1 3.3 1.2 0.2 1.8 1.3 2.2 1.2 3.0

0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.2

4.2 3.5 1.4 0.5 2.1 1.6 2.7 1.4 3.2

8.2 8.4 9.4 5.7 6.9 9.0 12.3 10.7 6.5

12.4 11.9 10.8 6.2 8.9 10.6 15.0 12.1 9.7

2,440,993 2,176,496 2,104,804 2,307,465 4,369,126 5,310,214 6,598,992 6,547,414 8,792,054

87.3 87.3 87.8 91.9 90.5 88.9 86.3 88.1 89.5

1.9 1.3 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

1.0 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.4 1.1

0.4 0.5 0.1 0.1 1.7 1.2 1.2 0.6 2.1

3.3 2.8 1.1 0.2 1.7 1.3 1.9 1.1 3.2

0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.1

3.3 2.9 1.3 0.5 2.0 1.7 2.4 1.4 3.4

9.3 9.8 11.0 7.6 7.5 9.4 11.3 10.6 7.2

12.7 12.7 12.2 8.1 9.5 11.1 13.7 11.9 10.5

Table continued on next page.
I-10

Table I-1--Continued

CTL plate: Summary data from the original investigations, the first five-year reviews, and the current five-year reviews,

1994-2008

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit financial data are per short ton)

Item 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

U.S. imports from--

 China 

 Quantity 8,639 181,737 301,652 163,527 154,955 26,159

 Value 2,836 62,271 105,874 56,247 56,471 9,003

 Unit value $328 $343 $351 $344 $364 $344

 Russia:

 Quantity 230,156 234,255 252,396 158,509 117,614 17,390

 Value 69,556 78,164 78,514 53,096 39,929 6,115

 Unit value $302 $334 $311 $335 $339 $352

 Ukraine:

 Quantity 295,775 500,266 627,796 184,615 148,349 3,814

 Value 92,085 179,955 217,574 63,018 59,955 1,904

 Unit value $311 $360 $347 $341 $404 $499

 Subtotal, 3 subject countries:

 Quantity 534,570 916,258 1,181,844 506,651 420,918 47,363

 Value 164,477 320,390 401,962 172,361 156,355 17,022

 Unit value $308 $350 $340 $340 $321 $359

 South Africa:

 Quantity 115,468 56,110 81,544 7,945 21,177 10,561

 Value 41,481 23,688 31,769 3,059 8,625 3,449

 Unit value $359 $422 $390 $385 $407 $327

 Subtotal, 4 countries:

 Quantity 650,038 972,368 1,263,389 514,597 442,094 57,923

 Value 205,957 344,078 433,731 175,420 164,980 20,471

 Unit value $317 $354 $343 $341 $373 $353

 All other countries:

 Quantity 701,627 378,226 520,807 732,631 1,379,685 671,426

 Value 322,594 222,665 263,404 333,633 588,526 269,054

 Unit value $460 $589 $506 $455 $427 $401

 All countries:

 Quantity 1,351,665 1,350,595 1,784,195 1,247,228 1,821,779 729,349

 Value 528,551 566,743 697,135 509,053 753,506 289,524

 Unit value $391 $420 $391 $408 $414 $397

Table continued on next page.
I-11

Table I-1--Continued

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

151,126 91,510 31,138 6,036 1,393 2,836 4,113 3,453 4,360

46,031 28,309 10,980 2,428 1,488 1,719 3,191 3,214 5,714

$305 $309 $353 $402 $1,068 $606 $776 $931 $1,311

87,898 79,070 34,453 3,742 714 3,001 69,960 37,793 84,992

23,933 20,690 10,399 1,239 602 1,766 42,572 25,236 95,098

$272 $262 $302 $331 $843 $588 $609 $668 $1,119

28,627 31,316 5,650 4,724 129,159 89,275 122,420 57,700 173,945

8,884 9,899 2,184 1,709 73,854 64,765 81,432 40,885 182,276

$310 $316 $387 $362 $572 $725 $665 $709 $1,048

267,651 201,896 71,241 14,502 131,265 95,113 196,494 98,947 263,298

78,848 58,898 23,563 5,375 75,943 68,250 127,195 69,335 283,089

$295 $292 $331 $371 $579 $718 $647 $701 $1,075

5,771 10,992 11,889 16,086 17,646 27,588 45,401 23,556 13,689

1,983 3,665 3,484 5,564 9,848 20,926 32,350 20,656 12,771

$344 $333 $293 $346 $558 $759 $713 $877 $933

273,422 212,888 83,130 30,588 148,911 122,701 241,895 122,503 276,987

80,830 62,563 27,046 10,939 85,792 89,176 159,545 89,991 295,860

$296 $294 $325 $358 $576 $727 $660 $735 $1,068

529,085 515,870 546,414 364,865 494,934 678,213 1,107,152 911,418 588,405

227,994 213,188 230,775 175,718 328,487 501,692 747,347 791,682 629,559

$431 $413 $422 $482 $664 $740 $675 $759 $1,127

802,507 728,758 629,543 395,453 643,845 800,913 1,349,047 1,033,921 835,392

308,824 275,751 257,821 186,658 414,278 590,868 906,892 781,673 925,418

$385 $378 $410 $472 $643 $738 $672 $756 $1,108

Table continued on next page.
I-12

Table I-1--Continued

CTL plate: Summary data from the original investigations, the first five-year reviews, and the current five-year reviews,

1994-2008

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit financial data are per short ton)

Item 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

U.S. producers’--

Capacity quantity 9,064,709 8,960,893 9,222,170 8,667,033 10,010,548 9,431,014

Production quantity 6,676,099 6,532,841 6,942,185 6,330,510 7,419,073 6,088,967

Capacity utilization 73.6 72.9 75.3 73.0 74.1 64.6

U.S. shipments:

 Quantity 6,566,447 6,394,408 6,891,290 6,101,180 7,117,118 5,809,179

 Value 2,839,141 2,929,208 3,098,162 2,689,586 3,133,676 2,178,196

 Unit value $432 $458 $449 $441 $440 $375

U.S. producers’--

 Ending inventory quantity 313,570 336,100 317,594 428,270 500,751 446,738

 Inventories/total shipments1 4.7 5.2 4.6 6.8 6.8 7.4

 Production workers 7,489 7,383 7,778 7,577 7,979 6,522

 Hours worked (1,000 hours) 16,596 16,667 17,332 17,212 18,087 14,277

 Wages paid (1,000 dollars) 337,309 349,810 365,401 375,409 402,019 318,065

 Hourly wages $20.33 $20.99 $21.08 $21.81 $22.23 $22.28

 Productivity (tons/1,000 hours) 402.3 392.0 400.5 364.0 406.8 422.6

 Net sales:

 Quantity 6,344,407 6,280,227 6,711,412 5,586,050 6,690,581 5,153,254

 Value 2,739,295 2,868,752 3,017,747 2,514,284 3,005,441 1,964,899

 Unit value $432 $457 $450 $450 $449 $381

 Cost of goods sold 2,556,592 2,604,129 2,758,843 2,328,842 2,742,965 1,955,117

 Gross profit or (loss) 182,703 264,623 258,904 185,442 262,476 9,782

 SG&A 103,858 104,941 116,090 106,177 123,630 140,283

 Operating income or (loss) 78,845 159,682 142,814 79,265 138,846 (130,501)

 Unit cost of goods sold $403 $415 $411 $417 $410 $379

 Unit operating income or (loss) $12 $25 $21 $14 $21 ($25)

 Cost of goods sold/sales1 93.3 90.8 91.4 92.6 91.3 99.5

 Operating income or (loss)/sales1

2.9 5.6 4.7 3.2 4.6 (6.6)

 1 In percent.

Note.–The data presented in table I-1 include micro-alloy steel CTL plate for the period 2003-08. As discussed in greater detail later in this chapter, the

Commission’s “domestic like product” finding in the first reviews included micro-alloy steel CTL plate. However, data for the broader product were unavailable

for portions of the period for which data were collected in the first reviews (specifically 1997 and 1998). Because the Commission’s analysis by necessity

focused on data for non-alloy steel CTL plate, these data are presented in table I-1 for the period 1997-2002.

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics. Certain Carbon Steel Plate from

China, Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-753-756 (Final), USITC Publication 3076, December 1997, table C-4; Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel

Plate from China, Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-753-756 (Review), USITC Publication 3626, September 2003, tables I-I, III-6, and C-1. 
I-13

Table I-1--Continued

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

9,258,670 8,340,306 8,181,782 9,612,515 9,358,706 9,824,667 10,420,197 10,464,249 10,882,642

5,861,042 5,669,296 5,625,598 6,464,022 7,129,899 7,337,156 8,515,159 8,463,676 8,583,931

63.3 68.0 68.8 67.2 76.2 74.7 81.7 80.9 78.9

5,646,453 5,394,589 5,184,488 5,998,059 6,573,527 6,735,235 7,639,081 7,497,375 7,799,941

2,132,169 1,900,745 1,846,983 2,120,807 3,954,848 4,719,346 5,692,100 5,765,741 7,866,636

$378 $352 $356 $354 $602 $701 $745 $769 $1,009

447,226 442,041 334,473 472,142 467,155 427,639 535,175 544,133 429,247

7.6 7.9 6.2 7.3 6.5 5.8 6.3 6.4 4.9

6,641 6,082 4,862 4,184 3,498 3,576 3,732 3,853 4,191

14,384 12,962 10,908 9,080 7,847 8,113 8,629 8,869 9,488

321,268 300,089 258,415 229,460 219,468 233,643 267,258 281,310 318,344

$22.34 $23.15 $23.69 $25.27 $27.97 $28.80 $30.97 $31.72 $33.55

405.5 435.6 513.8 627.7 789.4 793.3 880.2 858.0 820.6

4,926,278 4,960,783 4,981,996 5,686,152 6,170,413 6,365,139 7,436,868 7,447,725 7,655,181

1,875,286 1,771,524 1,752,442 2,089,064 3,876,161 4,716,691 5,678,021 5,940,911 7,818,382

$381 $358 $352 $367 $628 $741 $763 $798 $1,021

1,901,588 1,875,510 1,769,708 2,040,663 2,924,844 3,399,302 3,988,778 4,258,383 6,018,354

(26,302) (103,986) (17,266) 48,401 951,317 1,317,389 1,689,243 1,682,528 1,800,028

127,459 113,716 105,644 150,714 117,739 124,784 116,397 130,271 143,355

(153,761) (217,702) (122,910) (102,313) 833,578 1,192,605 1,572,846 1,552,257 1,656,673

$386 $378 $355 $359 $474 $534 $536 $572 $786

($31) ($44) ($25) ($18) $135 $187 $211 $208 $216

101.4 105.0 101.0 97.7 75.5 72.1 70.2 71.7 77.0

(8.2) (12.3) (7.0) (4.9) 21.5 25.3 27.7 26.1 21.2
I-14

RELATED INVESTIGATIONS

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations

The Commission has conducted numerous antidumping and countervailing duty investigations 

regarding CTL plate. A summary of these investigations is presented in table I-2. No original 

investigations have been instituted since 1999. As shown in the table, there are currently six antidumping

duty orders, and two suspension agreements covering eight countries. 

Table I-2

CTL plate: Previous and related investigations, 1978-2009

Original investigation

Subsequent actions

Date1 Number Country Outcome

1978 AA1921-179 Japan Affirmative ITA revoked (1986)

1979 AA1921-197 Taiwan Affirmative

Affirmative first review (1999)

Negative second review (2005)

1979 AA1921-203 Poland Negative -

1980 731-TA-18 Belgium Affirmative2 Terminated (1980)

1980 731-TA-19 Germany (West) Affirmative2 Petition withdrawn (1980)

1980 731-TA-20 France Affirmative2 Petition withdrawn (1980)

1980 731-TA-21 Italy Affirmative2 Petition withdrawn (1980)

1980 731-TA-22 Luxembourg Affirmative2 Petition withdrawn (1980)

1980 731-TA-23 Netherlands Affirmative2 Petition withdrawn (1980)

1980 731-TA-24 United Kingdom Affirmative2 Petition withdrawn (1980)

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

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

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

1982 701-TA-86 Belgium Affirmative Terminated (1982)

1982 701-TA-87 Brazil Affirmative Terminated (1985)

1982 701-TA-88 France Negative2 -

1982 701-TA-89 Italy Negative2 -

1982 701-TA-90 Luxembourg Negative2 -

1982 701-TA-91 Netherlands Negative2 -

1982 701-TA-92 United Kingdom Affirmative2 Terminated (1982)

1982 701-TA-93 Germany (West) Affirmative2 Terminated (1982)

1982 701-TA-155 Spain Affirmative ITA revoked (1985)

1982 701-TA-170 Korea Affirmative ITA revoked (1985)

1982 731-TA-53 Belgium Affirmative2 Terminated (1982)

Table continued on next page. 
I-15

Table I-2--Continued

CTL plate: Previous and related investigations, 1978-2009

Original investigation

Subsequent actions

Date1 Number Country Outcome

1982 731-TA-54 France Negative2 -

1982 731-TA-55 Italy Negative2 -

1982 731-TA-56 Luxembourg Negative2 -

1982 731-TA-57 Netherlands Negative2 -

1982 731-TA-58 Romania Affirmative2 Terminated (1985)

1982 731-TA-59 United Kingdom Affirmative2 Terminated (1982)

1982 731-TA-60 Germany (West) Affirmative2 Terminated (1982)

1983 701-TA-204 Brazil Affirmative ITA revoked (1985)

1983 731-TA-123 Brazil Affirmative ITA revoked (1985)

1983 731-TA-146 Belgium Affirmative2 Terminated (1984)

1983 731-TA-147 Germany (West) Affirmative (on remand)2 Terminated (1984)

1983 731-TA-151 Korea Affirmative ITA revoked (1986)

1984 701-TA-225 Sweden Negative -

1984 701-TA-226 Venezuela Affirmative2 Terminated (1985)

1984 731-TA-169 Finland Affirmative2 Petition withdrawn (1985)

1984 731-TA-170 South Africa Affirmative2 Petition withdrawn (1984)

1984 731-TA-171 Spain Affirmative2 Terminated (1985)

1984 731-TA-213 Czechoslovakia Affirmative2 Petition withdrawn (1985)

1984 731-TA-214 Germany (East) Affirmative2 Terminated (1985)

1984 731-TA-215 Hungary Affirmative2 Petition withdrawn (1985)

1984 731-TA-216 Poland Affirmative2 Terminated (1985)

1984 731-TA-217 Venezuela Affirmative2 Petition withdrawn (1985)

1992 701-TA-319 Belgium Affirmative

Affirmative first review (2000)

Negative second review (2007)

1992 701-TA-320 Brazil Affirmative

Affirmative first review (2000)

Negative second review (2007)

1992 701-TA-321 France Negative -

1992 701-TA-322 Germany Affirmative

Affirmative first review (2000)

ITA revoked (2004)

1992 701-TA-323 Italy Negative -

1992 701-TA-324 Korea Negative -

1992 701-TA-325 Mexico Affirmative

Affirmative first review (2000)

Negative second review (2007)

Table continued on next page. 
I-16

Table I-2--Continued

CTL plate: Previous and related investigations, 1978-2009

Original investigation

Subsequent actions

Date1 Number Country Outcome

1992 701-TA-326 Spain Affirmative

Affirmative first review (2000)

Negative second review (2007)

1992 701-TA-327 Sweden Affirmative

Affirmative first review (2000)

Negative second review (2007)

1992 701-TA-328 United Kingdom Affirmative

Affirmative first review (2000)

ITA revoked (2006) 

1992 731-TA-573 Belgium Affirmative

Affirmative first review (2000)

Negative second review (2007)

1992 731-TA-574 Brazil Affirmative

Affirmative first review (2000)

Negative second review (2007)

1992 731-TA-575 Canada Affirmative Negative first review (2000)

1992 731-TA-576 Finland Affirmative

Affirmative first review (2000)

Negative second review (2007)

1992 731-TA-577 France Negative -

1992 731-TA-578 Germany Affirmative

Affirmative first review (2000)

Negative second review (2007)

1992 731-TA-579 Italy Negative -

1992 731-TA-580 Japan Negative2 -

1992 731-TA-581 Korea Negative -

1992 731-TA-582 Mexico Affirmative

Affirmative first review (2000)

Negative second review (2007)

1992 731-TA-583 Poland Affirmative

Affirmative first review (2000)

Negative second review (2007)

1992 731-TA-584 Romania Affirmative

Affirmative first review (2000)

Negative second review (2007)

1992 731-TA-585 Spain Affirmative

Affirmative first review (2000)

Negative second review (2007)

1992 731-TA-586 Sweden Affirmative

Affirmative first review (2000)

Negative second review (2007)

1992 731-TA-587 United Kingdom Affirmative

Affirmative first review (2000)

Negative second review (2007)

1996 731-TA-753 China Affirmative

Affirmative first review (2003)

Ongoing second review (2009)

1996 731-TA-754 Russia Affirmative3

Affirmative first review (2003)

Ongoing second review (2009)

1996 731-TA-755 South Africa Affirmative Negative first review (2003)

Table continued on next page. 
 33 Carbon and Alloy Steel Products, Inv. No. TA-201-51, USITC Publication 1553, July 1984, p. 2. 

 34 Steel Import Relief Determination, 49 FR 36813, September 20, 1984. 

 35 19 U.S.C. § 2252.

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

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

I-17

Table I-2--Continued

CTL plate: Previous and related investigations, 1978-2009

Original investigation

Subsequent actions

Date1 Number Country Outcome

1996 731-TA-756 Ukraine Affirmative3

Affirmative first review (2003)

Ongoing second review (2003)

1999 731-TA-815 Czech Republic Negative2 -

1999 731-TA-816 France Affirmative Negative first review (2005)

1999 731-TA-817 India Affirmative Affirmative first review (2005)

1999 731-TA-818 Indonesia Affirmative Affirmative first review (2005)

1999 731-TA-819 Italy Affirmative Affirmative first review (2005)

1999 731-TA-820 Japan Affirmative Affirmative first review (2005)

1999 731-TA-821 Korea Affirmative Affirmative first review (2005)

1999 731-TA-822 Macedonia Negative2 -

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

 2

 Preliminary determination. 

 3

 Suspension agreement in place. 

 

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

Safeguard Investigations

In 1984, the Commission determined that carbon and alloy steel plate (in coils or cut-to-length)

were being imported into the United States in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of

serious injury to the domestic industry producing such articles, and recommended quantitative restrictions

of imports for a period of five years.33 President Reagan determined that import relief under section 201

of the Trade Act of 1974 was not in the national interest.34 At the President’s direction, quantitative

limitations under voluntary restraint agreements (“VRAs”) for a five-year period ending September 30,

1989, were negotiated. In July 1989, the VRAs were extended for two and one half years until March 31,

1992.

In addition, following receipt of a request from the Office of the United States Trade

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

Steel, under section 202 of the Trade Act of 197435 to determine whether certain steel products, including

CTL plate, were being imported into the United States in such increased quantities as to be a substantial

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

competitive with the imported article.36 On July 26, 2001, the Commission received a resolution adopted

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

requesting that the Commission investigate certain steel imports under section 201 of the Trade Act of
 37 19 U.S.C. § 2251.

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

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

2001.

 39 Steel; Import Investigations, 66 FR 67304, December 28, 2001.

 40 Presidential Proclamation 7529 of March 5, 2002, To Facilitate Positive Adjustment to Competition From

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

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

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

September 2003.

 43 Ibid. at Volume I, pp. viii-ix, and table C-4. 

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

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

I-18

1974.37 Consistent with the Senate Finance Committee’s resolution, the Commission consolidated the

investigation requested by the Committee with the Commission’s previously instituted investigation No.

TA-201-73.38 On December 20, 2001, the Commission issued its determinations and remedy

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

and alloy steel including plate.39

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a period of three years and one day. Import relief relating to CTL plate consisted of an additional tariff of

30 percent ad valorem on imports in the first year, 24 percent in the second year, and 18 percent in the

third year.40 The President also instructed the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Commerce

to establish a system of import licensing to facilitate the monitoring of imports of certain steel products.41

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

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

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

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

subsequent additional exclusions.

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

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

204(a)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974.42 The Commission’s monitoring report noted that, since the

safeguard measures were instituted, the U.S. industry producing certain carbon and alloy flat-rolled steel,

including CTL plate, had increased its market share to 89.1 percent from 84.6 percent, that the total

quantity of imports from subject sources had declined, and that demand for certain carbon and alloy flatrolled steel during the relief period also had declined.43

Following receipt of the Commission’s mid-term monitoring report in September 2003, and after

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

determined that the effectiveness of the action taken had been impaired by changed circumstances.

Therefore, he terminated the U.S. measure with respect to increased tariffs on December 4, 2003.44 
 45 Proclamation 7741 terminated the tariff-rate quota and the increased import duties on certain steel products, but

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

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

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

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

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

 46 Steel: Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Import Relief, Inv. No. TA-204-12, USITC Publication 3797,

September 2005. 

I-19

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

this time.45

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

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

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

President and the Congress on September 19, 2005.46

STATUTORY CRITERIA AND ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

Statutory Criteria

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

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

investigation to determine whether revocation of the order or termination of the suspended investigation

“would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or a countervailable subsidy (as the

case may be) and of material injury.”

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

or recurrence of material injury--

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

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

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

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

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

is terminated. The Commission shall take into account--

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

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

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

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

related to the order or the suspension agreement, 

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

order is revoked or the suspension agreement is terminated, and 

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

regarding duty absorption . . ..

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

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

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

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

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

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

including--
I-20

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

production capacity in the exporting country, 

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

increases in inventories, 

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

merchandise into countries other than the United States, and 

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

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

merchandise, are currently being used to produce other products.

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

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

Commission shall consider whether--

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

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

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

United States at prices that otherwise would have a significant

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

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

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

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

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

including, but not limited to--

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

productivity, return on investments, and utilization of capacity, 

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

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

(C) likely negative effects on the existing development and

production efforts of the industry, including efforts to develop a

derivative or more advanced version of the domestic like product.

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

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

industry.

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

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

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

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

Subsidies Agreement.”
 47 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000,

7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000,

7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000. 

 48 No duty absorption findings were made for any of the subject countries.

I-21

Organization of the Report

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

presented throughout this report. A summary of trade and financial data for CTL plate as collected in the

reviews is presented in appendix C. U.S. industry data are based on questionnaire responses of 14 U.S.

producers of CTL plate that are believed to have accounted for nearly all U.S. production of CTL plate

during 2008. U.S. import data and related information are based on Commerce’s official import statistics

as revised to include imports of CTL micro-alloy steel plate, from the questionnaire responses of 16 U.S.

importers of CTL plate that are believed to have accounted for 42.3 percent of total subject U.S. imports

during 2008 and for 43.9 percent of the total U.S. imports of CTL plate from other sources. To maintain

data consistency between the current reviews, the first reviews, and the original investigations, this report

presents data for U.S. imports based on the following 17 statistical reporting numbers of the Harmonized

Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTS”) for non-alloy steel CTL plate.47 In addition, nonsubject

imports include additional quantities and values of U.S. imports of micro-alloy steel CTL plate. Staff

notes that the official import data are modestly overstated, as certain statistical reporting numbers include

both subject merchandise and merchandise that is out of scope by reason of cladding or plating; thickness;

or coiled form. Foreign industry data and related information are based on published sources and the

questionnaire responses of three CTL plate producers: two producers in Russia accounting for an

estimated *** percent of subject Russian production and one producer in Ukraine accounting for an

estimated *** percent of total production. Responses by U.S. producers, importers, purchasers, and

foreign producers of CTL plate to a series of questions concerning the significance of the existing

antidumping duty order for China and suspended investigations for Russia and Ukraine and the likely

effects of revocation of the order and termination of the suspension agreements are presented in appendix

D. Appendix E contains an overview of the variance calculation. 

COMMERCE’S REVIEWS

Administrative Reviews48

Commerce has completed one or more administrative reviews of the outstanding antidumping

duty order on CTL plate from China and of the suspension agreements covering CTL plate from Russia

and Ukraine.

China

Commerce completed one antidumping duty administrative review with regard to subject imports

of CTL plate from China and recently made a preliminary determination in a second review. The results

of the administrative reviews are shown in table I-3.
I-22

Table I-3

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

Date results published Period of review Producer or exporter Margin (percent)

December 18, 2006

(71 FR 75710) 11/01/2004-10/31/2005 PRC-wide1 128.59

August 10, 20092

(74 FR 39921) 11/01/2007-10/31/2008 Hunan Valin Xiangtan 0.0

 1 This rate included Liaoning Company. In its Preliminary Results (71 FR 45768) Commerce rescinded the review with respect

to Angang, which timely withdrew its request for administrative review. 

 2

 These are the preliminary results of review. Commerce also preliminarily rescinded the review with respect to Anshan Iron &

Steel Group (“Anshan”), Baoshan International Trade Corp./Bao Steel Metals Trading Corp., Shanghai Baosteel Group Corp.,

Baoshan Iron and Steel Co., Ltd., and Shanghai Pudong Steel & Iron Co. (“Baoshan”), and Baosteel Group (“Baosteel”). 

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

 

Russia

Commerce completed one administrative review of the suspension agreement with regard to

subject imports of CTL plate from Russia. The results of the administrative review are shown in table 

I-4.

Table I-4

CTL plate: Administrative review of the suspended antidumping duty investigation for Russia

Date results

published Period of review

Producer or

exporter Results

May 14, 2008 

(73 FR 27796) 01/01/2006-12/31/2006 Severstal

Commerce found that Severstal has

been in compliance with the agreement.

Source: Cited Federal Register notice.

 

Ukraine

Commerce completed two administrative reviews of the suspension agreement with regard to

subject imports of CTL plate from Ukraine. The results of the administrative reviews are shown in table

I-5.

Table I-5

CTL plate: Administrative reviews of the suspended antidumping duty investigation for Ukraine

Date results

published Period of review Producer or exporter Results

June 16, 2003 

(68 FR 35626)

11/01/2000-

10/31/2001

Azovstal

Ilyich

Government of Ukraine

Commerce found that the companies and the

government have been in compliance with the

Agreement but did not terminate the

agreement or the underlying investigation

because the continued maintenance of the

Agreement was necessary to offset dumping.

December 12, 2006

(71 FR 74486)

11/01/2004-

10/31/2005 Government of Ukraine 

Commerce found that each of the export

licenses governed by the Agreement were at

or above the reference prices stipulated by the

Agreement. Ukraine did not exceed its annual

export limits. Therefore, it concluded that the

Government of Ukraine has been in

compliance with the Agreement.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.
 49 Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping

Duty New Shipper Review, 66 FR 15930, April 8, 2009. 

 50 The inclusion of 0.0008 percent or more, by weight, of boron. 

 51 Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping

Circumvention Inquiry, 73 FR 62250, October 20, 2008. 

 52 Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Cut-toLength Carbon Steel Plate from the People’s Republic of China, 74 FR 33991, July 14, 2009. 

 53 Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Cut-to-Length

Carbon Steel Plate from the People’s Republic of China, 74 FR 40565, August 12, 2009. 

 54 Proprietary Customs data, ***. 

 55 Ibid. 

I-23

New Shipper Review 

Commerce initiated a new shipper review in response to a request from Hunan Valin Xiangtan

Iron & Steel Co. (“Valin Xiangtan”) on January 17, 2008. On April 18, 2008, Commerce expanded the

period of review in order to cover Valin Xiangtan’s entry of the subject merchandise. Because Valin

Xiangtan’s sale of subject merchandise was then covered both by the new shipper review and the

administrative review for the period November 1, 2007 through October 31, 2008, Commerce rescinded

the new shipper review effective April 8, 2009.49

Circumvention Review

On October 20, 2008, Commerce initiated an inquiry to determine whether adding

“metallurgically and economically insignificant” amounts of boron50 is a minor alteration that

circumvents the antidumping duty order covering imports of CTL plate from China.51 On July 14, 2009,

Commerce published a preliminarily determination that Tianjin (a producer in China) and Toyota Tsusho

(a U.S. importer) have circumvented the antidumping duty order.52 Because no parties commented on

Commerce’s preliminary determination, and no reasons existed to reverse that determination, Commerce

published a final determination that Tianjin and Toyota Tsusho have circumvented the antidumping duty

order on CTL plate from China on August 12, 2009, effective on the same date.53 Customs ***.54 In

addition, Customs ***.55 

Five-Year Reviews

Commerce has issued the final results of its expedited reviews with respect to China and Russia

and its full review with respect to Ukraine. Table I-6 presents the margins calculated by Commerce in its

original investigations, first reviews, and the current reviews. 
 56 Section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)).

I-24

Table I-6

CTL plate: Commerce’s original, first five-year review, and current review antidumping duty

margins for producers/exporters, by subject country

Producer/exporter

Original margin

(percent)

First five-year review margin 

(percent)

Current review margin

 (percent) 

China1

Anshan 30.68 30.68 30.68

Baoshan 34.44 30.51 30.51

Liaoning 17.33 17.33 17.33

Shanghai Pudong 38.16 38.16 38.16

WISCO 128.59 128.59 128.59

All others 128.59 128.59 128.59

Russia2

Severstal 53.81 53.81 53.81

All others 185.00 185.00 185.00

Ukraine3

Azovstal 81.43 81.43 81.43

Ilyich 155.00 155.00 155.00

All others 237.91 237.91 237.91

 1 Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 62 FR 61964, November 20, 1997; Final Results of Expedited Sunset

Review, 68 FR 1038, January 8, 2003; Notice of Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review, 73 FR 74143, December 5, 2008. 

 2 Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 62 FR 61787, November 19, 1997; Final Results of

Expedited Sunset Review, 68 FR 1038, January 8, 2003; Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review, 73 FR 74461, December 8,

2008. 

 3 Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 62 FR 61754, November 19, 1997; Final Results of FiveYear Sunset Review, 68 FR 24434, May 7, 2003; Final Results of Full Sunset Review, 74 FR 11910, March 20, 2009. 

Source: Cited Federal Register notices. 

DISTRIBUTION OF CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT FUNDS

The Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (“CDSOA”) (also known as the Byrd

Amendment) provides that assessed duties received pursuant to antidumping or countervailing duty

orders must be distributed to affected domestic producers for certain qualifying expenditures that these

producers incur after the issuance of such orders.56 During the review period, qualified U.S. producers of

CTL plate were eligible to receive disbursements from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(“Customs”) under CDSOA relating to one antidumping duty order on the subject product from China
 57 19 CFR 159.64 (g).

 58 Preliminary amounts for 2009 disbursements are not available in the latest Customs CDSOA report dated April

30, 2009. Found at http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/priority_trade/add_cvd/cont_dump/, retrieved September 29,

2009. 

I-25

beginning in Federal fiscal year 2003.57 Table I-7 presents CDSOA disbursements and claims for Federal

fiscal years (October 1-September 30) 2003-0858 by source and by firm. 

Table I-7

CTL plate: CDSOA disbursements for China, by firm, and total claims, Federal fiscal years 2003-08

Item

Federal fiscal year

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Disbursements (dollars)

ArcelorMittal1 0 (2

) 14,011 4,744,231 60,006 204,009

Evraz Claymont (2

) (2) (2) (2) (2) 20,032

Evraz Inc. (2

) (2) (2) (2) (2) 0

Nucor (2

) (2) (2) (2) (2) 0

Nucor Steel Tuscaloosa (2

) (2) (2) (2) (2) 0

U.S. Steel (2

) (2) 6,639 1,615,646 17,412 53,877

United Steelworkers

 Union (2

) (2) (2) 4,107 43 (2)

 Total 0 (2

) 20,650 6,363,984 77,461 277,918

Claims (1,000 dollars)

 Total 1,794,921 (2

) 6,709,260 8,640,209 10,054,273 17,107,512

 1 International Steel Group (ISG) in 2003, Mittal Steel USA ISG in 2005, Mittal Steel USA Inc. in 2006 and 2007, and

ArcelorMittal in 2008. 

 2

 The company or organization was not listed that year. 

Note.--Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s CDSOA Annual Reports, found at www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import/add_cvd, retrieved

July 20, 2009. 
 59 Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon Steel Plate From the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of

Expedited Sunset Review of Antidumping Duty Order, 73 FR 74143, December 5, 2008. 

 60 Ibid. 

 61 Ibid. 

 62 Ibid. 

I-26

THE SUBJECT MERCHANDISE

Commerce’s Scope

The imported product subject to the antidumping order and suspended investigations has been

defined by Commerce as: 

Hot-rolled carbon steel universal mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a

closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 millimeters but not exceeding 1,250 millimeters and of

a thickness of not less than 4 millimeters, not in coils and without patterns in relief), of

rectangular shape, neither clad, plated nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished,

or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances; and certain hot-rolled carbon steel flatrolled products in straight lengths, of rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither clad, plated, nor coated

with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic

substances, 4.75 millimeters or more in thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters

and measures at least twice the thickness.59

Included in the subject product are flat-rolled products of non-rectangular cross-section where

such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have been “worked

after rolling”) for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges.60 

Specifically excluded from the subject product is grade X-70 plate. Also excluded is certain

carbon CTL steel plate with a maximum thickness of 80 millimeters in steel grades BS 7191, 355 EM,

and 355 EMZ, as amended by Sable Offshore Energy Project specification XB MOO Y 15 0001, types 1

and 2.61

Tariff Treatment

Certain CTL plate is imported under the following statistical reporting numbers of the 

HTS: 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000,

7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045,

7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000.62 The tariff rates that apply to CTL plate

entering the United States appear below in table I-8. 
I-27

Table I-8

CTL plate: Tariff treatment, 2009

HTS

provision Article description

General Special 1 Column 2

Rates (percent ad valorem)

7208

7208.40

7208.40.30

 30

 60

7208.51.00 

 30

45

 60

7208.52.0000

7208.53.0000

7208.90.0000

7210

7210.70

7210.70.3000

7210.90.9000

7211

7211.13.0000

7211.14.00

30

45

7211.90.0000

7212

7212.40

 

 1000

 5000

7212.50.0000

Flat-rolled products of iron or nonalloy steel, of a width of 

600 mm or more, hot-rolled, not clad, plated, or coated: 

 Not in coils, not further worked than hot-rolled, with 

 patterns in relief: 

 Of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

 Of a thickness exceeding 10 mm ................

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

 Other, not in coils, not further worked than hot-rolled:

 Of a thickness exceeding 10 mm ................ 

 Universal mill plate ...........................

 Other:

 Of high-strength steel .......................

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 Of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more but not 

 exceeding 10 mm ..............................

 Of a thickness of 3 mm or more but less than 

 4.75 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Flat-rolled products of iron or nonalloy steel, of a width of 

600 mm or more, clad, plated or coated:

 Painted, varnished or coated with plastics:

 Not coated or plated with metal and not clad .........

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Flat-rolled products of iron or nonalloy steel of a width of less

than 600 mm, not clad, plated or coated:

 Not further worked than hot-rolled:

 Universal mill plate .............................

 Other, of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more . . . . . . . . . . . .

 Of high-strength steel ........................

 Other:

 Not in coils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Flat-rolled products of iron or nonalloy steel, of a width of less

than 600 mm, clad, plated or coated:

 Painted, varnished or coated with plastics:

 Of a width of less than 300 mm .................

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 Otherwise plated or coated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

 

Free

Free

Free

Free

Free

Free

Free

Free

Free

Free

Free

Free

Free

20%

20%

20%

20%

20%

0.4¢/kg + 20%

21.5%

20%

20%

20%

25%

0.4¢/kg + 20%

21.5%

 1 General note 3(c)(i) to the HTS lists the programs related to the enumerated special duty rate symbols.

Source: HTS (2009).

THE PRODUCT

Description and Applications

CTL plate, in these reviews, is a flat-rolled steel product that is generally 4.75 millimeters or

more in thickness. Although there is no upper limit on the thickness of CTL plate that is within scope, the

great majority of CTL plate produced in the United States is one inch or less in thickness (69.6 percent of

U.S. shipments in 2008). CTL plate in the thickness range of greater than one inch but less than three

inches constitutes 27.5 percent of U.S. shipments while CTL plate thicker than three inches accounts for
 63 Information on CTL plate thicknesses was compiled from data submitted in response to Commission U.S.

producer/processor questionnaires. 

 64 According to hearing testimony, nonresidential construction accounts for the largest share of plate

consumption. Hearing transcript, p. 77 (Schagrin). 

 65 Steel is the primary material used in wind turbines, comprising 89.1 percent by weight of a tower. Wind towers

usually have three sections, each consisting of metal rings that are thickest at the bottom of the tower and are conical

in shape since towers taper slightly from the base to a narrower opening at the top. During the manufacturing

process plated sheets are cut, rolled into the conical shape and then welded into rings. Wind Turbines, Industry &

Trade Summary, USITC Publication ITS-02, June 2009, pp. 5-6. 

 66 American Iron and Steel Institute, “How Steel is Made,”found at http://www.steel.org/AM/Template.cfm?

Section= How_Steel_is_Made&Template=/ TaggedPage/TaggedPageDisplay.cfm&TPLID=36&ContentID=21810,

retrieved July 27, 2009.

I-28

2.9 percent of U.S. shipments.63 CTL plate is produced in a variety of widths, thicknesses, and shapes in

order to be incorporated into other products or to be further processed into products. The term “cut-tolength” indicates that the product is produced as a flat plate with a defined length.

Plate is used in load-bearing and structural applications, such as agricultural and construction

equipment (e.g., cranes, bulldozers, scrapers, and other tracked or self-propelled machinery); bridges;

machine parts (e.g., the body of the machine or its frame); electricity transmission towers and light poles;

buildings (especially nonresidential);64 and heavy transportation equipment, such as railroad cars

(especially tank cars) and ships. Plate also is used in the production of tanks, sills, floors, offshore

drilling rigs, pipes, petrochemical plant and machinery, and various other fabricated pieces. Plate can

also be used in utility applications, such as wind towers65 and pressure vessels. 

The product scope also includes wide flat carbon steel bar at least 5.9 inches in width. Wide flat

bar is a hot-rolled product made in various lengths and widths, usually starting at 1/8 inch in thickness

although only bar at least 3/16 inch in thickness is within the product scope. It is often used in structural

applications, such as bridges, and trailers. 

Manufacturing Processes

In general, there are three distinct processing stages for hot-rolled nonalloy steel products,

including: (1) melting or refining steel, (2) casting steel into semi-finished forms, and (3) hot rolling

semi-finished forms into flat-rolled hot-rolled steel mill products. These processing stages are

summarized below.

Melt Stage

Steel is produced by either the integrated or the nonintegrated process.66 In the integrated

process, iron ore is smelted in a blast furnace with coke to produce molten iron, which is subsequently

poured into a steelmaking furnace, generally a basic oxygen furnace, together with a small amount of

scrap metal. The molten metal is processed into steel by blowing oxygen into the furnace. In the

nonintegrated process, molten steel is produced by melting scrap and primary iron products (such as pig

iron or direct-reduced iron) in an electric arc furnace. 

Whether produced by the integrated or nonintegrated process, molten steel is poured or “tapped”

from the furnace into a ladle to be transported to casting. It is common for steelmakers to utilize a

secondary steelmaking stage (ladle metallurgy station) to refine the product further into extra-clean or

low-carbon steels satisfying stringent surface or internal requirements or micro cleanliness quality and

mechanical properties before casting. Steelmakers may adjust the chemical content by adding alloying
 67 Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Cut–toLength Carbon Steel Plate from the People’s Republic of China, 74 FR 33991, July 14, 2009.

 68 Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Cut-to-Length

Carbon Steel Plate from the People’s Republic of China, 74 FR 40565, August 12, 2009. 

 69 Metallurg Vanadium Corp., “Ferroalloys and Alloying Additives Online Handbook,” boron chapter, found at

http://www.metallurgvanadium.com/boronpage.html, retrieved July 27, 2009.

 70 Heat treatment is described later in this section. 

 71 See Evraz, “Evraz Oregon Steel Rolling Mill,” found at http://www.osm.com/LocationsFacilities/OregonSteel/

RollingMill/tabid/155/Default.aspx, retrieved July 27, 2009; JSW Steel USA, “JSW Plate Division: A Better Way to

Buy Steel,” found at http://www.jswsteelusa.com/about_jindal.html, retrieved July 27, 2009. 

I-29

elements, lowering the carbon content (decarburization), or adjusting the temperature of the molten steel

for optimum casting. The essential physical properties of the steel are established in the melt stage.

Commerce initiated an antidumping circumvention inquiry at the request of ArcelorMittal, Evraz,

Nucor, and SSAB concerning CTL plate with 0.0008 percent or more boron, by weight, and otherwise

meeting the product scope requirements.67 The addition of boron at concentrations of 0.0008 percent or

more results in an alloy steel according to the HTS and would normally exclude CTL plate from the

product scope of these reviews. However, in its final determination in the antidumping circumvention

inquiry, Commerce determined that certain CTL plate with boron at concentrations of 0.0008 percent or

more, is within the product scope.68 Boron is an alloying element which, if used, is added at the melt

stage. It is used at concentrations of approximately 0.0015 to 0.0030 percent69 to increase the hardness of

heat-treated steel and is not typically used in CTL plate that does not undergo heat treatment.70 Standard

commodity-grade CTL plate is not typically heat treated.

Some plate mills, such as Evraz and Jindal United Steel Corp. (“JSW Steel USA”), do not make

their own steel. Instead, they roll plate from purchased slabs.71 The production process for these mills

does not include the melting and casting stages and begins at the rolling stage described later in this

section.

Casting Stage

Following the melting stage, the molten steel is cast into a form suitable for the rolling process. 

Two principal methods of casting are used, ingot teeming and continuous casting. Continuous slab

casting is the more common, preferred, and lower-cost method and is normally used to produce plates up

to approximately 4 inches in thickness. Ingots are used to produce thicker plates, since continuous cast

slabs of sufficient thickness are not available. 

Rolling Stage

Most CTL plate is hot-rolled on a reversing plate mill (also called a sheared plate mill) consisting

of one or two reversing hot-rolling mill stands and associated equipment. If there are two stands, the first

is called the roughing mill and the second is called the finishing mill. The roughing mill is equipped with

special tables in front of and behind the mill to rotate the plate one-quarter turn between rolling passes in

order to allow cross-rolling, increasing the width rather than the length of the plate as the thickness is

reduced. After the desired finished width is reached, the plate is again rotated one-quarter turn and rolled

straightaway to the finished thickness. Reversing mills in the United States generally produce plate

ranging from 0.187 to 20 inches (4.75 to 508 mm) in thickness and from 48 to 154 inches (1,219 to 3,912

mm) in width.
 72 For example, Nucor and SSAB can roll plate over 96 inches in width on Steckel mills. See Nucor’s

“Production Facilities,” found at http://www.nucortusk.com/#, retrieved September 30, 2009; SSAB’s description of

its Mobile, AL facility, found at http://www.ssab.com/About-SSAB1/The-SSAB-Group/SSAB-North-American/

Operations/Mobile/, retrieved September 30, 2009. 

 73 A universal mill is a mill capable of simultaneously rolling between both horizontal and vertical rolls. 

Universal mill plate is defined in HTSUS Chapter 72 Additional U.S. Note 1(b) as follows: Flat-rolled products

rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm but not exceeding 1,250 mm and of

thickness of not less than 4 mm, not in coils without patterns in relief.

I-30

Some reversing plate mills (known as “Steckel mills”) are equipped with coilers on each side of

the finishing mill that operate inside small heating furnaces, keeping the steel hot and allowing the

production of much longer or thinner plates. Plate also can be rolled on a Steckel mill without using the

heated coilers, in which case the mill operates like a conventional reversing plate mill. Steckel mills are

equipped with coilers to produce coiled plate as well as in-line shearing facilities to produce discrete

plate. Plate cut from hot-rolled coils is processed on a separate line where it is uncoiled, flattened, and cut

to length. Plate produced in a Steckel mill typically ranges from 0.187 to 0.750 inches (4.75 to 19.1 mm)

in thickness and 48 to 96 inches (1,219 to 2,438 mm) in width, although some mills can produce wider

plate.72

In addition to reversing plate mills, plate may also be rolled on a continuous hot-strip mill. Such

a mill has either a reversing rougher or a number (usually four or five) of nonreversing roughing mills

followed by a finishing section consisting of a series of mill stands, usually six, spaced close together so

that a plate is rolled continuously in a single pass in one direction. The finished plate is coiled,

discharged from the mill, allowed to cool, then uncoiled, flattened, and cut to length on a separate

processing line. Although continuous hot-strip mills primarily produce hot-rolled sheet, they also may be

used to produce plate up to approximately 72 inches wide and between three-sixteenths and one-half inch

in thickness.

Because of its capability to cross roll, a reversing mill is somewhat flexible with regard to the slab

width used to produce a given plate width. Steckel mills and continuous hot-strip mills can only use slabs

slightly wider than the width of the plate to be produced, but have the advantage of being able to roll

longer, heavier slabs than could be used on a reversing plate mill. Because of its generally thicker

dimensions, plate from a reversing mill is preferred for welded load-bearing and structural applications,

such as bridgework; machine parts (e.g., the body of the machine or its frame); transmission towers and

light poles; buildings; mobile equipment (e.g., cranes, bulldozers, scrapers, and other tracked or

self-propelled machinery); and heavy transportation equipment, such as railroad cars (especially tanker

cars) and oceangoing ships. End users concerned about “coil set memory” (such as those that cut parts

from plate) may prefer plate from a reversing mill because the edges of plate cut from coils from hot-strip

and Steckel mills may curl on heating. 

Most CTL plate is smooth on both sides, and by definition the product scope excludes plate with

“patterns in relief” if produced on a universal mill.73 “Patterns in relief” are used primarily in floor plate,

which has a non-skid pattern of raised figures at regular intervals on one surface of the plate. Floor plate,

however, can be produced in mills other than universal mills with patterns in relief. Such plate is

produced by continuous hot-strip mills by placing an embossed roll in the final stand of the continuous

mill and on a Steckel mill by holding the hot plate on one of the Steckel furnaces at the mill after

completing all but the final rolling pass. One roll is then changed to an embossed roll, and the final

rolling pass completed. 

After the CTL plate is made, it can be heat treated, subjected to a series of temperature changes to

increase its hardness, strength, or ductility, thereby allowing the plate to be used in additional

applications. The amount of time spent at the various temperatures and the rates of cooling can vary
 74 American Iron and Steel Institute, “Steel Glossary,” heat treatment entry, found at http://www.steel.org/AM/

Template.cfm?Section=Steel_Glossary2&CONTENTID=6422&TEMPLATE=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm, retrieved

September 30, 2009.

 75 ***.

 76 ***.

 77 The Commission’s decision regarding the appropriate domestic product that is “like” the subject imported

product is based on a number of factors including (1) physical characteristics and uses; (2) interchangeability; (3)

channels of distribution; (4) customer and producer perceptions; (5) common manufacturing facilities and production

employees; and where appropriate, (6) price. 

 78 Certain Carbon Steel Plate From China, Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-753-756 (Final),

USITC Publication 3076, December 1997, p. 9. 

 79 Ibid., p. 8. The Commission also determined that “certain coiled plate” should not be included in the domestic

like product for the same reasons. 

I-31

depending on the characteristics desired for the plate.74 Some examples of heat treatments are

normalizing, quenching, and quench and temper. Normalizing involves heating the steel to about 1,670

degrees and cooling slowly. This process increases the toughness of steel and is used in such applications

as pressurized tank cars. Quenching is the immediate cooling of the steel after heating of the steel to

1,670 degrees, which makes the steel more resistant to abrasion. Quench and temper includes heating of

the steel to 1,670 degrees, rapid cooling, and reheating to 800-1,200 degrees before cooling again, which

makes the steel stronger and more durable.75

Plate producers may have several types of mills at a single steel facility. In such facilities, the

reversing plate mill is usually separated from the hot-strip mill and the Steckel mill and employs different

production workers.

Steel service centers traditionally have served as distributors of plate and typically do not have

their own plate mills. Some service centers also perform a wide range of value-added processing of many

steel products, such as uncoiling, flattening, and cutting plate products to length or flame/plasma cutting

plate into non-rectangular shapes. Service centers that process coiled plate into cut lengths or nonrectangular shapes may utilize coiled plate from U.S. or foreign mills. The process of producing CTL

plate from coiled plate is the same whether performed at the steel mill or by a service center.76

DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT ISSUES

In making its injury determinations the Commission first determines the domestic like product. 

The Act defines “domestic like product” as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most

similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation” (19 USC § 1677(10)).77

In its original determinations, the Commission defined the domestic like product as CTL carbon

steel plate produced by U.S. mills and CTL plate cut from coiled plate by service centers.78 The

Commission did not include coiled plate in the domestic like product after considering arguments from

respondents that plate in coil form should be included in the domestic like product. The Commission

determined that “(b)ased on different physical characteristics and end uses, limited interchangeability,

different manufacturing facilities for the majority of CTL plate and coiled plate, and differences in price,

we do not include coiled plate in the domestic like product.”79 In the original determinations, the issue of

micro-alloy steel plate did not arise and the Commission did not expressly address whether CTL plate

made from micro-alloy steel should be included in the domestic like product. In the first reviews of the

antidumping duty order and suspension agreements, the Commission revisited the original domestic like

product definition and determined that “the differences between carbon steel CTL plate and micro-alloy

steel CTL plate are not so pronounced as to constitute clear dividing lines and, accordingly, we include
 80 Commissioner Koplan dissented from the Commission’s like product finding, noting that in his judgment “the

evidence in the record regarding changes in the product falls short of establishing support for a modification of the

original domestic like product determinations or for warranting a like product broader than the scope of the imported

products subject to the reviews.” Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from China, Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine,

Inv. Nos. 731-TA-753-756 (Review), USITC Publication 3626, September 2003, pp. 8-9 and 33-36.

 81 Ibid. 

 82 Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, and Korea, Inv. Nos.

701-TA-388-391 and 731-TA-816-821 (Review), USITC Publication 3816, November 2005, pp. 4-6. 

 83 Chairman Pearson, Commissioner Hillman, and Commissioner Okun found it appropriate to include microalloy steel CTL plate in the definition of the domestic like product. Certain Carbon Steel Products from Australia,

Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden,

Taiwan, and the United Kingdom, Inv. Nos. AA1921-19 7(Second Review); 701-TA-319, 320, 325-327, 348, and 350

(Second Review); and 731-TA-573, 574, 576, 578, 582-587, 612, and 614-618 (Second Review), USITC Publication

3899, Volume I, January 2007, p. 31. 

 84 Ibid. Vice Chairman Aranoff, Commissioner Koplan, and Commissioner Lane declined to expand the domestic

like product to include micro-alloy steel CTL plate in the definition of the domestic like product. 

 85 Domestic interested parties’ response to the notice of institution, September 22, 2008, p. 18. 

 86 Three sets of comments on the draft questionnaires were submitted by counsel for five domestic producers. 

 87 Domestic interested party, ArcelorMittal’s, posthearing brief, p. 40. Domestic interested parties, SSAB’s,

Evraz Claymont’s, and Evraz Inc.’s, posthearing brief, p. 12. Domestic interested party, Nucor’s, posthearing brief,

p. 17. 

 88 Domestic interested party, Nucor’s, posthearing brief, p. 18. 

I-32

micro-alloy steel CTL plate within our domestic like product definition...”80 The Commission stated that

this approach was consistent with its treatment of the issue in numerous original investigations that were

conducted between 1998 and 2002 involving CTL plate and other forms of flat-rolled steel.81

Since the first reviews, the Commission has twice considered a CTL plate like product definition. 

In 2005, as part of Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate reviews, the Commission found no reason to

alter its finding in the original investigations of a single domestic like product, consisting of all

domestically produced CTL plate that corresponds to the scope description, including X-70 plate, microalloy plate, and plate cut from coils.82 In the 2007 second review of Certain Carbon Steel Products, three

Commissioners expanded the domestic like product definition to include micro-alloy products83 and three

Commissioners declined to expand the domestic like product to include micro-alloy products.84

In response to a question soliciting comments regarding the appropriate domestic like product in

the Commission’s notice of institution of these reviews, the domestic interested parties agreed with the

Commission’s definition as set out in the Commission’s notice of institution.85 The respondent interested

parties did not address the issue in their comments. No party addressed this issue in comments on the

draft questionnaires.86 In their posthearing briefs, the domestic interested parties stated that they have no

objection to the inclusion of micro-alloy plate in the Commission’s definition of the domestic like

product.87 Domestic producer, Nucor, explained that “the micro-alloy question is often a distinction

without commercial significance.”88
 89 Certain Carbon Steel Plate From China, Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-753-756 (Final),

USITC Publication 3076, December 1997, pp. III-1-III-6. 

 90 Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from China, Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-753-756

(Review), USITC Publication 3626, September 2003, table I-4 and p. III-1.

 91 ArcelorMittal, Evraz Inc., Evraz Claymont, Nucor, SSAB, and U.S. Steel have filed entries of appearance.

 92 Domestic producers ***. 

 93 Domestic producers ***. 

 94 Domestic producer ***. 

I-33

U.S. MARKET PARTICIPANTS

U.S. Producers

During the original investigations, 14 mills and 21 processors supplied the Commission with

information on their U.S. operations with respect to CTL plate. The 14 mills represented virtually all mill

production of CTL plate and coiled plate in the United States at that time.89 In the first reviews, 10 mills

and 8 processors producing CTL plate in the United States provided the Commission with information

that accounted for approximately 90 percent of production for the period 1997 through March 2003.90 In

these current reviews, the domestic interested parties identified the following five U.S. producers of CTL

plate in their response to the Commission’s notice of institution: ArcelorMittal, Evraz Claymont, Evraz

Inc., Nucor, and United States Steel Corp. (“U.S. Steel”). The Commission issued questionnaires to these

mills, all of which provided the Commission with information on their CTL plate operations. In addition,

the Commission issued questionnaires to mills that were identified as potential CTL plate producers and 

service centers believed to have cut-to-length processing lines. In all, 11 mills and 6 processors

producing CTL plate provided the Commission with information and/or data. 

Six firms, representing *** percent of reported 2008 shipments, have filed notices of appearance

in these reviews.91 *** representing *** percent of reported 2008 shipments, ***.92 *** representing ***

percent of 2008 shipments, ***.93 Finally, ***, representing *** percent of 2008 shipments, ***.94 

Domestic mill production of CTL plate is concentrated in the southern portion of the United

States with fifteen mill facilities, including five in Texas. The majority of CTL plate processors also have

operations in the southern United States. There are 15 processing facilities in the South, including three

in Tennessee and four in Texas. 

Details regarding each firm’s position on continuation of the suspension agreements and the

antidumping duty order, production location(s), parent company, and share of reported 2008 CTL plate

shipments, are presented in table I-9.
I-34

Table I-9

CTL plate: U.S. producers, position on continuation, production location(s), parent company, and

share of U.S. shipments in 2008

Firm name

Position on

continuation

Production

location(s) Parent company

Share of

reported

U.S.

shipments

(percent) 

U.S. mills:

ArcelorMittal *** 

Burns Harbor, IN

Coatesville, PA

Conshohocken, PA

Gary, IN ***% ArcelorMittal SA, Luxembourg ***

Arkansas Steel *** Newport, AR

***% SC Steel Investment, U.S.

***% Sumitomo Corp., Japan

***% Yamato Kogyo Corp., U.S. ***

CMC Steel *** Birmingham, AL ***% Commercial Metals Co., U.S. ***

Evraz Claymont *** Claymont, DE ***% Evraz Group SA, Russia ***

Evraz Inc. *** Portland, OR ***% Evraz Group SA, Russia ***

Gerdau Ameristeel *** 

Baldwin, FL

Charlotte, NC

Jackson, TN

Knoxville, TN

Midlothian, TX

Perth Amboy, NJ

Sand Springs, OK

Sayerville, NJ

St. Paul, MN

West Vidor, TX

Wilton, IA ***% Gerdau Ameristeel, Canada2 ***

JSW Steel USA *** Baytown, TX ***% Jindal Group, India ***

Kentucky Electric *** Ashland, KY ***% ALJ Regional Holdings, U.S. ***

LeTourneau *** Longview, TX ***% Rowan Companies, U.S. ***

Nucor *** 

Auburn, NY

Cofield, NC

Darlington, SC

Jewett, TX

Plymouth, UT

Seattle, WA

Tuscaloosa, AL None ***

SSAB *** 

Houston, TX

Montpelier, IA ***% Svenskt Stal (SSAB), Sweden ***

U.S. Steel *** Gary, IN None ***

Table continued on next page. 
I-35

Table I-9--Continued 

CTL plate: U.S. producers, position on continuation, production location(s), parent company, and

share of U.S. shipments in 2008

Firm name

Position on

continuation

Production

location(s) Parent company

Share of

reported

U.S.

shipments

(percent) 

U.S. processors:

Cargill ***

Catoosa, OK

East Chicago, IL

Houston, TX

Loudon, TN

Memphis, TN

Nashville, TN

Panama City, FL None ***

Friedman ***

Armorel, AR

Decatur, AL

Houston, TX None ***

Macsteel *** 

Bensalem, PA

Catoosa, OK

Charlotte, NC

Houston, TX

Hammond, IN None ***

Metals USA ***

Muskogee, OK

Philadelphia, PA ***% Apollo Management, U.S. ***

Namasco ***

Charleston, SC

Chicago, IL

Houston, TX

Middletown, CT

New Castle, DE

Tulare, CA ***% Klockner & Co., SE, Germany ***

Olympic ***

Bedford Heights,

OH None ***

Steel Warehouse ***

Chattanooga, TN

Memphis, TN

Oak Creek, WI

Rock Island, IL

South Bend, IN

***% Lerman Holding Co., Inc., ***%

Lerman Enterprise LLC. ***

 1 *** is not included in the domestic industry data because it did not provide a complete questionnaire response. It is ***. 

 2

 Gerdau Ameristeel noted that ***.

 3

 Jindal United Steel Corp. and Steel Warehouse ***. 

 4

 Metals USA provided ***. 

 5

 Namasco provided ***. *** 

Source: Complied from data submitted in response to Commission U.S. producer/processor questionnaires, sections 1-2, 1-3,

and 1-4; Certain Carbon Steel Products from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea,

Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom, Inv. Nos. AA1921-197 (Second Review); 701-TA319, 320, 325-327, 348, and 350 (Second Review); and 731-TA-573, 574, 576, 578, 582-587, 612, and 614-618 (Second

Review), USITC Publication 3899, Volume II, January 2007, table CTL-1-21. 
 95 According to proprietary Custom’s data, *** was the foreign producer and importer of *** kilograms (***

short tons) of CTL plate from China in 2007. Proprietary Customs data, U.S. imports for consumption, from China,

by foreign producer and importer, 2003-08, HTS 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045,

7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000,

7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000, retrieved March 26,

2009. 

 96 *** U.S. producer/processor questionnaire responses, section I-5. ***. ***. E-mail from ***, September 29,

2009. 

 97 *** U.S. producer/processor questionnaire responses, section I-6. 

 98 ***. *** U.S. producer/processor questionnaire response, section I-7. 

 99 *** U.S. producer/processor questionnaire response, section I-7. 

 100 *** U.S. producer/processor questionnaire response, section I-7. 

 101 ***. *** U.S. producer/processor questionnaire response, section II-8a. 

 102 *** U.S. producer/processor questionnaire response, section II-8a. 

 103 Ibid., section II-9a. 

 104 *** U.S. producer/processor questionnaire response, section II-16. The company produces CTL plate in ***

which is located in *** near the port of ***. ***. 

 105 *** U.S. producer/processor questionnaire responses, section II-15. 

 106 *** importer questionnaire response, sections II-6 and II-7. *** imports were made by ***. *** importer

questionnaire response, section I-2. 

 107 *** importer questionnaire response, sections II-6 and II-7. 

 108 *** importer questionnaire response, sections II-6 and II-7. ***. *** imports were made by ***. ***

importer questionnaire response, section I-2. 

I-36

Two domestic producers are related to subject importers. *** holds a *** percent interest in

importer/exporter, ***.95 *** has common shareholders with importer *** which imports and exports

both subject and nonsubject CTL plate.96 Four domestic producers reported commercial connections with

nonsubject importers. *** is a sister company of CTL plate exporter ***. Domestic producer *** parent

company is a *** CTL plate producer and exporter, ***. Both *** subsidiary *** and its *** act as

importers/exporters of CTL plate. *** has *** that act as importers/exporters of CTL plate, ***.97

Two domestic producers are related to foreign CTL plate producers. *** is a sister company to

*** CTL plate producers located around the globe.98 *** has ***. Two domestic producers are related to

other domestic producers. *** is owned by the same parent company, ***, as ***.99 *** owns ***

percent of CTL plate processor ***.100

Two domestic producers reported that since January 1, 2003, they have been involved in toll

agreements regarding the production of CTL plate. *** reported that it has been involved in toll

agreements with multiple tollees and approximately *** percent of its U.S. shipments in 2008 were

produced under a toll agreement.101 *** has a toll agreement under which *** retains title to the hotrolled coil which is shipped to *** for conversion to CTL plate in return for a processing fee.102 Under

the contract ***.103 One domestic producer *** reported the production of CTL plate in a foreign trade

zone.104

Three domestic producers, ***, reported importing CTL plate.105 *** did not provide an

explanation for its *** imports from ***.106 *** explained that it ***. *** reported subject imports from

Russia in ***.107 *** explained that it imports to ***. The company imported CTL plate in every full

year of the period from nonsubject sources only, and from *** specifically.108
 109 Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from China, Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-753-756

(Review), USITC Publication 3626, September 2003, p. I-20.

 110 *** importer questionnaire response, section I-6. 

 111 *** importer questionnaire responses, section I-7. 

 112 *** importer questionnaire responses, section I-8. 

 113 CCC Steel company website, Welcome to CCC Steel, found at http://www.ccc-steel.de/index.html, retrieved

September 22, 2009. 

 114 Macsteel company website, Macsteel Service Centers USA, About Us, A single powerful entity, found at

http://www.macsteelusa.com/about-us.asp, retrieved September 22, 2009. 

 115 Stemcor company website, About Us, What we do, found at http://www.stemcor.com/Every_Step_in

_Steel.php, retrieved on September 22, 2009. 

 116 Sunbelt Group company website, found at http://www.russelmetals.com/english/import/operations/sunbelt/,

retrieved September 22, 2009. 

 117 According to *** it used the TIB program for ***. *** importer questionnaire response, section I-10. 

I-37

U.S. Importers

The Commission received usable data from 39 importers during the original investigations and

from 7 firms during the first reviews.109 In the current reviews, 16 firms reported importing CTL plate

since 2003. 

Two importers have ties to subject importers/exporters. *** owns a *** percent interest in

Chinese importer/exporter ***. *** has common shareholders with nonsubject and subject CTL plate

importer/exporter ***.110 In addition, two importers have ties to nonsubject importers/exporters. *** is a

sister company to ***, a nonsubject importer/exporter. *** is related to two nonsubject

importers/exporters, its *** and its ***.111 

Several importers are related to nonsubject CTL plate producers. *** is a sister company to the

*** CTL plate mills in the United States and the ***. *** major shareholder is the *** of Korea, a CTL

plate producer and exporter. *** is owned by CTL plate producers and exporters ***. *** parent

company is the *** CTL plate producer, ***. Through its parent it is a sister company to ***, a

Canadian processor, and it has four subsidiary producers in the United States located in ***.112

As indicated in the following table, several U.S. importers are part of larger independent steel

trading enterprises. In January 2008, two steel trading companies, CCC Steel and Ferrostaal Metals

joined to form Coutinho & Ferrostaal. CCC Steel is described as “one of the leading independent

international steel trading companies with a worldwide network of subsidiaries, representative offices and

agencies.113 Macsteel has 32 locations throughout North America and holds itself out as offering one of

the largest inventories of metals in the service center industry.114 Stemcor describes its principal business

as “the international distribution of steel and raw materials.” It notes that it was “founded in 1951 and the

knowledge base and global infrastructure we have built up since then have helped to make us one of the

leading providers of marketing, finance and logistics services to the steel industry. Today we have a

turnover of over $5 billion and employ nearly 1,000 people across all our operating units.”115 Sunbelt is

part of Russel Metals, a company that describes itself as one of the largest metals distribution and

processing companies in North America (based on revenues and tons sold). Sunbelt is a steel trading and

distribution company with worldwide sourcing and nationwide inventories. The company claims to have

“vast inventories located at most major ports in the United States and the Caribbean.”116 

No importers reported entering or withdrawing CTL plate from foreign trade zones or bonded

warehouses. One importer, *** reported importing CTL plate under the temporary importation under

bond (“TIB”) program.117 Table I-10 presents a summary of information regarding U.S. importers of CTL

plate. 
I-38

Table I-10

CTL plate: Reporting U.S. importers, location(s), parent company, source(s) of imports, and

shares of reported 2008 total U.S. imports 

Firm Location(s) Parent company

Source(s) of

imports

Share of reported

2008 total U.S.

imports (percent)

A.M. Castle Franklin Park, IL None

***

*** ***

AMIA Chicago, IL

***% ArcelorMittal

SA, Luxembourg *** ***

Artco Group

White Plains, NY

Hannibal, OH None

***

*** ***

Cargill Hopkins, MN None *** ***

Commercial Metals Co. Irving, TX None

***

***

*** ***

Coutinho & Ferrostaal Houston, TX

***% ManFerrostaal,

Germany

***% MPC, Germany

***% Villacero Group,

Mexico

***

***

***

*** ***

Dongkuk Torrance, CA

***% Dongkuk Steel

Mill, Korea

***% Union Steel,

Korea *** ***

Gerdau Ameristeel

Ontario, Canada

Manitoba, Canada

***% Gerdau SA,

Brazil *** ***

Kiewit Ingleside, TX

***% Kiewit Corp,

U.S. *** ***

Macsteel

Newport Beach,

CA None *** ***

Table continued on next page. 
I-39

Table I-10–Continued

CTL plate: Reporting U.S. importers, location(s), parent company, source(s) of imports, and

shares of reported 2008 total U.S. imports 

Firm Location(s)

Parent company Source(s) of

imports

Share of reported

2008 total U.S.

imports (percent)

Metal One

Cleveland, OH

Detroit, MI

Houston, TX

Miami, FL

Nashville, TN

Rosemont, IL

Santa Fe Springs,

CA

Seattle, WA

***% Metal One

Holdings America,

Inc., U.S. *** ***

Metallia Fort Lee, NJ None *** ***

Ranger Houston, TX None

***

*** ***

SSAB Lisle, IL

***% Svenskt Stal

(SSAB), Sweden *** ***

Stemcor New York, NY

***% Stemcor

Holdings, Ltd., United

Kingdom

***

***

***

*** ***

Sunbelt Houston, TX

***% Russell Metals,

Canada

***

***

*** ***

Thyssen Southfield, MI

***% Thyssen Krupp

USA, Inc., U.S. *** ***

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission importer questionnaires, sections I-2, I-3, and I-7.
I-40

U.S. Purchasers

Thirty-seven purchasers, one of which is related to a U.S. CTL plate producer and four of which

are related to U.S. CTL plate importers, provided purchaser questionnaires. Eight of the responding

purchasers reported that they are end users, 7 reported that they are distributors, 13 are processors, 6 are

both processors and distributors, 1 is a fabricator and manufacturer, and 1 is a pipe manufacturer. As

explained in part II, producers and importers reported that end users account for about 45 percent of sales. 

CTL plate is used in construction, infrastructure, metal building systems, heavy industrial production,

poles and towers, ship building, tanks, ships, product carrier, snowplow blades, railcars, line pipe, and

energy (wind towers). About one-third of these purchasers reported that they compete for sales to their

customers with manufacturers or importers of CTL plate.

APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION AND MARKET SHARES

Table I-11 presents U.S. shipments, imports, and apparent U.S. consumption of CTL plate for the

review period. Table I-12 presents U.S. consumption and market shares for the same period. The

quantity of apparent U.S. consumption increased steadily from 2003 until reaching a peak in 2006. It

declined somewhat in 2007 but increased in 2008. However, apparent U.S. consumption in January-June

2009 was approximately one-half that in January-June 2008. The U.S. producers’ share of apparent

consumption was highest in 2003 (the final year of the U.S. safeguard action covering CTL plate) and

decreased over the next three years as the share held by subject, and nonsubject imports in particular

increased. After 2006, U.S. producers’ share of apparent consumption increased each full year, gaining

market share primarily from nonsubject imports. 
I-41

Table I-11

CTL plate: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. imports, by sources, and apparent U.S.

consumption, 2003-08, January-June 2008, and January-June 2009

Item

Calendar year January-June

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Quantity (short tons)

U.S. producers’ U.S.

shipments 5,998,059 6,573,527 6,735,235 7,639,081 7,497,375 7,799,941 4,122,958 1,984,317

U.S. imports from--

 China 6,036 1,393 2,836 4,113 3,453 4,360 869 789

 Russia 3,742 714 3,001 69,960 37,793 84,992 24,810 8,066

 Ukraine 4,724 129,159 89,275 122,420 57,700 173,945 34,528 16,128

 Subtotal 14,502 131,265 95,113 196,494 98,947 263,298 60,206 24,983

 Other sources 380,951 512,579 705,800 1,152,553 934,974 572,094 297,075 203,650

 Total imports 395,453 643,845 800,913 1,349,047 1,033,921 835,392 357,281 228,633

Apparent consumption 6,393,512 7,217,372 7,536,148 8,988,128 8,531,296 8,635,333 4,480,239 2,212,950

Value ($1,000)

U.S. producers’ U.S.

shipments 2,120,807 3,954,848 4,719,346 5,692,100 5,765,741 7,866,636 3,802,914 1,496,982

U.S. imports from--

 China 2,428 1,488 1,719 3,191 3,214 5,714 1,379 1,698

 Russia 1,239 602 1,766 42,572 25,236 95,098 18,555 7,452

 Ukraine 1,709 73,854 64,765 81,432 40,885 182,276 32,023 17,190

 Subtotal 5,375 75,943 68,250 127,195 69,335 283,089 51,957 26,340

 Other sources 181,282 338,335 522,619 779,697 712,338 642,330 283,150 210,980

 Total imports 186,658 414,278 590,868 906,892 781,673 925,418 335,107 237,320

Apparent consumption 2,307,465 4,369,126 5,310,214 6,598,992 6,547,414 8,792,054 4,138,021 1,734,302

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics.
I-42

Table I-12

CTL plate: Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares, 2003-08, January-June 2008, and

January-June 2009

Calendar year January - June

Item 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Quantity (short tons)

Apparent consumption 6,393,512 7,217,372 7,536,148 8,988,128 8,531,296 8,635,333 4,480,239 2,212,950

Value (1,000 dollars)

Apparent consumption 2,307,465 4,369,126 5,310,214 6,598,992 6,547,414 8,792,054 4,138,021 1,734,302

Share of quantity (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S.

shipments 93.8 91.1 89.4 85.0 87.9 90.3 92.0 89.7

U.S. imports from--

 China 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0

 Russia 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.4 1.0 0.6 0.4

 Ukraine 0.1 1.8 1.2 1.4 0.7 2.0 0.8 0.7

 Subtotal, subject sources 0.2 1.8 1.3 2.2 1.2 3.0 1.3 1.1

All other sources 6.0 7.1 9.4 12.8 11.0 6.6 6.6 9.2

Total imports 6.2 8.9 10.6 15.0 12.1 9.7 8.0 10.3

Share of value (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S.

shipments 91.9 90.5 88.9 86.3 88.1 89.5 91.9 86.3

U.S. imports from--

 China 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1

 Russia 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.4 1.1 0.4 0.4

 Ukraine 0.1 1.7 1.2 1.2 0.6 2.1 0.8 1.0

 Subtotal, subject sources 0.2 1.7 1.3 1.9 1.1 3.2 1.3 1.5

All other sources 7.9 7.7 9.8 11.8 10.9 7.3 6.8 12.2

Total imports 8.1 9.5 11.1 13.7 11.9 10.5 8.1 13.7

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics.
 1 Certain Carbon Steel Products from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan,

Korea, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom, Inv. Nos. AA192-197 (Second

Review); 701-TA-319, 320, 325-327, 348, and 350 (Second Review); and 731-TA-573, 574, 578, 582-587, 612, and

614-618 (Second Review), USITC Publication 3899, Volume II, January 2007, p. CTL-II-1.

II-1

PART II: CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION IN THE U.S. MARKET

U.S. MARKET CHARACTERISTICS

CTL plate is produced from carbon and micro-alloy steel slabs. Slabs are formed from molten

steel, then typically passed through either a traditional reversing plate mill or a Steckel mill, which

increases the width and reduces the thickness. Alternatively, the slab may be processed into coiled plate

on a hot strip mill (or a combination mill) and processed through a separate shear line. The plate is

finished to the customer’s specified thickness, width, and length1

 and sold across the United States 

(table II-1).

Table II-1

CTL plate: Geographic market areas in the United States served by domestic producers and

importers of CTL plate

Region Producers Importers

Northeast1 15 7

Midwest2 14 9

Southeast3 14 9

Central Southwest4 14 12

Mountains5 12 6

Pacific Coast6 12 11

Other7 4 3

 1 – CT, ME, MA, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, and VT.

 2

 – IL, IN, IA, KS, MI, MN, MO, NE, ND, OH, SD, and WI.

 3

 – AL, DE, DC, FL, GA, KY, MD, MS, NC, SC, TN, VA, and WV.

 4

 – AR, LA, OK, and TX.

 5

 – AZ, CO, ID, MT, NV, NM, UT, and WY.

 6

 – CA, OR, and WA 7 – All other markets in the United States not previously listed, including AK, HI, PR, and VI. 

Note.--In the original investigations, CTL plate produced in the United States was shipped nationwide; imports

likewise entered the United States through a variety of ports, but were concentrated in the Central Southwest ports

of Houston, TX and New Orleans, LA. In the first reviews, U.S. producers and importers, as a whole, reported

nationwide sales, although most individual firms reported that their sales were concentrated in particular regions.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and original and first review 

Staff Reports.

Commodity-grade CTL plate is used in a variety of applications, such as the manufacture of

storage tanks, heavy machinery and machinery parts, ships and barges, agriculture and construction

equipment, and general load-bearing structures. Non-commodity grades of CTL plate have superior

strength and performance characteristics as compared with commodity grades of CTL plate and typically

are produced for customers seeking specific properties, such as improved malleability, hardness or

abrasion resistance, impact resistance or toughness, higher strength, and ease in machining and welding.

These particular properties are achieved by chemically refining the steel by increasing or decreasing
 2

 Ibid.

II-2

specific elements, and by accurate temperature control while hot rolling or heat treating the plate.

Noncommodity grades of CTL plate are used to manufacture railroad cars, line pipes, mobile equipment,

highway and railway bridges, pressure vessels, military armor, and machinery components.2

CHANNELS OF DISTRIBUTION

Domestically-produced and imported CTL plate is sold to distributors, service centers, and end

users (table II-2). Overall, U.S. producers shipped slightly more than one-half of their CTL plate to

distributors, while importers shipped the vast majority of their CTL plate to distributors.

Table II-2

CTL plate: U.S. producers’ and U.S. importers’ shares of reported U.S. shipments, by sources and

channels of distribution, 2003-08, January-June 2008, and January-June 20091

Item

January-June

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Share of reported shipments (percent)

Domestic producers’ shipments: 

 To distributors/service centers 54.6 53.3 52.6 51.1 51.9 46.0 49.0 48.2 

 To end users 45.4 46.7 47.4 48.9 48.1 54.0 51.0 51.8 

Shipments of imports from China:

 To distributors/service centers *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 

 To end users *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 

Shipments of imports from Russia:

 To distributors/service centers *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 

 To end users *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 

Shipments of imports from Ukraine:

 To distributors/service centers *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 

 To end users *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 

Shipments of imports from nonsubject sources:

 To distributors/service centers 84.2 85.7 82.8 87.1 85.3 84.3 95.9 100.0 

 To end users 15.8 14.3 17.2 12.9 14.7 15.7 4.1 0.0 

Total imports:

 To distributors/service centers 84.9 86.9 85.0 88.6 85.8 88.4 96.7 99.6 

 To end users 15.1 13.1 15.0 11.4 14.2 11.6 3.3 0.4 

 1 In the original investigations, according to 1996 data, U.S. mills shipped 52.5 percent of their CTL plate to end

users. CTL plate from subject countries was sold mostly to distributors/processors and service centers (China -

93.0 percent; Russia - 53.8 percent; Ukraine - 90.2 percent). In the first reviews, during 1997-2002, U.S. producers

shipped about 60 percent of their CTL plate to distributors/service centers. CTL plate from subject countries was

also sold mostly to distributors and service centers (the only noticeable outlier was in 2001, when 32.7 percent of

CTL plate from Russia was sold to end users).

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and original and first review staff

reports. Certain Carbon Steel Plate from China, Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine, Investigations Nos. 731-TA753-756 (Final), USITC Publication 3076, December 1997 pp. I-8-10, and Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from

China, Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine, Investigations Nos. 731-TA-753-756 (Review), USITC Publication 3626,

September 2003, p. I-14.
 3

 Geographical markets, as well as quantitative measures relating to fungibility and presence in the market, are

discussed in the section of the report entitled “Cumulation Considerations” beginning on page IV-9.

II-3

U.S. inland shipping distances for U.S.-produced and imported CTL plate were reported during

the period 2003-09. Of the 14 responding producers, only 2 producers reported that the majority of their

U.S. sales occur within 100 miles of their production or storage facilities. Most producers, 11 of 14, sold

the majority of their CTL plate within distances of 101 to 1,000 miles. One producer sold *** of its plate

within 100 miles, and *** within distances of 101 to 1,000 miles of its facility. Nonetheless, 7 producers

sold over 5 percent of their CTL plate at distances of over 1,000 miles.3

Seven of 13 responding importers made the majority of their U.S. sales within 100 miles of their

storage facilities. Four importers sold the majority of their CTL plate within distances of 101 to 1,000

miles. One importer sold *** of its CTL plate within 100 miles, and *** within distances of 101 to 1,000

miles of its facility; another one importer sold *** percent of its CTL plate within 100 miles, *** percent

within distances of 101 to 1,000 miles of its facility, and *** percent at distances of over 1,000 miles.

SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS

U.S. Supply

Domestic Industry

Based on available information, U.S. producers have the ability to respond to changes in demand

with moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of U.S.-produced CTL plate to the U.S. market. The

main factors contributing to the moderate degree of responsiveness of supply are the availability of

unused capacity (in 2009, in contrast to the period 2004-08), some inventories, and product sold as export

and production alternatives. 

Industry capacity

Capacity utilization for U.S. producers increased irregularly from 67.2 percent in 2003 to

78.9 percent in 2008, but was only 40.8 percent in January-June 2009 compared to 83.1 percent in

January-June 2008.

Alternative markets

Exports of CTL plate increased from 7.0 percent of U.S. producers’ total shipments in 2003 to

10.4 percent in 2008; exports accounted for 8.3 percent of total shipments in January-June 2009 compared

to 11.0 percent in January-June 2008.

Inventory levels

U.S. producers’ inventories as a ratio of their total CTL plate shipments fluctuated between 2006

and 2008, decreasing irregularly from 7.3 percent of total shipments in 2003 to 4.9 percent in 2008. 

Although substantially reduced in absolute terms, U.S. producers’ inventories were equivalent to 6.2

percent of total annualized shipments in June 2009, compared to 5.7 percent in June 2008.
 4

 For example, during August 2006 published sources reported that “domestic mills have nearly all been operating

at full capacity to meet the market’s demand for plate, and most have placed customers on control order entry to

parcel out the available steel fairly.” A Nucor official reported that Nucor had been able to meet the needs of its

customers, but would like to do better, and that its customers’ needs had grown beyond its ability to increase its

capacity. U.S. producer Jindal reported that demand was so strong, it was “maxed out.” Key factors included strong

energy and public works demand, tight slab supply, and attractive alternative markets for imports. Carbon Plate

Market - Demand Sparks a Run on Plate, Metal Center News Online,

http://www.metalcenternews.com/2006/August/mcn0608Plate.htm, August 2006.

 5 Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from China, Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine, Investigations Nos. 731-TA753-756 (Review), USITC Publication 3326, September 2003, pp. II-2-3.

II-4

Production alternatives

U.S. producers produce slab, sheet, coiled plate, and X-70 and alloy steel plate on the same

equipment used to produce CTL plate. U.S. mills reported that switching between production of different

products is not costly and depends strictly on customers’ orders and demand. U.S. processors are also

able to use the same equipment, machinery, and workers in the production of other products, since most

cut-to-length lines are used to produce sheet products.

Supply constraints

U.S. producers were asked if they refused, declined, or were unable to supply CTL plate since

January 1, 2003 (by placing customers on allocation or “controlled order entry,” declining to accept

customers or renew existing customers, delivering less than the quantity promised, or failing to meet

timely shipment commitments). Four of 15 responding producers reported that they had restrictions of

some variety in place.4

 Some companies provided additional comments in their questionnaire responses. 

Producer *** declared that ***. Producer *** reported that ***. Producer *** reported that ***. 

Producer *** declared that ***. 

Supply of Subject Imports from China

The Commission received no questionnaire responses from Chinese suppliers in these second

reviews. In the first reviews in 2003, data from five Chinese producers of CTL plate that responded to the

Commission’s foreign producer questionnaire suggested that Chinese producers had some ability to

respond to changes in demand with low to moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of CTL plate to

the U.S. market. The main contributing factors to the low to moderate degree of responsiveness were the

existence of some unused capacity, some inventories, a small portion of total shipments exported to the

United States, and moderate flexibility of shifting strong home market sales to the U.S. market.5

However, as shown in tables IV-12 and IV-13, production of heavy or “reversing mill” plate in China

more than *** in the intervening years, and, as shown in table IV-15, China has shifted from being a net

importer to being a net exporter of plate. As demonstrated in table IV-11, China’s plate mill capacity

***. However, China’s consumption of CTL plate also grew during this period, increasing from *** to

*** (table IV-14).

Supply of Subject Imports from Russia

The Commission received two questionnaires responses from Russian suppliers. Based on

available information, Russian producers have the ability to respond to changes in demand with moderate

to large changes in the quantity of shipments of CTL plate to the U.S. market in the event of suspension
II-5

agreements and antidumping duty order are revoked. The main contributing factors to the moderate to

high degree of responsiveness are the existence of high levels of unused capacity, the ability to produce

other products with the same labor and equipment, and the existence of home and non-U.S. export

markets sales.

Industry capacity

Russian producers’ reported capacity utilization rates for CTL plate increased irregularly from

*** percent in 2003 to *** percent in 2008; it was *** percent in January-June 2008 but only *** percent

in January-June 2009. Accordingly, Russian producers have excess capacity with which they could

increase CTL plate production.

Alternative markets

Commercial shipments of CTL plate, as a percentage of total shipments, to the Russian home

market decreased from *** percent in 2003 to *** percent in 2008. Russian CTL plate producers’

exports to the United States, as a percentage of total shipments, increased from *** percent in 2003 to

*** percent in 2008. There were *** exports to the United States during January-June 2009, however

they accounted for *** percent during January-June 2008. Russian producers’ exports of CTL plate to

non-U.S. markets, as a percentage of total shipments, decreased irregularly from *** percent in 2003 to

*** percent in 2008. These data indicate that Russian producers have the ability at the present time to

shift shipments to the United States from alternative markets.

Inventory levels

Available data indicate that Russian CTL plate producers’ inventories, as a ration to total

shipments, ranged from a low of *** to a high of ***. These data indicate that subject producers do not

have the ability to use inventories as a means of increasing shipments of CTL plate to the U.S. market.

Production alternatives

Russian CTL plate producers reported producing specifically excluded CTL plate and other

nonsubject products such as CTL alloy steel plate on the same equipment. Russian producer *** reported

that ***. The Russian producer *** reported that ***. 

Supply constraints

Russian producers and importers of Russian subject product were asked if they refused, declined,

or were unable to supply CTL plate since January 1, 2003. The two Russian producers and importers of

Russian CTL plate reported that they had *** restrictions during this period. 

Supply of Subject Imports from Ukraine

The Commission received one questionnaire response from the Ukrainian suppliers. Based on

available information, the Ukrainian producer Azovstal has the ability to respond to changes in demand

with moderate to high changes in the quantity of shipments of CTL plate to the U.S. market in the event

of suspension agreements and antidumping duty order are revoked. The main contributing factors to the

moderate to high degree of responsiveness are the existence of unused capacity, the ability to produce

other products with the same labor and equipment, and the existence of home and non-U.S. export

markets sales.
 6

 Azovstal was unable to report allocated data for 2003.

II-6

Industry capacity

Azovstal’s reported capacity utilization rates for CTL plate increased irregularly from *** percent

in 2004 to *** percent in 2008;6

 it was *** percent during January-June 2008 but only *** percent during

January-June 2009. Accordingly, Azovstal has excess capacity with which it could increase CTL plate

production.

Alternative markets

Commercial shipments of CTL plate, as a percentage of total shipments, to the Ukrainian home

market increased irregularly from *** percent in 2004 to *** percent in 2008. Azovstal’s exports to the

United States, as a percentage of total shipments, decreased irregularly from *** percent in 2004 to

*** percent in 2008. Azovstal’s exports of CTL plate to non-U.S. markets, as a percentage of total

shipments, decreased irregularly from *** percent in 2004 to *** percent in 2008. These data indicate

that Azovstal has the ability at the present time to shift shipments from alternative markets in response to

price changes.

Inventory levels

Available data indicate that Azovstal’s inventories, as a percentage ratio to shipments, ranged

from a low of *** percent in 2008 to a high of *** percent in 2005. These data indicate that it is ***

limited in its ability to use inventories as a means of increasing shipments of CTL plate to the U.S.

market.

Production alternatives

Ukrainian CTL plate producer Azovstal reported producing specifically excluded CTL plate and

other nonsubject products such as CTL alloy steel plate on the same equipment used to produce the

subject merchandise. Azovstal also reported that ***. 

Supply constraints

The responding Ukrainian producer and importers of Ukrainian subject product were asked if

they refused, declined, or were unable to supply CTL plate since January 1, 2003. The Ukrainian

producer and importers of Ukrainian CTL plate reported that they had *** restrictions during this period.

Factors Affecting Supply

Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked if there have been any changes in factors

affecting supply (such as changes in availability or prices of energy or labor; transportation conditions;

production capacity and/or methods of production; technology; export markets; or alternative production

opportunities) that affected the availability of U.S.-produced CTL plate (carbon steel or micro-alloy steel)

in the U.S. market since 2003. 
 7

 U.S. producer *** reported that ***. U.S. producer *** also reported ***, as did U.S. producer *** although it

did not specify the time period.

 8

 U.S. purchaser *** reported that ***. U.S. purchaser *** reported that U.S. producer ***. U.S. purchaser

*** reported that ***.

 9

 *** U.S. producers’ questionnaire, *** U.S. importer’s questionnaire, and *** U.S. purchasers’ questionnaire.

II-7

Ten of 15 responding producers reported changes and 5 reported no changes in factors affecting

supply. The producers reporting changes noted that there were increased transportation and fuel costs,

increased raw material costs, and raw material shortages in both 2004 and 2008.7

Three of 15 responding importers reported changes and 12 firms reported no changes in factors

affecting supply. The importers reporting changes identified import availability, as well as shortages in

2004 and the first half of 2008. They also mentioned that the economic collapse of late 2008 that led to

reduced CTL plate prices. 

Twenty-six of 35 responding purchasers reported changes, 8 reported no changes, and 1 firm was

not aware of any changes. While a few firms reported that all of the above factors played a role during

January 2003-June 2009, the majority of purchasers that reported changes in factors affecting supply

noted specifically that: raw material price increases that were passed directly to consumers;8

consolidation that resulted in an industry characterized by higher prices and longer lead times, especially

for producers of ingot steel and thick slab; allocations in place during 2004 and 2008 reflecting the

reduction in capacity; higher CTL plate prices outside the United States (resulting in few imports); and

recent reductions in mill capacity to allow service centers to reduce inventories.

U.S. Demand

Based on available information it is likely that changes in the price level of CTL plate will result

in a small to moderate change in the quantity of CTL plate demanded. The main contributing factor to the

small to moderate degree of responsiveness of demand is the lack of substitutability of other products for

CTL plate (even though CTL plate represents a high share of overall costs of certain end products).

Demand Characteristics

U.S. overall CTL plate demand depends upon the demand for a variety of end-use applications. 

Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked to list the end uses of CTL plate. The most commonly

reported uses were construction, infrastructure, metal building systems, heavy industrial production, poles

and towers, ship building, tanks, ships, product carrier, snowplow blades, railcars, line pipe, and energy

(wind towers). When asked if there has been any changes in the end uses of CTL plate since 2003, four

producers, one importer, and one purchaser reported that CTL plate is now also used in the emergence of

wind power that “has created a new end use segment that was virtually non-existent prior to 2003.”9

 The

main end-use markets for CTL plate are presented in table II-3.

Purchasers that distribute or resell CTL plate listed the major types of consumers to which they

sell their CTL plate: structural fabricators, light manufacturers, industrial fabricators, tank builders, tank

manufacturers, die and mold makers, conveyor manufacturers, HVAC manufacturers, ship building and

repair, heavy machinery and equipment construction, crane manufacturers, rock crushers, and farm and

road equipment manufacturers. These purchasers were also asked if they compete for sales to their

customers with manufacturers or importers from which they purchase CTL plate. About one-third of

these purchasers reported that they compete with their customer if the customer is a trading company or a

producing mill, or if the customer is another service center with which they do business. Five purchasers

reported that they are in competition sometimes with importers that offer the same material to both their

customers and their competitors. 
 10 “Annual U.S. wind turbine installations increased from 1,672 to 8,545 megawatts from 2003 to 2008 due to the

growing cost competitiveness of wind energy, advances in wind technology, and government policies.” Industry &

Trade Summary - Office of Industries, USITC Publication ITS-02, June 2009, p. iii. While CTL plate producers

acknowledged the growth and potential of wind tower construction, hearing witnesses tempered their remarks by

noting the small share of plate demand accounted for by wind turbines, as well as the long term nature and credit

requirements for future consumption. Hearing transcript, p. 30 (Whiteman) and p. 36 (Insetta).

II-8

Table II-3

CTL plate: Shipments by market in order of size, 20081

Market Share of quantity (percent)

Steel service centers and distributors2 26.8

General construction 9.3

Rail transportation 4.6

Machinery and industrial equipment 3.8

Pipe and tube 1.3

Non-classified shipments 50.9

Other 3.3

 1 Data are for calendar year 2008 and include only classified shipments as reported by AISI reporting companies.

 2 Data are not available from AISI on the end-use markets of these shipments.

Note.–Based on aggregated annual data for coiled and cut-to-length plate, non-classified shipments are primarily for

the following applications, in descending order of magnitude: construction and contractors’ products; machinery,

industrial equipment, and tools; and rail transportation.

Source: American Iron and Steel Institute, Shipments of Steel Products by Market Classification, Carbon Steel,

Report AIS16C, 2008; American Iron and Steel Institute - 2008 Annual Statistical Report.

When asked if they anticipate any changes in end uses, two producers and one importer reported

that there will be a continued increased demand for poles and towers for wind energy and power

transmission.10 Another producer observed that “the increased use of spiral weld line pipe and the

expansion of spiral weld facilities that use coil as feedstock could reduce the demand for CTL plate used

to manufacture line pipe.” No purchasers reported that they anticipate any changes in end uses.

As discussed above, two common applications for CTL plate are construction and energy

development and transmission. The real values of residential, non-residential, and total construction

during January 2003-July 2009 are shown in figure II-1. The real value of total construction increased 

irregularly from January 2003 until March 2006 but then decreased irregularly to lower levels than the

beginning of the period. The real value of residential construction followed the same pattern as the total

construction. However, the real value of nonresidential construction was relatively unchanged from

January 2003 until November 2005, and then increased for the remainder of the period, resulting in higher

levels at the end of period.

The number of miles of natural gas pipeline used in new and expansion projects is also an

indicator of demand for CTL plate. Figure II-2 shows changes in completed quarterly projects. 
II-9

Figure II-1

Construction spending: Total, residential, and nonresidential construction spending in the United

States, seasonally adjusted annual rate, deflated by the producer price index, monthly, 

January 2003-July 2009

Note: Expenditures on private residential improvements to rental, vacant, and seasonal properties are not included in

the construction spending data. Expenditures are deflated by the producer price index for intermediate goods

(seasonally adjusted).

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Manufacturing, Mining and Construction Statistics, Construction Spending. 

http://www.census.gov/const/www/c30index.html#. (retrieved September 16, 2009) and Bureau of Labor Statistics

(retrieved September 16, 2009).
 11 According to hearing testimony by domestic interested parties, the current downturn is more than a downturn in

the normal business cycle and is directly caused by the economic collapse in the global steel demand. They

indicated that this downturn, combined with the financial collapse, has resulted in a global economic meltdown. 

Hearing transcript, pp. 72-73 (Blume). 

 12 ***.

 13 ***.

II-10

Figure II-2

Natural gas pipelines: New and expansion projects, by month, January 2003-June 2009

Source: Energy Information Administration - Office of Oil and Gas.

Business Cycles

Demand for CTL plate tends to fluctuate from period to period and depends on the general

business cycle of the CTL plate industry.11 The vast majority of purchasers reported that there was no

specific business cycle to the CTL plate industry. However, a few purchasers reported that the CTL plate

industry follows the overall economy (figure II-3) or the construction industry business cycle. Others

reported that the CTL plate business cycle is depends directly on the supply/demand fundamentals, raw

material costs, and the import/export dynamics.12 13 Two purchasers discussed the emergence of wind

towers for electricity production as a new market for CTL plate.

Consumption

Apparent U.S. consumption increased irregularly from 6.4 million short tons in 2003 to 8.6

million short tons in 2008. However, it was substantially lower in the first half of 2009 (2.2 million short

tons) than in the first half of 2008 (4.5 million short tons). 
 14 *** U.S. producers’ questionnaire and *** U.S. importers’ questionnaire.

II-11

Figure II-3

U.S. gross domestic product: Seasonally adjusted at annual rates, quarterly, 

January 2003-June 2009

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, http://www.bea.gov/national/index.htm#gdp, retrieved August 11, 2009.

Demand Trends

Thirteen of 14 producers reported that demand fluctuated. Some of the producers that reported

fluctuating demand added that while demand increased from 2003 to the third quarter of 2008, it

decreased in late 2008 and first half of 2009. The one producer reporting decreased demand attributed

this trend to the recession. 

Similarly, 10 of 13 responding importers indicated that demand for CTL plate has fluctuated

since 2003, following the overall trend of the economy. Most of these firms attributed the demand

upswings to the growth in the mineral and mining sectors that required heavier machinery, high oil prices

that resulted in more pipelines being built, rail and ship activity, increased shipments drove, and higher

demand in the construction industry. Moreover, one producer and one importer attributed demand

fluctuation to the changes in world wide economy, raw material prices, and energy costs.14 Of the

remaining responding importers, three indicated that there was no change in demand without providing

additional comments.

Twenty of 35 responding purchasers reported that demand for CTL plate fluctuated since 2003. 

Six purchasers reported that demand decreased, three firms reported that demand increased, and six firms

reported no change in demand. Of the purchasers that reported that demand fluctuated, most of these

firms indicated that demand had increased from 2003 to mid-2008, with peak years in 2004-05 and then

again in 2008. However, they indicated that demand collapsed in late 2008, resulting with distributor

inventories already too high by mid- to late-2008 in a severe downward trend for both demand and price

of CTL plate. In addition, one purchaser attributed demand fluctuation to the rise in raw material prices

caused by stronger than expected global consumption (starting in 2003), one purchaser attributed demand 
 15 ***, ***, and *** U.S. purchasers’ questionnaire.

 16 There are suggestions that demand is stabilizing, at least in certain sectors: “Nucor Corp., citing a combination

of strengthening demand and the need to recoup rising input costs, is attempting to increase transaction prices on

carbon steel plate products by $40 per ton. . . U.S. carbon steel plate buyers had been expecting a plate price increase

for August for more than a week, based on rising costs and some strengthening in demand. . . While the market

“remains challenged,” on the demand front, Nucor believes it is stabilizing.” Infrastructure and energy markets,

along with wind towers and shipbuilding, “are among the plate-consuming sectors showing some renewed strength

after nearly a year of downturn.” However, Nucor also suggested that non-residential construction, a major end use

for CTL plate, has not seen a demand boost, but rather “seems to continue to be weak.” Buyers see $40/T Nucor

plate boost taking hold. AMM.com, http://www.amm.com/2009-08-12__17-08-05.html, August 12, 2009.

 17 On August 10, 2005, President George W. Bush signed into law the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). SAFETEA-LU guarantees funding for highways,

(continued...)

II-12

fluctuation to rising energy prices and increased demand for steel products, and one purchaser attributed

the demand fluctuation to availability of scrap world-wide and the overall economic conditions.15 

Purchasers were asked whether their purchasing patterns for CTL plate from domestic, subject,

and nonsubject sources had changed since 2003. Thirteen of 33 purchasers reported that their total

purchases of CTL plate from domestic mills increased, and 12 stated that their domestic product

purchased fluctuated, and 8 reported that it remained the same. Several purchasers that reported increased

purchases of domestic CTL plate attributed the increase to better quality, availability, delivery and

pricing, lack of reliable foreign sources, and noncompetitive foreign offers. Other purchasers reported

that their purchases of domestic CTL plate remained the same because they prefer purchasing all or

mostly domestic product.

Five purchasers reported that their total purchases of CTL plate from China decreased, one

reported that its purchases increased, three reported that their purchases fluctuated, and two reported that

their purchases from China remained the same. Purchasers reporting decreased purchases of CTL plate

from China attributed the decrease to factors such as inconsistent paperwork and non-renewal of the

suspension agreement. The one purchaser that reported an increase in Chinese CTL plate purchases

reported that it had to purchase from China due to lack of availability of CTL plate in the United States.

Seven purchasers reported that their total purchases of CTL plate from Russia decreased, one

reported that its purchases increased, three reported that their purchases fluctuated, and four reported that

their purchases from Russia remained the same. Purchasers reporting decreased purchases of CTL plate

from Russia attributed the decrease to factors such as price, availability, and competitiveness. The one

purchaser that reported an increase in Russian CTL plate purchases attributed the increase to its

expanding business.

Four purchasers reported that their total purchases of CTL plate from Ukraine decreased, one

reported that its purchases increased, six reported that their purchases fluctuated, and three reported that

their purchases from Ukraine remained the same. The purchasers that reported decreased purchases of

CTL plate from Ukraine attributed the decrease to factors such as the quality of the product. The one

purchaser that reported an increase in Ukrainian CTL plate purchases attributed the increase to its

expanding business. The purchasers that reported fluctuating purchases of Ukrainian CTL plate attributed

this trend to factors such as price, availability, demand, and competitiveness.

Anticipated Demand

Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked how demand for CTL plate is likely to change

within the United States in the future. Most producers reported that the current market conditions are

expected to remain low,16 but the CTL plate industry is a cyclical industry and will follow the overall

economic trends. A few producers noted that the CTL plate demand will remain low in the next 2-3

years, but it is expected to recover with the help of transportation funding17 and, eventually, the stimulus
 17 (...continued)

highway safety, and public transportation totaling $244.1 billion over 2005-09. Highway authorizations under

SAFETEA-LU for fiscal year 2009 include $6.6 billion for the Surface Transportation Program, $6.3 billion for the

National Highway System, $5.2 billion for the Interstate Maintenance Program, and $4.5 billion for the Bridge

Program. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Web site. 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/ , September 10, 2009.

 18 “About $110 billion has been allocated in the stimulus package as extra spending on infrastructure projects

with $38 billion earmarked in the first wave of road, highway, bridge and infrastructure construction. . . The money

trickling down from the federal stimulus package into infrastructure projects won’t be enough to lift demand for

plate and structural steel as much as previously expected by some market watchers, . . . and economists, architects

and steel industry executives don’t see much steel-related rebuilding until 2011.” Federal stimulus program falls

short of boosting plate, beams demand, Purchasing,

http://www.purchasing.com/article/278673-Federal_stimulus_program_falls_short_of_boosting_plate_beams_deman

d.php, June 18, 2009. 

 19 With respect to timing, however, CTL plate industry analysts reported that “infrastructure development

projects, the types of things the federal stimulus package was intended to spark, have not yet had significant impact

on plate demand.” (AMM) Plate tags rising despite lack of spark from infrastructure stimulus, MetalBulletin,

http://www.metalbulletin.com//PrintArticle.aspx?ArticleID=2305819, September 29, 2009. 

 20 The financial crisis has reduced demand for wind turbines in the short-term, but “in the long-term, demand will

likely rebound due to government policies that support renewable energy, the recovery of the credit markets, and the

return to the market of tax equity investors. There are several impediments to further wide scale deployment of wind

turbines, but manufacturers are moving ahead with planned investments in U.S. production in the expectation that

the market will grow in the long-term.” Industry & Trade Summary - Office of Industries, USITC Publication ITS02, June 2009, p. 2. 

 21 “There are signs of plate demand strength, but those are limited mostly to the energy market. Plate has seen

some increases in demand from wind tower and line pipe businesses, but most say demand otherwise has been

lukewarm.” (AMM) Plate tags rising despite lack of spark from infrastructure stimulus, MetalBuletin,

http://www.metalbulletin.com//PrintArticle.aspx?ArticleID=2305819, September 29, 2009. 

II-13

spending in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.18 19 Similarly, importers reported

demand will fluctuate along with the overall market conditions. 

Twelve of 33 responding purchasers reported that demand will increase, 11 reported that demand

will fluctuate, 7 reported that demand will stay the same, and 3 purchasers reported that demand will

decrease in the future. Firms reporting increased future demand provided additional comments: business

conditions must improve in 2010 and beyond as there was weak demand in the first six months of 2009;

demand will increase to sustainable levels that will allow manufacturing to re-employ laid-off workers,

but not to the same demand levels as seen in 2008; and demand will increase as economy recovers and as

demand for products incorporating CTL plate increase. Also, most purchasers expecting increased

demand anticipated that demand will increase in the fourth quarter of 2009/first quarter of 2010 as

infrastructure spending related economic stimulus package will require increased purchases of CTL plate. 

Purchasers reporting fluctuating demand also provided additional comments: as the economy recovers,

demand for CTL plate will increase as well without anticipating any significant change in demand until

mid-2011; demand will fluctuate based on market conditions, and the government may stimulate demand

by encouraging bridge building/replacement or wind energy over the next 6 to 18 months; U.S. economy

and the bank credit current situation will contribute to the cyclical nature of the CTL plate industry; the

current market conditions are expected to improve gradually over the next 2-3 years; demand for CTL

plate in the energy transmission industry will fluctuate based on demand for energy transmission

infrastructure build-out and possible upgrades.20 21
 22 Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, and Korea,

Investigations Nos. 701-TA-388-391 and 731-TA-816 (Reviews), USITC Publication 3816, November 2005.

 23 Questionnaires were sent to 60 purchasers and 37 responded.

II-14

Substitute Products

While there are reported substitutes for CTL plate, the potential for substitution is often limited

by the end use, as well as such factors as width, thickness, strength, and price.22 Nonetheless, five

producers, one importer, and five purchasers reported that there were substitute products for CTL plate. 

Substitute products mentioned were hot rolled-sheet, alloy plate, reinforced concrete, cast iron, discreet

plate, and forged ring. 

Cost Share

Depending on the final end use, CTL plate accounts for a wide range of the total cost of the final

products in which it is used as an input. Firms reported the following shares of several end products

accounted for by CTL plate: 30-95 percent for tanks and railroad tank cars, 80 percent for metal

buildings, 12-15 percent for ship building and equipment manufacturing, 15 percent for poles, towers and

bridge fabricators, 10-13 percent for track type tractors, wheel loaders, and excavators, 5 percent for

snowplow blades, 3 percent for truck trailers, and 2 percent for leaf springs. 

SUBSTITUTABILITY ISSUES

The degree of substitution between domestically produced and imported CTL plate depends upon

such factors as relative prices, quality (e.g., grade standards, reliability of supply, defect rates, etc.), and

conditions of sale (e.g., price discounts/rebates, lead times between order and delivery dates, payment

terms, product services, etc.). Based on the available information in these second reviews, staff believes

that there is a high degree of substitutability between domestically produced CTL plate and CTL plate

produced in China, Russia, and Ukraine.

Factors Affecting Purchasing Decisions

Table II-4 summarizes the purchasers’ responses concerning the top three factors they reported

considering in their purchasing decisions.23 As indicated in the table, quality was cited most frequently as

the primary factor in buying decisions, followed closely by price. Price was the most frequently cited

second factor, and availability/reliability of supply was the most cited third factor.

Table II-4

CTL plate: Ranking factors used in purchasing decisions by U.S. purchasers

Factor

Number of firms reporting

Number one factor Number two factor Number three factor

Availability 4 4 9

Price 11 16 7

Quality 16 8 5

Other1 6 9 14

 1 Other factors include meeting specification requirements, lead time first factor, reliability and delivery for second

factor; credit and lead time for third factor.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
II-15

Twenty-two responding purchasers reported that domestically produced CTL plate “always”

meets minimum quality specifications (table II-5). Five responding purchasers reported that the Chinese

CTL plate “always” met minimum quality specifications. Three responding purchasers reported that both

Russia and Ukraine “always” met minimum quality specifications. The majority of responding

purchasers reported that the subject countries “usually” met minimum quality specifications. 

Table II-5

CTL plate: Ability to meet minimum quality specifications, by source

Country

Number of firms reporting1

Always Usually Sometimes Never

 United States 22 14 0 0

 China 5 11 2 1

 Russia 3 12 3 0

 Ukraine 3 12 3 0

 1 Purchasers were asked how often domestically produced or imported CTL plate meets minimum quality

specifications for their own or their customers’ uses.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Purchasers were asked to rate the importance of 15 factors in their purchasing decisions 

(table II-6). Thirty-four purchasers rated quality meeting industry standards very important; 33 firms

reported availability as well as reliability of supply very important; 32 firms rated product consistency as

very important, and 31 firms reported price as very important. In contrast, fourteen firms reported that

packaging was not an important factor and 10 firms reported that extension of credit was not an important

factor. 

Purchasers were asked for a country-by-country comparison on the same 15 factors (table II-7). 

For U.S.-produced product compared to subject countries’ product, most purchasers reported that subject 

product imported from subject countries was superior (i.e. lower) in terms of price. 

For U.S.-produced product compared to Chinese product, most purchasers reported that the U.S.

product was superior with regard to product availability, delivery terms, delivery time, minimum quantity

requirements, reliability of supply, and technical support. The majority of firms reported that the Chinese

product was superior for price and that the U.S. product and the Chinese product were comparable with

regard to packaging, quality meets industry standards, extension of credit, product range, and U.S.

transportation costs. 
II-16

Table II-6

CTL plate: Importance of purchase factors, as reported by U.S. purchasers 

Factor

Very important Somewhat Not important

Number of firms responding

Availability 33 4 0

Delivery terms 13 23 0

Delivery time 29 8 0

Discounts offered 9 24 4

Extension of credit 14 13 10

Minimum quantity requirements 8 20 9

Packaging 7 16 14

Price 31 6 0

Product consistency 32 5 0

Product range 11 23 3

Quality exceeds industry standards 19 15 3

Quality meets industry standards 34 3 0

Reliability of supply 33 4 0

Technical support/service 15 21 1

U.S. transportation costs 13 22 2

Note.--Not all purchasers responded for each factor.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
II-17

Table II-7

CTL plate: Comparisons between U.S.-produced and imported CTL plate as reported by U.S.

purchasers

Factor

U.S. vs China U.S. vs Russia U.S. vs Ukraine

U.S. vs

nonsubject 

SC I SC I SC I SC I

Availability 13 2 0 14 2 0 9 5 0 13 11 1

Delivery terms 14 1 0 13 3 0 9 5 0 8 17 0

Delivery time 14 1 0 15 1 0 9 5 0 16 8 1

Discounts offered 8 7 0 5 10 1 4 9 1 2 19 3

Extension of credit 6 9 0 5 10 1 6 7 1 2 23 0

Price1 0 6 9 1 4 11 1 6 7 1 11 13

Minimum quantity requirements 12 3 0 11 5 0 7 7 0 11 14 0

Packaging 3 12 0 3 13 0 2 12 0 1 24 0

Product consistency 8 6 1 10 6 0 6 8 0 6 14 5

Product range 6 8 1 11 4 1 5 9 0 11 12 2

Quality exceeds industry standards 9 6 1 10 7 0 7 8 0 6 15 4

Quality meets industry standards 5 10 1 6 11 0 4 11 0 3 21 1

Reliability of supply 10 5 0 11 5 0 7 7 0 8 16 1

Technical support/service 12 3 0 12 4 0 8 6 0 9 15 1

U.S. transportation costs1 6 9 0 8 7 0 7 7 0 10 12 1

Technical support/service 000000000100

Table continued on the following page.
II-18

Table II-7 - Continued

CTL plate: Comparisons between U.S.-produced and imported CTL plate as reported by U.S.

purchasers

Factor

China vs. Russia China vs. Ukraine Russia vs. Ukraine

SC I SC I SC I

Availability 1 11 0 1 11 0 0 13 1

Delivery terms 1 11 0 1 11 0 0 14 0

Delivery time 1 11 0 1 11 0 1 13 0

Discounts offered 0 12 0 0 12 0 0 14 0

Extension of credit 0 12 0 0 12 0 0 14 0

Price1 1 11 0 2 10 0 0 14 0

Minimum quantity requirements 0 12 0 0 11 0 0 14 0

Packaging 0 12 0 0 11 0 0 14 0

Product consistency 2 10 0 2 10 0 1 12 1

Product range 2 10 0 2 10 0 2 12 0

Quality exceeds industry standards 1 11 1 2 10 1 1 13 1

Quality meets industry standards 0 12 1 2 10 1 1 13 1

Reliability of supply 1 11 0 1 11 0 1 13 0

Technical support/service 0 12 0 0 12 0 0 14 0

U.S. transportation costs1 0 12 0 0 12 0 0 14 0

 1 A rating of superior means that price/U.S. transportation cost is generally lower. For example, if a firm reported

“U.S. superior”, it meant that the price of U.S. product was generally lower than the price of the imported product.

Note.--S=first listed country’s product is superior; C=both countries’ products are comparable; I=first listed country’s

product is inferior. Data shown only for comparisons made by at least 3 purchasers.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Similarly, for U.S.-produced product compared to Russian product, most purchasers reported that

U.S. product was superior with regard to availability, delivery terms, delivery time, minimum quantity

requirements, quality exceeds industry standards, product consistency, reliability of supply, product

range, technical support, and U.S. transportation costs. The majority of firms reported that the Russian

product was superior in terms of price and that the U.S. product and the Russian product were comparable

with regard to discounts offered, extension of credit, packaging, and quality meets industry standards.

For U.S.-produced product compared to Ukrainian product, most purchasers reported that the

products were comparable for most factors. The firms reported that the U.S.-product was superior in

terms of availability, delivery terms, delivery time, and technical support. A slight majority of reporting

firms stated that the Ukrainian product was superior for price (i.e., lower price).

When comparing U.S.-produced product to nonsubject product, most purchasers reported that the

U.S. product was superior in terms of availability and delivery time. The majority of firms reported that

the nonsubject product was superior for price, and that the U.S. product and the nonsubject product were

comparable with regard to extension of credit, packaging, delivery terms, discounts offered, and quality

meets industry standards.

When asked if certain grades/types/sizes of CTL plate were available from only a single source,

28 of 34 responding purchasers reported that they are not available from only one source. However, of
 24 Certain purchasers order or prefer to order from certain European countries, such as Sweden, Germany, and

France. One purchaser preferred CTL plate produced in the United States or Canada. Another purchaser named the

United States as a preferred country, then Korea, and thirdly Canada.

II-19

the seven firms that reported “yes,” two noted that “Weldox” and “Hardox” are only produced in Sweden,

and four noted that very heavy plate is domestically available only from Arcelor Mittal.

Purchasers were also asked if they or their customers ever specifically requested product from

one country over other possible sources. Seventeen purchasers reported that sometimes or always they

order product from a specific country only, usually from the United States.24 The other 20 producers do

not order from specific countries. 

Purchasers were also asked if they are make purchasing decisions based on the country of origin

of CTL plate. Three purchasers indicated “always,” 5 indicated “usually,” 13 indicated “sometimes,” and

8 purchasers indicated “never.” 

Asked whether or not they required their suppliers to become certified or pre-qualified with

respect to the quality, chemistry, strength, or other performance characteristics of the CTL plate they

purchase, 25 of 37 responding purchasers reported that they did. Some purchasers noted ASTM standard

mill certifications, ABS certifications, ISO qualification, and CSA, ASM, ASME, or AISI specifications.

When qualifying a new supplier, most purchasers take into consideration the quality of the

product, reliability, delivery, and price. Other factors taken into consideration included meeting the

standard ASTM specifications or compliance to purchasers’ ISO standards; the mill must have a quality

program; flatness; lead-time; performance capabilities; chemical analysis; history; and appropriate

capacity.

Twelve purchasers provided information on the time necessary to qualify a supplier, which

ranged greatly from 10-20 hours to several years. Three other firms reported that qualification times

vary. When asked if any new suppliers had failed to obtain certification, 5 of 36 purchasers reported that

one or more producers had failed to meet their certification standards. Three firms declined to give

certifications each to one U.S. producer and one Romanian producer, one Korean producer, one Italian

producer, while two firms reported that Malaysian producers failed to obtain certification. They reported

reasons such as failing to qualify a grade, inability to meet physical properties, quality issues (porosity),

and insufficient mill test certificates.

When purchasers were asked what characteristics they consider when determining the quality of

CTL plate, all 37 purchasers reported characteristics that included meeting or exceeding ASTM/industry

standards, surface quality (free of defects such as porosity and hard spots, and free of mill scale),

metallurgical chemistry, consistency of dimensions, flatness, edge quality, thickens, and performance

(ability to withstand cracking or breaking under pressure). 

Buy American Requirements and Preferences

“Buy America” requirements apply to iron and steel products such as CTL plate that are

purchased for the Federal-aid highway construction program. Under “Buy America,” Federal-aid funds

may not be obligated for a project unless iron and steel products used in such projects are manufactured in

the United States (with limited exceptions based on the product cost or its share of the original contract

value). In addition, under an alternate-bid procedure, foreign-source materials may be used if the total

project bid using foreign-source materials is 25 percent less than the lowest total bid using domestic

materials. The separate and distinct Buy American Act, which covers specified products, requires the

Federal Government to purchase domestic goods and services unless the head of the agency involved in
 25 Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from China, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-464 and 731-TA-1160

(Preliminary), USITC Publication 4086, July 2009, p. 15.

 26 *** purchasers’ questionnaire.

II-20

the procurement has determined that the prices of the domestic suppliers are “unreasonable” or that their

purchase would be “inconsistent with the public interest.”25

Purchasers were asked if buying a product that is produced in the United States is an important

factor in their firms’ purchases of CTL plate. Sixteen of 35 responding purchasers reported that buying

American product is not an important factor in their firms’ purchases. Of the 11 purchasers that reported

that they are required by law to buy U.S.-produced product, only 5 purchasers reported a substantial

percentage of their total CTL plate purchases were required by law, varying between 15 and 60 percent,

with the remaining purchasers reporting less than 5 percent. Of the 13 firms that reported that their

customers require American product, 3 firms reported that these purchases represent a majority of their

total purchases of CTL plate. Nine purchasers reported other reasons for buying CTL plate produced in

the United States. Several firms provided additional comments for purchasing American product: better

ability to control inventory and satisfy the needs of the customers; short delivery and lead time; quality

and communication; better pricing; availability; cosmetic reasons; government projects that require

domestic products due to federal and state regulations; “as stimulus funding hits the economy, a higher

percentage will demand “Buy American” primarily for infrastructure projects.”26 

Comparisons of Domestic Products and Subject Imports

In order to determine whether U.S.-produced CTL plate can generally be used in the same

applications as imports from China, U.S. producers, importers and purchasers were asked whether the

products can “always,” “frequently,” “sometimes,” or “never” be used interchangeably (table II-8). 

When comparing U.S.-produced product with individual subject product, all 12 producers and 9

of 11 responding importers reported that U.S.-produced CTL plate can “always” or “frequently” be used

interchangeably with subject product. The majority of responding purchasers reported that U.S.-produced

CTL plate can “always” or “frequently” be used interchangeably with subject product.

Producers and importers were also asked to compare U.S.-produced products with imports from

China, Russia and Ukraine in terms of product differences other than price such as quality, availability,

product range, and technical support. Again, firms were asked whether these product differences are

always, frequently, sometimes, or never significant (table II-9). 

Nine of the 12 responding producers reported that differences other than price between CTL plate

produced in the United States and subject countries were “never” a significant factor in their firm’s sales

of the products. All but three responding importers reported that differences were no more than

“sometimes” a significant factor in their firm’s sales of the products; two importers reported that these

differences were “frequently” significant, and one importer and one producer reported that they were

always significant. Two producers stated that the very low prices for CTL plate from subject countries

more than offset any perceived advantages that domestic producers may have.
II-21

Table II-8

CTL plate: Perceived interchangeability of products produced in the United States and in other

countries by country pairs 1

Country pair

Number of U.S. 

producers reporting

Number of U.S.

importers reporting

Number of U.S.

purchasers reporting

AFSNAFSNAFSN

 U.S. vs. subject countries:

 U.S. vs. China 11 1 0 0 4 5 2 0 8 9 5 1

 U.S. vs. Russia 11 1 0 0 4 5 2 0 7 9 7 0

 U.S. vs. Ukraine 11 1 0 0 3 5 2 0 6 10 8 0

Subject country comparisons: 

 China vs. Russia 10 1 0 0 3 5 2 0 8 8 1 0

 China vs. Ukraine 10 1 0 0 3 5 2 0 8 8 1 0

 Russia vs. Ukraine 10 1 0 0 3 4 2 0 9 7 1 0

U.S./subject country vs. nonsubject

 U.S. vs. nonsubject 10 2 0 0 4 6 2 0 11 9 8 0

 China vs. nonsubject 920046207910

 Russia vs. nonsubject 10 1 0 0 4 6 2 0 6 9 1 0

 Ukraine vs. nonsubject 9 2 0 0 4 6 2 0 6 9 1 0

 1 Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked if CTL plate produced in the United States and in other

countries is used interchangeably.

Note.--A = Always, F = Frequently, S = Sometimes, N = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Comparisons of Domestic Products and Nonsubject Imports

All 12 responding producers, 10 of 12 responding importers, and 20 of 28 purchasers indicated

that CTL plate produced in the United States and nonsubject countries were “always” or “frequently”

used interchangeably (table II-8). Eleven of 12 producers and 8 of 12 importers reported that product

differences other than price between U.S.-produced and nonsubject CTL plate were no more than

“sometimes” significant (table II-9).
II-22

Table II-9

CTL plate: Perceived significance of differences other than price between products produced in

the United States and in other countries, by country pairs1

Country comparison

Number of 

U.S. producers reporting

Number of 

U.S. importers reporting

AFSNAFSN

 U.S. vs. subject countries:

 U.S. vs. China 1 0 2 9 1 2 4 3

 U.S. vs. Russia 1 0 2 9 1 2 4 3

 U.S. vs. Ukraine 1 0 2 9 1 2 3 3

Subject country comparisons:

 China vs. Russia 0 0 2 9 1 2 3 3

 China vs. Ukraine 0 0 2 9 1 2 3 3

 Russia vs. Ukraine 0 0 2 9 1 2 3 3

U.S./subject country vs. nonsubject

 U.S. vs. nonsubject 10381344

 China vs. nonsubject 00291334

 Russia vs. nonsubject 00291334

 Ukraine vs. nonsubject 00381334

 1 Producers and importers were asked if differences other than price between CTL plate produced in the United

States and in other countries were a significant factor in their sales of the products.

Note.--“A” = Always, “F” = Frequently, “S” = Sometimes, “N” = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Comparisons of Subject Imports and Nonsubject Imports

All 11 responding producers, 8 of 10 importers, and 16 of 17 purchasers reported that CTL plate

produced in China, Russia, or Ukraine were “always” or “frequently” interchangeable with other subject

countries (table II-8). The majority of responding producers, importers, and purchasers reported that CTL

plate produced in subject countries and in nonsubject countries were “always or frequently

interchangeable. All 11 responding producers and 7 of 10 responding importers indicated that

differences other than price between CTL plate produced in subject countries were at most “sometimes” a

significant factor (table II-9).
II-23

ELASTICITY ESTIMATES

This section discusses elasticity estimates. Parties were requested to provide comments in their

posthearing briefs; no parties commented on staff’s elasticity estimates.

U.S. Supply Elasticity

The domestic supply elasticity for CTL plate measures the sensitivity of the quantity supplied by

the U.S. producers to changes in the U.S. market price for CTL plate. The elasticity of domestic supply

depends on several factors, including the level of excess capacity, the existence of inventories, and the

availability of alternate markets for U.S.-produced CTL plate. Previous analysis of these factors indicates

that the U.S. industry has a moderate ability to increase or decrease shipments to the U.S. market based on

unused capacity and production flexibilities. An estimate in the range of 2 to 4 is suggested.

U.S. Demand Elasticity

The U.S. demand elasticity for CTL plate measures the sensitivity of the overall quantity

demanded to a change in the U.S. market price of plate. This estimate depends on factors discussed earlier

such as the existence, availability, and commercial viability of substitute products, as well as the

component share of plate in the final cost of end-use products in which it is used. Because of a lack of

close, broadly accepted substitutes, it is likely that the aggregate demand for plate is moderately inelastic,

with values ranging between -0.25 to -0.75.

Substitution Elasticity

The elasticity of substitution depends upon the extent of product differentiation between the

domestic and imported CTL plate. Product differentiation, in turn, depends upon such factors as quality

and condition of sale (availability, delivery, etc.). Based on available information indicating that the

domestic and imported products can frequently be used interchangeably, the elasticity of substitution

between U.S.-produced plate and imported plate is likely to be in the range of 3 to 5.
 
 1 Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from China, Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-753-756

(Review), USITC Publication 3626, September 2003, table I-5.

 2 Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from China, Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-753-756

(Review), USITC Publication 3626, September 2003, table I-5. 

 3 Gulf States Steel buyer lines up new tenant, American Metal Markets, December 10, 2002, found at

http://www.amm.com/2002-12-10_01-09-00.html, retrieved September 29, 2009. Gulf States mill equipment headed

to China, American Metal Markets, August 28, 2003, found at http://www.amm.com/2003-08-28_01-04-00.html,

retrieved September 29, 2009. Nucor loses antitrust appeal in Gulf States suit, American Metals Markets, June 15,

2007, found at http://www.amm.com/2007-06-15_22-30-19.html, retrieved September 29, 2009. Geneva Steel, Utah

Rails, updated April 4, 2008, found at http://utahrails.net/industries/geneva-steel.php, retrieved September 29, 2009. 

 4 Certain Carbon Steel Plate From China, Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-753-756 (Final),

Final Staff Report, INV-U-081, November 1997, table III-1. 

 5 Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from China, Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-753-756

(Review), USITC Publication 3626, September 2003, table I-5.

 6 Former Enron cold-rolling mill will be reborn in China, American Metal Markets, July 14, 2003, found at

http://www.amm.com/2003-03-07-14_01-12-00.html, retrieved September 23, 2009. 

 7

 At the time of the original investigations, IPSCO did operate a CTL plate processing company, Paper Cal

located in St. Paul, MN. Certain Carbon Steel Plate From China, Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine, Inv. Nos. 731-

TA-753-756 (Final), USITC Publication 3076, December 1997, table III-3. 

 8 Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from China, Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-753-756

(Review), USITC Publication 3626, September 2003, table I-5. Hearing transcript, p. 18 (Britten). 

 9 Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-753-756 (Review), Final Staff Report, INV-AA-108, July

31, 2003, table III-1. 

 10 See Part 1, table I-9 of this report. 

III-1

PART III: CONDITION OF THE U.S. INDUSTRY

OVERVIEW

The domestic steel industry has restructured since the Commission conducted the original

investigations. The petitioners, Geneva Steel and Gulf States Steel, both closed after filing for

bankruptcy. Geneva Steel filed for bankruptcy in February 1999 and after emerging from bankruptcy in

January 2001 re-entered bankruptcy in January 2002. Its parent company, Geneva Steel Holdings, filed

for bankruptcy in September 2002.1

 Gulf States Steel filed for bankruptcy in July 1999 and halted its

operations in August 2000.2

 In both cases, the steelmaking equipment was sold to Chinese buyers.3

Bethlehem, the *** during the original investigations,4 filed for bankruptcy in October 2001 and was

acquired by International Steel Group (“ISG”) in May 2003.5

 In addition, plate processor Huntco filed

for bankruptcy in February 2002 and liquidated its operating facilities. Service center, Ryerson Tull,

restarted one former Huntco facility, an idled temper mill near Nucor’s Hickman, AR mill.6

IPSCO was not a plate producer during the period examined in the Commission’s original

investigations.7

 It became a CTL plate producer in November 1997 when it opened a plate mill in

Montpelier, IA. In November 2001 IPSCO opened a second plate mill, located in Mobile, AL and also

operated cut-to-length lines in Houston, TX, and St. Paul, MN.8

 By the time of the first reviews IPSCO

had become the ***.9

 In 2007, SSAB acquired IPSCO. In 2008, the company accounted for nearly ***

of U.S. shipments.10 
 11 Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-753-756 (Review), Final Staff Report, INV-AA-108, July

31, 2003, table III-1. 

 12 U.S. Steel, 2004 Annual Report, pp. 4-5. 

 13 Ibid. Nucor’s original plate mill in Cofield, NC, was constructed in 2000 and produces plate for manufacturers

of heavy equipment, rail cars, ships, barges, refinery tanks, and others. The Tuscaloosa, AL mill produces thinner

gauges of coiled and cut-to-length plate used in the pipe and tube, pressure vessel, transportation, and construction

industries. Nucor company website, Nucor Locations, found at http://www.nucor.com/divs.asp?iwhichone=37,

retrieved March 17, 2009. 

 14 In 2008, Evraz purchased the Canadian operations of SSAB, the former IPSCO, including a plate mill in

Regina, Saskatchewan, and formed what is now Evraz, Inc. NA. Hearing transcript, p. 42 (Thies). 

 15 Hearing transcript, p. 43 (Thies). 

III-2

 In 2002, U.S. Steel accounted for *** percent of total domestic production.11 By swapping its

plate mill with ISG in exchange for a pickle line, U.S. Steel became a much smaller plate producer.12 In

2008, it accounted for *** percent of total domestic production. Domestic producer Nucor expanded its

CTL plate operations with the acquisition of Corus Tuscaloosa and increased its share of domestic

production from *** percent in 2002 to *** percent in 2008.13

The domestic CTL plate industry has become increasingly global as multinational corporations 

entered the U.S. market through numerous acquisitions. International steelmaker Mittal Steel (now

ArcelorMittal, the world’s largest steelmaker), entered the domestic plate market with its 2005 acquisition

of ISG. At the time of the first reviews ISG accounted for the ***. The acquisition of IPSCO by

Sweden’s SSAB followed in 2007. Finally, Russia-based Evraz acquired Oregon Steel mills in 2007 and

Claymont Steel in 2008.14 According to Evraz, the Claymont Steel acquisition was strategic in that it

gave Evraz better access to the market in the eastern United States without the freight costs of shipping

cross country.15 Table III-1 details the changes in company ownership of domestic mills that have

occurred during the period for which data have been collected for the current reviews. 

Table III-1

CTL plate: U.S. producers’ mergers, acquisitions, and capacity changes, 2003-09

Company and

location(s) Date Action Comments

Kentucky Electric Steel1

 •Ashland, KY February 2003

Files for Chapter 11

bankruptcy. Production is shut down. 

U.S. Steel2

 •Gary, IN November 2003

U.S. Steel swapped

its plate mill and

heat-treating

equipment

(Gary, IN) for ISG’s

pickle line (Indiana

Harbor Works, East

Chicago, IN).

U.S. Steel largely exits the CTL plate

business with this swap. The company 

continues to produce a small amount of

coiled plate at its hot-strip mill which is

converted to CTL plate by Feralloy (partly

owned by U.S. Steel).

ISG (now ArcelorMittal) gained a 160" plate

mill operating at a rate of 500,000 tons per

year with a capacity of 60,000-70,000 tons

per month. The Gary plate mill was idled

after the acquisition.

Table continued on next page. 
III-3

Table III-1--Continued

CTL plate: U.S. producers’ mergers, acquisitions, and capacity changes, 2003-09

Company and

location(s) Date Action Comments

Kentucky Electric Steel1

 •Ashland, KY January 2004

A newly formed

entity, KES

Acquisition Co.,

purchases the assets

of Kentucky Electric

and restarts

production.

KES Acquisition Co. pays $2.9 million for

Kentucky Electric.

Corus Tuscaloosa2

 •Tuscaloosa, AL July 2004 Acquired by Nucor.

Nucor acquires Corus Tuscaloosa for $90

million.

North Star Steel Co.1

 

 •Calvert City, KY November 2004

Acquired by Gerdau

Ameristeel.

Gerdau Ameristeel acquires North Star

Steel from Cargill Inc. for $266 million. 

ISG2

 •Burns Harbor, IN

 •Coatesville, PA

 •Conshohocken, PA April 2005

Acquired by Mittal

Steel. 

Mittal Steel is created in 2004 by a merger

between LMN Holdings and Ispat Inland (a

U.S. steel company but not a plate

producer). After the $4.5-billion acquisition

is approved by ISG’s shareholders the U.S.

holdings are re-named Mittal Steel USA. 

Also, the 110" plate mill at Bums Harbor, IN

which had been idle since 2000, is restarted.

CitiSteel USA, Inc.2

 •Claymont, DE June 2005

Acquired by H.I.G.

Capital LLC, Miami,

FL.

After the acquisition, company name is

changed from CitiSteel USA, Inc. to

Claymont Steel, Inc. 

Mittal Steel2

 •Burns Harbor, IN

 •Coatesville, PA

 •Conshohocken, PA June 2006

Merged with Arcelor

to form ArcelorMittal.

Arcelor was created through the merger of

three European steel entities: Arbed

(Luxembourg), Aceralia (Spain), and Usinor

(France) in 2002.

Mittal Steel2

 •Conshohocken, PA

June -

September

2006

Motor outage

resulted in reduced

production. 

The Conshohocken mill runs at 20-30

percent of capacity. Production is shifted to

Coatesville, PA and Burns Harbor, IN.

Oregon Steel Mills, Inc.2

 •Portland, OR January 2007

Acquired by Evraz

Group SA (Russia).

Evraz acquires Oregon Steel, a plate, tube,

and rail manufacturer, for $2.3 billion.

IPSCO2

 •Montpelier, IA

 •Mobile, AL

 •St. Paul, MN

 •Houston, TX July 2007 Acquired by SSAB.

SSAB acquires IPSCO’s operations

including plate mills in IA and AL,

processing units in TX and MN, pipe mills in

the U.S. and plate mills, processing units,

and pipe mills in Canada for $7.7 billion.

Jindal United Steel2

 •Baytown, TX August 2007

JSW Steel Ltd.

(India) announced

the acquisition of

Jindal United Steel

(India).

JSW acquires, in addition to Jindal United

Steel, SAW Pipes USA, Inc. (pipe mill) and

Jindal Enterprises LLC (coating facility),

located near Baytown, TX for $940 million. 

The complex is now called JSW Steel USA.

ArcelorMittal2

 •Gary, IN

September

2007 Restarted Gary mill.

Mill had been idled since the asset swap

between U.S. Steel and ISG in 2003.

ArcelorMittal2

 •Gary, IN

 •Burns Harbor, IN

 •Coatesville, PA

 •Conshohocken, PA December 2007

Announced plans to

boost production of

quenched and

tempered plate.3

The plans call for an increase in production

of 50,000 tons.

Table continued on next page. 
 16 Severstal eyeing plate as rejig switches focus, American Metal Markets, May 26, 2009, found at

http://www.amm.com/2009-05-26_16-08-37.html, retrieved July 1, 2009.

 17 Metals Service Center Institute, found at http://forward.msci.org/articles/0405still.cfm, retrieved July 30, 2009.

 18 Mergers and Acquisitions, Metal Center News, found at

http://www.metalcenternews.com/2008/September/mcn0809_MergersAcquisitions.pdf, retrieved July 30, 2009.

III-4

Table III-1--Continued

CTL plate: U.S. producers’ mergers, acquisitions, and capacity changes, 2003-09

Company and

location(s) Date Action Comments

Claymont Steel, Inc.2

 •Claymont, DE January 2008 Sold to Evraz.

Evraz acquires Claymont Steel for $565

million.

SSAB2

 •Montpelier, IA

 •Mobile, AL April 2008

Announced plans for

increased quenched

and tempered steel

production.3

Size of investment is $150-250 million and

capacity will be 331,000 tons. Project

completion is scheduled for 2012.

Nucor2

 •Cofield, NC July 2008

Announced plans to

install plate heattreating facility. 

Cost of facility estimated at $110 million and

capacity is planned to be 120,000 tons. 

Start date is expected in ***. 

*** *** *** ***

*** *** *** ***

Evraz Inc.2

 •Portland, OR May 2009

Announced multiweek work stoppage.The outage began in June and may extend

to four weeks.

JSW Steel USA2

 •Baytown, TX May 2009

Announced possible

suspension of plate

mill operation.

The mill’s capacity is 1.3 million tons and

has been running at 10-15 percent of

capacity. 

 1 A flat bar producer. 

 2

 A traditional plate producer. 

 3

 Quench and temper is a heat treatment that imparts greater strength and durability to the steel. SSAB has not yet decided

which mill(s) will receive the investment and has stated that the investment is on hold as a result of the recession. 

Source: Various company filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, press releases, news articles, and ***. 

Hearing transcript, p. 19 (Britten). 

No greenfield CTL plate mills were constructed in the United States during the period examined

in these second reviews and no plans for such construction have been reported. Addressing speculation

that Severstal is exploring plate production at its Sparrow Point, MD mill, Gregory Mason, chief

executive officer of Severstal International said that “We have an excellent substrate for plate with

12-inch slabs from Sparrows Point. I do not think we are interested in installing a plate mill there. What

would make more sense would be some type of partnership where we could supply that substrate.”16

 Since 2003, the steel service center industry has also experienced substantial consolidation. Both

vendors to the steel service centers (steel mills) and their customers (end users) desire consolidation in the

service center industry. Steel mills would prefer to deal with larger distributors. End users with multiple

locations prefer dealing with one distributor rather than multiple distributors.17 Some of the larger

service centers processing CTL plate have made acquisitions. For example, Macsteel acquired Alpha

Processing, Inc. in 2005. In 2007 Cargill acquired Olympic and Namasco acquired Primary Steel.18
 19 One producer reported that it experienced no such changes since 2003, ***, and four producers did not

respond. U.S. producer/processor questionnaire responses, section II-2. 

 20 Producers reporting that they anticipate no changes in the character of their operations were: ***. One

company, ***, did not respond. U.S. producer/processor questionnaire responses, section II-3. Olympic, however,

is reportedly expanding its operations and has a strategy of opening satellite locations to service small markets. 

Within four to five years the company “would consider having two (new) major facilities and a number of smaller

facilities.” Steel usage set to remain limp in '09: Olympic, American Metal Markets, February 12, 2009, found at

http://www.amm.com/2009-02-12_17-42-39.html, retrieved July 1, 2009. 

 21 During the period for which data were collected, ***.

 22 Five domestic producers, accounting for *** percent of 2008 reported U.S. shipments provided data on their

CTL plate operations during the first and second quarters, and during July and August, of 2008 and 2009. The

production of these firms in 2008 totaled *** short tons in the first quarter and was *** short tons in the second

(continued...)

III-5

Background

Information in this section is based on the questionnaire responses of 14 producers that are

believed to have accounted for nearly all U.S. production of CTL plate during 2008. 

Existing Operations

Domestic producers were asked to indicate whether their firm had experienced any plant

openings, plant closings, relocations, expansions, acquisitions, consolidations, prolonged shutdowns or

production curtailments, revised labor agreements, and any other changes in their CTL plate operations

since 2003. Nearly all domestic producers indicated that they had experienced such changes, and their

responses are presented in table III-2.19 Most notable among the changes were the acquisitions reported

by domestic mills and processors. Also noteworthy were the recent reductions in production experienced

by four mills, including ***. 

Table III-2

CTL plate: Changes in the character of U.S. producers’ operations since January 1, 2003

* * * * * * *

Anticipated Changes in Existing Operations 

The Commission asked domestic producers to report anticipated changes in the character of their

operations relating to the production of CTL plate. Their responses appear in table III-3. The majority of

firms did not anticipate such changes.20 Among the firms that do anticipate such changes, the largest were

tentative about the impact of the market on their future operating rates and project plans. 

Table III-3

CTL plate: Anticipated changes in the character of U.S. producers’ operations

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCERS’ CAPACITY, PRODUCTION, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION

Data on U.S. producer’s capacity, production, and capacity utilization for CTL plate are presented

in table III-4. Capacity and production fluctuated but increased overall and were highest in 2008.21

Capacity utilization in January-June 2009, however was less than half the level reported a year earlier.22
 22 (...continued)

quarter. In 2009, production totaled *** short tons in the first quarter and was *** short tons in the second quarter. 

The production of these firms totaled *** short tons in July 2008 and *** short tons in August 2008. In 2009,

reported July production was *** short tons and August production was *** short tons. Domestic interested parties,

ArcelorMittal’s, Evraz Inc.’s, Evraz Claymont’s, Nucor’s, and SSAB’s posthearing briefs. 

 23 SSAB extends maintenance outages, American Metal Markets, March 16, 2009, found at

http://www.amm.com/2009-03-16_17-04-46.html, retrieved July 1, 2009. 

 24 Evraz Oregon’s mill idling not causing panic, American Metal Markets, May 20, 2009, found at

http://www.amm.com/2009-05-20_16-17-53.html, retrieved July 1, 2009.

 25 ***. In July 2009 it was reported that ArcelorMittal was re-starting its Indiana Harbor blast furnace instead of

Burns Harbor and asking Burns Harbor employees to make further job concessions. More demands at Burns

Harbor: USW, American Metal Markets, July 13, 2009, found at http://www.amm.com/2009-07-13_18-12-55.html,

retrieved October 1, 2009. 

 26 JSW, Evraz Oregon set plate rolling outages, American Metal Markets, May 19, 2009, found at 

http://www.amm.com/2009-05-19_16-43-48.html, retrieved July 1, 2009. 

III-6

Several mills announced the temporary cessation of production at their facilities in the summer of 2009. 

SSAB announced that it would extend a number of summer maintenance outages in response to continued

weak steel market conditions.23 In May 2009, Evraz Inc. told its customers that while it would probably

operate its mill the first week of June, it expected the mill to be down at least two weeks that month with

the possibility that this could stretch to four weeks if orders did not warrant a restart sooner.24 ***.25 ***

producer, JSW Steel USA, located in Baytown, TX has an annual plate capacity of 1.2 million tons. 

According to published steel industry sources, the plate mill has been running at only 10 to 15 percent of

capacity for the last several months. The company might suspend operations at its rolling mill, citing

weak demand for plate.26

Table III-4

CTL plate: U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 2003-08, January-June

2008, and January-June 2009

Item

Calendar year January - June 

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Capacity

(short tons) 9,612,515 9,358,706 9,824,667 10,420,197 10,464,249 10,882,642 5,581,791 5,064,916

Production

(short tons) 6,464,022 7,129,899 7,337,156 8,515,159 8,463,676 8,583,931 4,636,079 2,064,300

Capacity

utilization

(percent) 67.2 76.2 74.7 81.7 80.9 78.9 83.1 40.8

Note.– *** did not provide capacity and production data for 2003, *** did not provide capacity and production data for January-June 2008, and January-June

2009. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission U.S. producer/processor questionnaires. 

The majority of firms reported either no changes or only small changes to their capacity between

2003 and 2008. The largest changes in capacity were the result of acquisitions and did not alter total

domestic capacity. When U.S. Steel transferred its plate business to ISG in 2003, its capacity decreased

by *** but this did not reduce total domestic capacity. In 2004, Nucor’s acquisition of Corus Tuscaloosa
 27 ***. E-mail from ***, August 12, 2009. 

 28 ***. E-mail from ***, August 11, 2009. 

 29 Domestic interested party, *** posthearing brief, p. ***. 

 30 U.S. producer/processor questionnaire responses, section II-9a. 

 31 One firm reported that it has no constraints on its capacity to produce CTL plate, ***. Two firms did not

respond: ***. U.S. producer/processor questionnaire responses, section II-6. 

III-7

increased its capacity by *** tons.27 Similarly, in 2005, Mittal Steel’s acquisition of ISG increased its

CTL plate capacity by ***.28 The increase in domestic capacity in 2008 can be attributed almost entirely

to one firm, ***, that reported an increase of *** tons of capacity that year. This was the result of ***.29

Individual firms reported capacity on different bases, with most mills reporting based on 160-168

hours per week, 50-52 weeks per year. One of the *** domestic producers, ***, was an exception and

reported based on 144 hours per week, 52 weeks per year. The processors that operate cut-to-length lines

reported capacity based on a much broader range of 40-168 hours per week, 51-52 weeks per year.30

Constraints on Capacity

The Commission asked domestic producers to report constraints on their capacity to produce CTL

plate. The firms provided the information presented in table III-5 regarding their constraints on

capacity.31

Table III-5

CTL plate: U.S. producers’ constraints on capacity

* * * * * * *

Alternative Products

The Commission asked domestic producers to report production of other or downstream products

on the same equipment and machinery, and/or using the same production and related workers employed

to produce CTL plate. Table III-6 presents the quantity of other products produced on the same

production equipment used to produce CTL plate. As shown in the table, the production of CTL plate

and other nonsubject products was *** in each year. The production of micro-alloy steel plate and

specifically excluded CTL plate represented a smaller portion of total production. Micro-alloy steel plate

fluctuated from a low of 3.3 percent of total production in 2003 to a high of 5.5 percent in 2007. The

production of specifically excluded CTL plate was *** and never accounted for more than *** percent of

total production between 2003 and 2008. 
 32 Nucor’s Decatur, AL mill shipped its first order of armor plate during the first quarter of 2009. According to

news sources, the 5,000 ton shipment went to the U.S. military to provide protective material for the Humvee

military vehicle. Nucor using downturn to develop new opportunities, American Metal Markets, April 24, 2009,

found at http://www.amm.com/2009-04-24_15-50-27.html, retrieved May 28, 2009. 

III-8

Table III-6

CTL plate: U.S. producers’ production of alternative products on the same equipment and

machinery used to produce CTL plate, 2003-08, January-June 2008, and January-June 2009

Item

Calendar year January - June 

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Quantity (short tons) 

Overall

capacity 15,723,457 15,843,061 16,994,948 17,451,907 17,511,328 17,962,644 8,828,626 8,131,373

Production of: 

CTL carbon

steel plate 5,209,859 5,815,607 6,043,027 7,073,585 6,980,789 7,286,055 3,978,195 1,767,521

Micro-alloy

steel plate 367,762 500,262 563,105 729,763 836,479 742,316 398,830 150,984

 Subtotal 5,577,621 6,315,869 6,606,132 7,803,348 7,817,268 8,028,371 4,377,025 1,918,505

Specifically

excluded CTL

plate1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Other

nonsubject

products2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total

 production 11,059,549 11,952,887 13,866,977 15,362,254 15,317,817 15,050,951 7,447,078 3,472,953

Capacity

utilization

(percent) 70.3 75.4 81.6 88.0 87.5 83.8 84.4 42.7

 1 E.g., X-70 CTL plate. 

 2

 E.g., CTL alloy steel plate, hot-rolled steel sheet, and bar products. 

Note.–*** did not provide data for micro-alloy steel plate production but rather included its micro-alloy production in its reported

CTL carbon steel plate figures. For this reason, production of micro-alloy steel plate is understated. 

Note.–*** did not provide information on their production of alternative products. For this reason the subtotal of CTL carbon steel

plate and micro-alloy steel plate production presented here is lower than the production of CTL plate presented in table III-4. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission U.S. producer/processor questionnaires, sections II-5

and II-6. 

Nucor is reportedly developing new grades and sizes of plate for energy, bridge, barge-building,

shipbuilding, and heat-treating markets, among others. According to John Ferriola, the company’s chief

operating officer, this is work that was undertaken in advance of infrastructure stimulus spending and it is

allowing Nucor to secure business that is well beyond its original scope of production. Nucor is also

exploring other opportunities in armor plate for the transportation and energy markets.32
 33 According to the Metals Service Center Institute data, downstream U.S. steel plate shipments by its members

totaled 2.43 million tons in July 2009, following a 9.5-percent increase from May, although they remained 47.3

percent below the same month in 2008. Metals Activity Report, Steel Service Center Institute (Cleveland, OH), June

2009. Members of the Metals Service Center Institute reported higher total steel shipments in August as they

continued to reduce their inventories. Steel center stocks fall as shipments rise, American Metal Markets, September

16, 2009, found at http://www.amm.com/2009-09-16_16-31-20.html, retrieved September 17, 2009. Five domestic

producers, accounting for *** percent of 2008 reported U.S. shipments provided data on their CTL plate operations

during July and August 2008 and 2009. The U.S. shipments of these firms totaled *** short tons in July 2008 and

*** short tons in August 2008. In 2009, reported July U.S. shipments were *** short tons and August U.S.

shipments were *** short tons. Domestic interested parties, ArcelorMittal’s, Evraz Inc.’s, Evraz Claymont’s,

Nucor’s, and SSAB’s posthearing briefs. 

 34 ***. *** U.S. producer/processor questionnaire responses, section II-9a. 

 35 In June 2008, Nucor’s chief operating officer reported that his company was raising its plate price based on

demand, and that the increase did not address scrap costs but was completely demand-driven. Demand keeping

carbon plate on upward trajectory, MetalBulletin, June 10, 2008, found at

http://www.metalbulletin.com//PrintArticle.aspx?ArticleID=1944145, retrieved July 7, 2009. In the same article

Evraz Claymont cited the “continued escalation of raw materials and increasing demand” for its plate price increase.

 36 *** and ***.” ***, retrieved July 7, 2009; ***, retrieved July 1, 2009.

 37 Five domestic producers, accounting for *** percent of 2008 reported U.S. shipments provided data on their

CTL plate operations during the first and second quarters of 2008 and 2009. The exports of these firms totaled ***

short tons in the first quarter of 2008 and *** short tons in the second quarter of 2008. In 2009, first quarter exports

were *** short tons and second quarter exports were *** short tons. Domestic interested parties, ArcelorMittal’s,

Evraz Inc.’s, Evraz Claymont’s, Nucor’s, and SSAB’s posthearing briefs. 

 38 Five domestic producers, accounting for *** percent of 2008 reported U.S. shipments provided data on their

CTL plate operations during July and August 2008 and 2009. The exports of these firms totaled *** short tons in

July 2008 and *** short tons in August 2008. In 2009, reported July exports were *** short tons and August exports

totaled *** short tons. Domestic interested parties, ArcelorMittal’s, Evraz Inc.’s, Evraz Claymont’s, Nucor’s, and

SSAB’s posthearing briefs. 

III-9

U.S. PRODUCERS’ DOMESTIC SHIPMENTS, COMPANY TRANSFERS,

AND EXPORT SHIPMENTS

Data on domestic producers’ shipments of CTL plate are presented in table III-7. The quantity

and value of U.S. shipments increased steadily between 2003 and 2008 but was sharply lower in interim

2009 compared to interim 2008.33 As a share of total shipments, commercial shipments declined during

2005-08, and export shipments increased. Internal consumption and transfers to related firms, as shares

of total shipments remained minimal. Internal consumption was reported by two firms ***.34

The average unit value of U.S. shipments increased sharply in 2008, a period characterized by

strong demand and increased raw material prices.35 Two producers that reported average unit values that

were consistently above the industry mean may specialize in custom orders.36

Domestic producers' export shipments increased in quantity each year from 2003 until 2007 and

remained historically high in 2008.37 As a share of total shipments, exports expanded from 7.0 percent in

2003 to as much as 11.2 percent in 2007.38
III-10

Table III-7

CTL plate: U.S. producers’ shipments, by types, 2003-08, January-June 2008, and January-June

2009

Item

Calendar year January - June

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Quantity (short tons)

Commercial

shipments 5,882,837 6,422,481 6,625,960 7,474,180 7,286,125 7,579,331 3,992,279 1,925,441

Internal

consumption *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to

related firms *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 U.S.

shipments 5,998,059 6,573,527 6,735,235 7,639,081 7,497,375 7,799,941 4,122,958 1,984,317

Export

shipments 450,172 566,669 607,336 796,275 948,275 902,630 509,592 179,288

 Total 6,448,231 7,140,196 7,342,571 8,435,356 8,445,650 8,702,571 4,632,550 2,163,605

Value ($1,000) 

Commercial

shipments 2,069,624 3,874,301 4,638,495 5,551,126 5,562,510 7,614,121 3,664,292 1,442,929

Internal

consumption *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to

related firms *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 U.S.

shipments 2,120,807 3,954,848 4,719,346 5,692,100 5,765,741 7,866,636 3,802,914 1,496,982

Export

shipments 185,825 438,474 512,712 664,872 842,197 911,760 506,319 126,919

 Total 2,306,632 4,393,322 5,232,058 6,356,972 6,607,938 8,778,396 4,309,233 1,623,901

Table continued on next page. 
 39 (AMM) Strong global plate demand ahead, says Ipsco executive, MetalBulletin, June 10, 2008, found at

http://www.metalbulletin.com//PrintArticle.aspx?ArticleID=1943885, retrieved July 7, 2009.

 40 Demand keeping carbon plate on upward trajectory, MetalBulletin, June 10, 2008, found at

http://www.metalbulletin.com//PrintArticle.aspx?ArticleID=1944145, retrieved July 7, 2009.

III-11

Table III-7--Continued

CTL plate: U.S. producers’ shipments, by types, 2003-08, January-June 2008, and January-June

2009

Item

Calendar year January - June

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Unit value (dollars per short ton)

Commercial

shipments $352 $603 $700 $743 $763 $1,005 $918 $749

Internal

consumption *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to

related firms *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 U.S.

shipments 354 602 701 745 769 1,009 922 754

Export

shipments 413 774 844 835 888 1,010 994 708

 Total 358 615 713 754 782 1,009 930 751

Share of shipment quantity (percent) 

Commercial

shipments 91.2 89.9 90.2 88.6 86.3 87.1 86.2 89.1

Internal

consumption *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to

related firms *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 U.S.

shipments 93.0 92.1 91.7 90.6 88.8 89.6 89.0 91.7

Export

shipments 7.0 7.9 8.3 9.4 11.2 10.4 11.0 8.3

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Note.– *** is not included in data for 2003, *** is not included in data for January-June 2008, and January-June 2009. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission U.S. producer/processor questionnaires. 

In June 2008, in commenting on plate exports, Daniel L. Miksta, vice president and general sales

manager at SSAB’s Lisle, IL division, noted that while its traditionally been “very hard” to justify the

economics of plate exports, he also thinks that today “the economics work” for selling to such strong

global markets as the South Korean shipbuilders.39 Also in June of 2008, Nucor’s chief operating officer,

John Ferriola, stated that plate exports markets were “really strong because of demand from overseas for

infrastructure, and transportation is strong everywhere.”40 During the Commission staff’s site visit to ***, 
 41 About *** percent of *** total sales are reportedly ***. ***.

 42 U.S. producer/processor questionnaire responses, section II-9a. 

 43 Firms reporting order book data in response to Commissioner’s hearing questions were: ArcelorMittal, Evraz

Claymont, Evraz Inc., Nucor, and SSAB. 

 44 Demand keeping carbon plate on upward trajectory, Metal Bulletin, found at

http://www.metalbulletin.com//PrintArticle.aspx?ArticleID=1944145, retrieved July 7, 2009. 

 45 ***.

 46 Olympic post $25.5M loss in 1st quarter; outlook murky, American Metal Markets, April 29, 2009, found at

http://www.amm.com/2009-04-29_17-45-01.html, retrieved May 28, 2009. 

III-12

company officials explained that exports increased during the period ***. In addition, some of ***

exports were not new sales but rather ***.41

Producers were asked to name their principal export markets. Of the companies that reported

exports all listed *** as their principal export markets. Only one domestic producer, ***, reported

exports to other markets, *** but its exports never exceeded *** short tons during 2003-08.42

U.S. PRODUCERS’ ORDER BOOKS

Table III-8 presents reported quantity of CTL plate entered in reporting firm’s “order books” at

the close of the specified months. This data was reported by 5 firms43 representing *** percent of 2008

U.S. shipments. The order books of the reporting firms were fullest in June 2008 and lowest on March

31, 2009. However, such order books increased in the following two quarters by a total of *** short tons. 

Reported lead times ranged from *** days with the longest lead times reported at the end of June 2008

and the shortest times reported one year later in June 2009. 

Table III-8

CTL plate: CTL plate entered into order books, June 30, 2008-September 30, 2009

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCERS’ INVENTORIES

Data collected in these reviews on domestic producers’ end-of-period inventories of CTL plate

are presented in table III-9. Inventories declined in absolute and relative terms between 2003 and 2005,

then increased in 2006 and 2007. Over the course of 2008, producer inventories declined sharply in

absolute terms and fell to period lows in relative terms. The domestic industry’s inventories of CTL plate

experienced a decline from their peak in 2007, almost entirely due to *** large inventory draw-downs. 

Inventories in June 2009 were only half the level reported for June 2008. In June 2008, Evraz Claymont

noted that inventories, while low, were still high relative to current orders and sales.44 ***.45 Olympic

reportedly reduced its inventory by about 11 percent in the first quarter and was targeting a 25-percent

reduction in the second quarter of 2009.46
III-13

Table III-9

CTL plate: U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories, 2003-08, January-June 2008, January-June

2009

Item

Calendar year January - June

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Inventories (short tons) 472,142 467,155 427,639 535,175 544,133 429,247 527,909 268,774

Ratio of inventories to

production (percent) 7.3 6.6 5.8 6.3 6.4 5.0 5.7 6.5

Ratio to U.S. shipments

(percent) 7.9 7.1 6.3 7.0 7.3 5.5 6.4 6.8

 Ratio to total

shipments (percent) 7.3 6.5 5.8 6.3 6.4 4.9 5.7 6.2

Note.–*** reported no inventories during the period of review. *** did not provide data for 2003. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission U.S. producer/processor questionnaires. 

Figure III-1 illustrates inventories of plate held by U.S. service centers and the number of months 

of shipments on hand.

Figure III-1

Plate:1

 Inventories held by and shipments made by U.S. service centers, by months, January 2003-

July 2009

 1 MSCI data include both CTL and coiled plate. Also, these inventories and shipments include plate from both domestic and

foreign sources.

Source: Metals Activity Report, Metals Service Center Institute (Cleveland, OH), July 2009. 

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

01-Jan-03

01-Apr-03

01-Jul-03

01-Oct-0301-Jan-04

01-Apr-04

01-Jul-04

01-Oct-0401-Jan-05

01-Apr-05

01-Jul-05

01-Oct-0501-Jan-06

01-Apr-06

01-Jul-06

01-Oct-0601-Jan-07

01-Apr-07

01-Jul-07

01-Oct-0701-Jan-08

01-Apr-08

01-Jul-08

01-Oct-0801-Jan-09

01-Apr-09

Month/Year

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

Inventories (thousand tons) Shipments on Hand (number of months)
 47 *** U.S. importer questionnaire response, section II-7. The reason given for these imports was that ***. Ibid.,

section II-6. E-mail from ***, September 29, 2009. 

 48 *** could not identify the country of origin of these purchases. 

 49 *** U.S. producer/processor questionnaire response, section II-14. ***.

 50 *** U.S. producer/processor questionnaire response, section II-14. 

 51 *** U.S. producer/processor questionnaire response, section II-14. 

 52 *** U.S. producer/processor questionnaire response, section II-14. 

 53 The Gary, IN plate mill was idled after its acquisition by ISG (now ArcelorMittal). Certain Carbon Steel

Products from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Poland,

Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom, Inv. Nos. AA1921-197 (Second Review); 701-TA-319,

320, 325-327, 348, and 350 (Second Review); and 731-TA-573, 574, 576, 578, 582-587, 612, and 614-618 (Second

Review), Final Staff Report, November 22, 2006, Inv-DD-159, CTL II1-3. Pinch-Me Time ISG’s Gary Works play

sets a bountiful table for platemakers, American Metal Markets, June 21, 2004, found at

http://www.amm.com/2004-06-21_01-10-00.html, retrieved August 18, 2009. 

III-14

U.S. PRODUCERS’ IMPORTS AND PURCHASES

Three domestic producers reported importing CTL plate since January 1, 2003 and information

on their imports appears in table III-10. *** was the only producer to report imports of subject CTL

plate. It imported from Russia and identified *** as the producer of the product, plate that is ***.47 The

other two domestic producers, ***, imported nonsubject CTL plate. 

Table III-10

CTL plate: U.S. producers’ imports, 2003-08, January-June 2008, January-June 2009

* * * * * * *

Two domestic producers reported purchasing CTL plate since January 1, 2003. *** purchased

CTL plate from domestic mills and from resellers of imported product.48 It explained that it made the

purchases ***. It purchased *** from domestic producers.49 Processor *** explained that it made

purchases of CTL plate because it ***. It reported purchasing CTL plate imported from other, nonsubject

countries, in ***.50 In addition, two processors that did not provide the Commission with usable trade

data reported such purchases: ***. *** purchased CTL plate each year from 2004 through 2008 that was

***.51 *** reported *** and small purchases of CTL plate imported from ***. These purchases were

made for ***. *** bought CTL plate that was imported from other sources in ***. Finally, it purchased

CTL plate ***.52

U.S. PRODUCERS’ EMPLOYMENT, WAGES, AND PRODUCTIVITY

The U.S. producers' aggregate employment data for CTL plate are presented in table III-11. The

data are understated because one mill (***) and three processors (***) did not report CTL plate related

employment. 

The number of production-related workers (“PRWs”) employed by U.S. CTL plate producers

initially declined in 2004. This *** the closure of the Gary, IN plate mill when it was transferred from

U.S. Steel to ISG that year.53 After that initial decline, the number of PRWs, hours worked, and wages
 54 Five domestic producers, accounting for *** percent of 2008 reported U.S. shipments provided data on their

CTL plate employment during the first and second quarters of 2008 and 2009. The PRW hours worked at these

mills in the first quarter of 2008 totaled *** thousand and in the second quarter totaled *** thousand. In 2009,

reported first quarter hours worked were *** thousand and second quarter hours worked were *** thousand. 

Domestic interested parties, ArcelorMittal, Evraz Claymont, Evraz Inc., Nucor, and SSAB posthearing briefs. 

 55 Five domestic producers, accounting for *** percent of 2008 reported U.S. shipments provided data on their

CTL plate operations during July and August 2008 and 2009. The PRW hours worked at these mills in 2008 totaled

*** thousand hours in July and *** thousand hours in August. In 2009, reported July hours worked were ***

thousand and August hours worked were *** thousand. Domestic interested parties, ArcelorMittal, Evraz Claymont,

Evraz Inc., Nucor, and SSAB posthearing briefs. 

 56 Evraz laying off another 225 in Portland, American Metal Markets, April 1, 2009, found at

http://www.amm.com/2009-04-01_16-35-38.html, retrieved July 1, 2009.

 57 ***.

 58 The current economic condition was cited as the reason for this action. Hearing transcript, p. 35 (Insetta). 

 59 JSW’s US mills running below 15% capacity, American Metal Markets, May 14, 2009, found at

http://www.amm.com/2009-05-14_15-17-23.html, retrieved May 28, 2009. 

 60 ***. 

 61 Hearing transcript, p. 23 (Blume). “If current market conditions persist, or if the order is revoked and

suspended investigations are terminated, ***. Nucor estimates that ***.” Nucor’s posthearing brief, pp. 12-13. 

 62 Hearing transcript, p. 21 (Britten). 

III-15

paid, all increased each year thereafter, reaching period highs in 2008.54 Comparing interim 2009 with

interim 2008 however, all of these indices were sharply lower in interim 2009.55

CTL plate producers have attributed their reduced production schedules and layoffs to

deteriorating market conditions. In November 2008, Evraz Inc. announced that it would lay off 130

workers at its Portland, OR mill. The company cited deteriorating market conditions that forced a

reduction in production schedules at the plate, heat-treat, structural tubing and spiral pipe operations. 

Then in April 2009, Evraz Inc. announced additional layoffs of 225 employees at the mill.56 As of June,

2009 *** was using short work weeks of *** for about *** employees and voluntary reductions in force;

***. Before the economic downturn about *** full-time equivalent employees were used in its plate mill. 

Now *** full-time equivalent employees are working there.57 In addition, ArcelorMittal recently

completed a voluntary separation program for salaried employees.58 Producer, JSW Steel USA, which

did not complete a questionnaire, reportedly has “cut jobs by 40 to 50 percent . . .in the last two quarters

to bring the work force in line with the capacity utilization of the mills.”59 Domestic CTL plate processor,

*** has reduced its employment levels by *** percent since last October.60 Nucor has a no layoff

practice but its CTL plate workers have been working “significantly reduced shifts at significantly

reduced pay rates.”61 At SSAB, employee salaries are partially based on production incentives. As

SSAB’s production has declined since the fourth quarter of 2008 the company has not laid off employees

but rather has reduced their work hours.62
 63 Hearing transcript, p. 79 (Conway). 

III-16

Table III-11

CTL plate: U.S. producers’ employment related indicators, 2003-08, January-June 2008, JanuaryJune 2009

Item

Calendar year January - June

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Production and related

workers (PRWs) 4,184 3,498 3,576 3,732 3,853 4,191 4,401 3,716

Hours worked by PRWs 

(1,000 hours) 9,080 7,847 8,113 8,629 8,869 9,488 5,184 3,450

Wages paid to PRWs

(1,000 dollars) 229,460 219,468 233,643 267,258 281,310 318,344 172,855 100,071

 Hourly wages $25.27 $27.97 $28.80 $30.97 $31.72 $33.55 $33.34 $29.00

Productivity (short tons

produced per 1,000 hours) 627.7 789.4 793.3 880.2 858.0 820.6 821.9 542.4

Unit labor costs (per short

ton) $40.26 $35.43 $36.30 $35.19 $36.97 $40.89 $40.56 $53.47

Note.– Employment data was not reported by ***. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission U.S. producer/processor questionnaires. 

The United Steelworkers members constitute the workforce at ArcelorMittal, Kentucky Electric,

and U.S. Steel. Their represented CTL plate workers have waiver agreements with their employers under

which they have elected to take layoffs rather than remain partially employed when the mill is not

producing steel.63
 64 While *** submitted questionnaire responses to the Commission, they did not report usable financial results. 

The CTL plate operations of these companies therefore are not reflected in this section of the report. With respect to

its response to the Commission, Evraz is made up of two business units: Evraz (Claymont), which sells primarily

into the eastern U.S. region, and Evraz (Oregon) which sells primarily into the western U.S. region. While their

CTL plate financial results are combined in this section of the report, narrative responses cited below separately

identify Evraz (Claymont) and Evraz (Oregon). 

 ***. E-mail from ***, September 23, 2009.

 65 In response to a request by Commissioner Lane, the posthearing briefs of Arcelor, Evraz, Nucor, and SSAB

reported first quarter and second quarter financial results for 2008 and 2009, respectively. Trends and corresponding

amounts (values and ratios) related to the quarterly financial information are presented below. 

 66 Calculated from first review staff report.

 67 This percentage would be somewhat lower had all U.S. CTL plate producers reported usable financial results. 

With respect to the financial information presented in this section of the report, staff believes that it reflects the large

majority of U.S. CTL plate operations during the period for which data were collected. 

 In some cases, the underlying CTL plate operations reflected in both the first and second reviews overlap in

whole or in part. Additionally, some operations have emerged in the second reviews as much larger participants

(***), while the relative importance of other companies has been substantially reduced or eliminated all together. 

 68 The companies and corresponding business segments which include reported U.S. CTL plate operations are as

follows: AreclorMittal (Flat carbon Americas segment); Evraz (Steel production segment); Gerdau (Mini-mills

segment); Nucor (Steel mills segment); SSAB (SSAB North America segment); and U.S. Steel (Flat-rolled segment). 

III-17

FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE OF THE U.S. PRODUCERS

Background

The financial results of nine U.S. producers of CTL plate are presented in this section of the

report. All U.S. producers reported their financial results on the basis of generally accepted accounting

principles (“GAAP”).64 With the exception of ***, which reported on a fiscal-year basis ending May 31

and March 31, respectively, U.S.-producers reported their full-year financial results on a calendar-year

basis.65 Commercial sales account for the large majority of reported CTL plate revenue with internal

consumption and transfers representing relatively small shares. Accordingly, the tables below present a

combined revenue total. 

As described earlier in Parts I and III, the composition of the U.S. industry has changed since the

first review of the order and suspension agreements. As it relates specifically to the financial section of

this report, U.S. CTL plate operations now reflect fewer producers and a more concentrated industry; e.g.,

in the first reviews (full-year 1997-2002, January-March 2003), 13 individual producers reported their

financial results with the four largest U.S. producers during that period (***) accounting for *** percent

of cumulative sales quantity.66 In the current reviews, nine U.S. producers reported usable financial

results with the four largest U.S. producers (***) accounting for *** percent of cumulative sales

quantity.67

This section of the report references narrative information accompanying public financial

statements as reported by some U.S. producers or their parent companies. It should be noted that this

information generally either refers to the company’s overall operations or is only specific to the broader

business segment which includes reported CTL plate operations.68 
 69 As discussed previously, CTL plate operations vary from company to company in terms of features such as the

level of integration, steel production process, and product mix. In addition to intercompany differences, the

underlying business units which make up aggregated company-specific responses, in some cases, also differ in terms

of production and product mix. For example, Nucor reported that it “. . . operates two plate mills. Nucor completed

construction of its first plate mill, located in North Carolina, in 2000 with the competitive advantages of new, more

efficient production technology. This mill produces plate for manufacturers of heavy equipment, rail cars, ships,

barges, refinery tanks and others. In 2004, Nucor’s wholly owned subsidiary Nucor Steel Tuscaloosa, Inc.

purchased substantially all the assets of Corus Tuscaloosa. The Tuscaloosa mill has an annual capacity of 1,200,000

tons, and complements our product offering with thinner gauges of coiled and cut-to-length plate used in the pipe

and tube, pressure vessel, transportation and construction industries.” Nucor 2008 10-K, p. 9 (Operations review).

 70 While on a company-specific basis there were some notable changes in product mix, for the industry as a whole

product mix did not change substantially during the period examined. This stability in product mix generally

enhances the utility of the variance analysis presented in table III-14. Appendix E outlines the general components

of the variance analysis. 

 71 The beginning of the review period generally corresponds with the end of the last business cycle. Nucor

described 2001-03 as a period of economic downturn, after which its overall operations were “much stronger.” 

Nucor 2008 10-K, pp. 3-4. Similarly, with regard to the beginning of the period, ***. Letter with attachments from

*** to auditor, July 14, 2009.

 72 Letter with attachments from *** to auditor, July 14, 2009. E-mail with attachments from *** to auditor, July

14, 2009. Letter with attachments from *** to auditor, July 13, 2009.

 73 Letter with attachments from *** to auditor, July 14, 2009.

 74 ***.

 75 ***. E-mail with attachment from *** to auditor, July 13, 2009. ***. E-mail with attachment from *** to

auditor, July 13, 2009.

 76 E-mail with attachments from *** to auditor, July 17, 2009.

III-18

Producers’ Operations on CTL Plate

Table III-12 presents the financial results of the U.S. industry’s operations on CTL plate. Selected

financial information by producer is presented in table III-13.69 Table III-14 presents a variance analysis

of the U.S. producer financial results.70 

Net Sales Quantity

As shown in table III-12, full-year CTL plate sales quantity was at its lowest level in 2003.71 As

the period progressed, sales quantity increased notably. For the industry as a whole, total sales quantity

was 34.6 percent higher in 2008 than in 2003. Of the four largest producers, only *** reported its highest

sales quantity in 2007, likely in part as a result of strong *** demand, while *** reported their peak fullyear sales quantities in 2008. U.S. producers generally attributed the pattern of higher CTL plate sales

quantity during the full-year period to strong demand, the presence of the order,72 and according to one

producer ***.73

In contrast with the larger producers, smaller U.S. producers generally reported their highest sales

quantities earlier in the period: *** in 2005 and *** in 2006.74 With the exception of *** was the ***

U.S. producer to report its highest full-year sales quantity in 2003. While *** attached no particular

significance to the fact that their higher sales quantity occurred earlier in the period,75 ***.76 
III-19

Table III-12

CTL plate: Results of U.S. producers’ operations, calendar and fiscal years 2003-08, January-June 2008, and

January-June 2009

Item

Calendar and fiscal year January-June

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Quantity (short tons)

Total net sales 5,686,152 6,170,413 6,365,139 7,436,868 7,447,725 7,655,181 4,198,215 1,890,838

Value ($1,000)

Total net sales 2,089,064 3,876,161 4,716,691 5,678,021 5,940,911 7,818,382 3,880,734 1,412,853

Raw material 1,034,805 1,826,576 2,122,036 2,517,783 2,758,525 4,105,290 2,051,721 768,714

Direct labor 252,376 233,248 239,276 268,376 287,703 350,071 173,792 100,875

Other factory costs 753,482 865,020 1,037,990 1,202,619 1,212,155 1,562,993 735,014 596,844

 Total cost of goods sold 2,040,663 2,924,844 3,399,302 3,988,778 4,258,383 6,018,354 2,960,527 1,466,433

Gross profit or (loss) 48,401 951,317 1,317,389 1,689,243 1,682,528 1,800,028 920,207 (53,580)

Selling expenses 25,764 22,258 23,239 19,782 20,755 23,170 10,068 9,266

General and administrative expenses 124,950 95,481 101,545 96,615 109,516 120,185 63,518 37,441

 Total SG&A expenses 150,714 117,739 124,784 116,397 130,271 143,355 73,586 46,707

Operating income or (loss) (102,313) 833,578 1,192,605 1,572,846 1,552,257 1,656,673 846,621 (100,287)

Interest expense 56,905 42,749 48,092 61,482 73,764 71,525 36,662 20,305

Other expenses (65) (370) 6,471 11,452 14,330 112,685 68,085 765

CDSOA funds received 1,995 4,970 578 7,551 1,145 2,487 0 689

Other income items 19,315 18,044 29,640 38,416 63,118 8,852 2,934 1,450

Net income or (loss) (137,843) 814,213 1,168,260 1,545,879 1,528,426 1,483,802 744,808 (119,218)

Depr. and amortization (incl. above) 124,835 116,852 101,992 111,408 112,515 129,733 61,407 111,491

Est. cash flow from operations (13,008) 931,065 1,270,252 1,657,287 1,640,941 1,613,535 806,215 (7,727)

Ratio to net sales (percent)

Raw material 49.5 47.1 45.0 44.3 46.4 52.5 52.9 54.4

Direct labor 12.1 6.0 5.1 4.7 4.8 4.5 4.5 7.1

Other factory costs 36.1 22.3 22.0 21.2 20.4 20.0 18.9 42.2

 Total cost of goods sold 97.7 75.5 72.1 70.2 71.7 77.0 76.3 103.8

Gross profit or (loss) 2.3 24.5 27.9 29.8 28.3 23.0 23.7 (3.8)

 Total SG&A expenses 7.2 3.0 2.6 2.0 2.2 1.8 1.9 3.3

Operating income or (loss) (4.9) 21.5 25.3 27.7 26.1 21.2 21.8 (7.1)

Net income or (loss) (6.6) 21.0 24.8 27.2 25.7 19.0 19.2 (8.4)

Table continued on next page.
 77 ***. Letter with attachments from *** to auditor, July 15, 2009.

 78 For example, in its 2008 F-20 ArcelorMittal states that “{s}tarting in September 2008, a steep downturn in the

global economy, sparked by uncertainty in credit market and deteriorating consumer confidence, has sharply reduced

demand for steel products. This has had, and continues to have, a pronounced negative effect on ArcelorMittal’s

business and results of operations.” ArcelorMittal 2008 F-20, p. 6.

 79 Supplemental financial results reported by Arcelor, Evraz, Nucor, and SSAB for first quarter and second

quarter 2008 and 2009 indicate that overall CTL plate sales quantities were highest in first quarter 2008 and lower in

subsequent quarters. ***. 

III-20

Table III-12--Continued

CTL plate: Results of U.S. producers’ operations, calendar and fiscal years 2003-08, January-June 2008, and

January-June 2009

Calendar and fiscal year January-June

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Unit value (dollars per short ton)

Total net sales 367 628 741 763 798 1,021 924 747

Raw material 182 296 333 339 370 536 489 407

Direct labor 44 38 38 36 39 46 41 53

Other factory costs 133 140 163 162 163 204 175 316

 Total cost of goods sold 359 474 534 536 572 786 705 776

Gross profit or (loss) 9 154 207 227 226 235 219 (28)

SG&A expenses 27 19 20 16 17 19 18 25

Operating income or (loss) (18) 135 187 211 208 216 202 (53)

Number of companies reporting

Data 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

Operating losses 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 5

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Table III-13

CTL plate: Selected financial information of U.S. producers’ operations, fiscal and calendar years, 2003-08,

January-June 2008, and January-June 2009

* * * * * * *

As discussed previously, the character of U.S. Steel’s operations changed during the period with

the transfer in 2003 of its Gary plate mill to ISG. ***. With respect to its subsequent CTL plate

operations, *** sales quantity generally increased which was attributed to both trade relief and improved

economic conditions.77 

In contrast with the full-year period, interim 2009 sales quantity was 55.0 percent lower

compared to interim 2008. This is generally consistent with narrative information accompanying public

financial statements which indicates that U.S. producers, with respect to their overall operations,

experienced declines in sales quantity in the latter part of 2008 which continued into 2009.78 Table III-13

shows that all U.S. producers reported lower CTL plate sales quantity in interim 2009 compared to

interim 2008.79
III-21

Table III-14

CTL plate: Variance analysis of the financial results of U.S. producers’ operations, calendar and fiscal years 2003-

08, January-June 2008, and January-June 2009

Calendar and fiscal year Jan.-June

2003-08 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

Total net sales:

 Price variance 5,005,907 1,609,182 718,206 167,158 254,601 1,711,987 (334,994)

 Volume variance 723,411 177,915 122,324 794,172 8,289 165,484 (2,132,887)

 Total net sales variance 5,729,318 1,787,097 840,530 961,330 262,890 1,877,471 (2,467,881)

Cost of goods sold:

Raw material:

 Cost variance (2,712,148 (703,642) (237,817) (38,450) (237,066) (1,269,926 155,363

 Volume variance (358,337) (88,129) (57,643) (357,297) (3,676) (76,839) 1,127,644

 Net raw material variance (3,070,485 (791,771) (295,460) (395,747) (240,742) (1,346,765 1,283,007

Direct labor:

 Cost variance (10,301) 40,622 1,333 11,188 (18,935) (54,354) (22,601)

 Volume variance (87,394) (21,494) (7,361) (40,288) (392) (8,014) 95,518

 Net direct labor variance (97,695) 19,128 (6,028) (29,100) (19,327) (62,368) 72,917

Other factory costs:

 Cost variance (548,592) (47,368) (145,672) 10,142 (7,780) (317,073) (265,800)

 Volume variance (260,919) (64,170) (27,298) (174,771) (1,756) (33,765) 403,970

 Net other factory cost variance (809,511) (111,538) (172,970) (164,629) (9,536) (350,838) 138,170

Net cost of goods sold:

 Cost variance (3,271,040 (710,388) (382,156) (17,119) (263,782) (1,641,354 (133,038)

 Volume variance (706,651) (173,793) (92,302) (572,357) (5,823) (118,617) 1,627,132

 Total net cost of goods sold (3,977,691 (884,181) (474,458) (589,476) (269,605) (1,759,971 1,494,094

Gross profit variance 1,751,627 902,916 366,072 371,854 (6,715) 117,500 (973,787)

SG&A expenses:

 Expense variance 59,549 45,811 (3,329) 29,397 (13,704) (9,455) (13,565)

 Volume variance (52,190) (12,836) (3,716) (21,010) (170) (3,629) 40,444

 Total SG&A variance 7,359 32,975 (7,045) 8,387 (13,874) (13,084) 26,879

Operating income variance 1,758,986 935,891 359,027 380,241 (20,589) 104,416 (946,908)

Summarized as:

 Price variance 5,005,907 1,609,182 718,206 167,158 254,601 1,711,987 (334,994)

 Net cost/expense variance (3,211,491 (664,577) (385,485) 12,278 (277,486) (1,650,809 (146,603)

 Net volume variance (35,429) (8,713) 26,306 200,805 2,296 43,238 (465,311)

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 80 E-mail with attachments from *** to auditor, July 14, 2009. E-mail with attachments from *** to auditor, July

17, 2009. E-mail with attachment from *** to auditor, July 13, 2009. Letter with attachments from *** to auditor,

July 13, 2009. Letter with attachments from *** to auditor, July 14, 2009. Letter with attachments from *** to

auditor, July 15, 2009. 

 81 ***. Letter with attachments from *** to auditor, July 14, 2009. 

 82 E-mail with attachment from *** to auditor, July 13, 2009. E-mail with attachments from *** to auditor, July

17, 2009. Letter with attachments from *** to auditor, July 13, 2009. Letter with attachments from *** to auditor,

July 14, 2009. Letter with attachments from *** to auditor, July 14, 2009.

 ***. E-mail with attachment from *** to auditor, July 13, 2009. ***. Letter with attachments from *** to

auditor, July 14, 2009. 

 83 For example in its 2008 F-20 ArcelorMittal states that “{a}fter rising during 2007 and through the summer of

2008, steel prices in global markets fell sharply beginning in the late summer 2008 as a result of collapsing demand

and the resulting excess capacity in the industry.” ArcelorMittal 2008 F-20, p. 7. 

 84 Supplemental financial results reported by Arcelor, Evraz, Nucor, and SSAB for first quarter and second

quarter 2008 and 2009 indicate that total CTL plate sales peaked in the second quarter 2008, as did average per-ton

CTL plate sales value. ***. 

III-22

Net Sales Value

 The variance analysis in table III-14 shows that, while sales volume (quantity) variances were

positive throughout the full-year period, overall increases in revenue between 2003 and 2008 were

primarily due to positive price variances (i.e., higher average unit sales values). With a few exceptions,

this pattern was also true on a company-specific basis, as the majority of U.S. producers reported

progressively higher average unit sales values between 2003 and 2008 (see table III-13).

In most cases, U.S. producers attributed higher average unit CTL plate sales values during the

full-year period to improved market conditions and the pass through of higher input costs such as raw

materials.80 ***, whose average unit sales values increased notably at the end of the period, was the ***

company to indicate that variations in product mix played an important role in terms of explaining its

higher average unit sales values.81 

While the product mix of most companies did not change substantially, the range of average unit

sales values shown in table III-13 generally indicates that product mix varies from company to company. 

When asked to describe key differences in their CTL plate and related marketing, however, U.S.

producers for the most part stated that they did not consider their product mix, channels of distribution,

and/or customer base to be particularly unique as compared to other U.S. producers.82

Like sales quantity, U.S. producers generally reported lower average unit CTL plate sales values

in interim 2009 compared to interim 2008. Narrative information in public financial statements indicates

that declines in average unit CTL plate sales values likely began in the second half of 2008.83 84
 85 With respect to input costs and its operations in general, ArcelorMittal stated in its 2008 F-20 that “. . . steel

production requires substantial amounts of raw materials and energy, including iron ore, coking coal and coke, scrap,

electricity and natural gas. In recent years, and particularly in 2006, 2007, and through the first half of 2008, there

was a sharp rise in the prices of a number of commodities essential for the process of steel-making. In particular, the

annual benchmark price of iron ore rose 65 percent in 2008 due, among other things, to the dynamics of supply

(concentration in the mining industry) and demand (including the surge in Chinese demand). Spot prices of iron ore

have decreased sharply as a result of the global economic downturn and lower steel demand, and at year-end 2008

were 57 percent lower than they were in June 2008. The prices of coking coal, zinc and nickel, as well as scrap,

have also decreased substantially during the last few months.” Ibid. 

 86 Supplemental financial results reported by Arcelor, Evraz, Nucor, and SSAB for first quarter and second

quarter 2008 and 2009 indicate that per-ton COGS were highest in the first quarter 2009. ***.

 87 ***. 

 88 E-mail with attachments from *** to auditor, July 14, 2009. E-mail with attachments from *** to auditor, July

17, 2009. E-mail with attachment from *** to auditor, July 13, 2009. Letter with attachments from *** to auditor,

July 14, 2009. E-mail with attachment from *** to auditor, July 13, 2009. Letter with attachments from *** to

auditor, July 13, 2009. Letter with attachments from *** to auditor, July 14, 2009. Letter with attachments from

*** to auditor, July 15, 2009.

 89 ***. E-mail with attachments from *** to auditor, July 14, 2009. 

 90 E-mail with attachment from *** to auditor, July 13, 2009.

 91 ***. Letter with attachments from *** to investigator, July 31, 2009.

 92 E-mail with attachment from *** to auditor, July 30, 2009.

III-23

Cost of Goods Sold

Table III-12 shows that higher average unit sales values were accompanied by increasing average

unit cost of goods sold (COGS) throughout the full-year period. When considering the components of

COGS, the variance analysis (table III-14) indicates that the majority of the absolute increase in COGS

between 2003 and 2008 was the result of negative cost variances caused by higher average unit raw

material and other factory costs.85 Average unit direct labor costs, in contrast, moved within a relatively

narrow range throughout most of the period which resulted in a mix of generally small negative and

positive cost variances. For all three cost categories, higher sales quantities also contributed to higher

absolute costs, as shown in the volume variance components of the variance analysis.86

Raw Material

Raw material costs accounted for 62.8 percent of cumulative COGS. As shown in table III-13,

although most U.S. producers reported similar trends in terms of the direction of change in average unit

raw material costs, the level and magnitude of change varied from company to company. The reason for

this, in large part, is due to differences in primary raw material inputs which represent scrap (***),87

coke, iron ore, and flux (***), steel slab (***), and coiled plate (***).88 However, regardless of the form

of raw material input, U.S. producers all reported increases in average unit raw material costs during the

full-year period.89

In at least one case, the notable increase in company-specific average unit raw material costs

shown in table III-13 was not directly related to higher raw material costs. ***.90

Table III-12 shows that overall average unit raw material costs were lower in interim 2009 than in

interim 2008. This pattern was true for most U.S. producers with *** being the *** large volume

producer to report higher average unit raw material cost in interim 2009 compared to interim 2008 (see

table III-13). According to ***, the observed increase is in large part due to changes in raw material cost

classification ***.91 ***.92
 93 USITC auditor prehearing notes. E-mail with attachments from *** to auditor, July 14, 2009. E-mail with

attachments from *** to auditor, July 17, 2009. Letter with attachments from *** to auditor, July 14, 2009. E-mail

with attachment from *** to auditor, July 30, 2009. E-mail with attachment from *** to auditor, July 13, 2009. 

Letter with attachments from *** to auditor, July 13, 2009. Letter with attachments from *** to auditor, July 14,

2009. Letter with attachments from *** to auditor, July 15, 2009.

 94 ***. E-mail with attachments from *** to auditor, July 17, 2009. ***. E-mail with attachments from *** to

auditor, July 14, 2009. ***. E-mail from *** to auditor, August 4, 2009. 

 95 Letter with attachments from *** to auditor, July 14, 2009.

 96 ***. E-mail with attachments from *** to auditor, July 31, 2009.

 97 ***. Letter with attachments from *** to investigator, July 31, 2009.

 98 Letter with attachments from *** to investigator, July 31, 2009.

 99 Nucor first quarter 10-Q, p. 21.

 100 Letter from *** to auditor, July 31, 2009.

 101 E-mail with attachment from *** to auditor, July 13, 2009. 

 102 Letter with attachments from *** to auditor, July 13, 2009.

 103 Letter with attachments from *** to auditor, July 15, 2009.

III-24

Other Factory Costs

The second largest component of COGS is other factory costs which accounted for 30.0 percent

of COGS on a cumulative basis. Because it represents a relatively broad category, the underlying

components of other factory costs vary from company to company depending on manufacturing

processes, as well as decisions regarding cost classification.93 As shown in table III-12, overall average

unit other factory costs increased throughout the period and reached its highest level in interim 2009.

While most companies reported progressively higher average unit other factory costs during the

full-year period, some company-specific increases were notable.94 ***.95

Lower CTL plate sales quantity and corresponding production were accompanied by a large

increase in average unit other factory costs in interim 2009 compared to interim 2008. As shown in table

III-13, while all U.S. producers reported lower sales quantity in interim 2009, company-specific

variations in the magnitude of increase in average unit other factory costs appear to reflect, at least in part,

differences in cost structures and corresponding share of fixed costs.96 97

***.98

***. 

Of the large volume producers, ***. Notwithstanding an overall cost structure which is largely

variable,99 according to Nucor, ***.100

Direct Labor

The final and smallest component of COGS is direct labor which on a cumulative basis accounted

for 7.2 percent of COGS. Average unit direct labor moved within a relatively narrow range and, as with

other factory costs, reached its highest level in interim 2009. Like raw material and other factory costs,

manufacturing differences and cost classification, at least in part, account for the variations in companyspecific average unit direct labor shown in table III-13. For example ***.101 In contrast, ***.102 

As shown in table III-13, ***.103
 104 ***.

 105 Letter with attachments from *** to investigator, July 31, 2009.

 106 E-mail with attachments from *** to auditor, July 14, 2009. Letter with attachments from *** to auditor, July

14, 2009. E-mail with attachment from *** to auditor, July 13, 2009. Letter with attachments from *** to auditor,

July 13, 2009. Letter with attachments from *** to auditor, July 14, 2009.

 107 Supplemental financial results reported by Arcelor, Evraz, Nucor, and SSAB for first quarter and second

quarter 2008 and 2009 indicate that operating income (on an absolute basis and as percent of sales) was highest in

the second quarter 2008, while operating losses of increasing magnitude were reported in the first two quarters of

2009. ***.

 108 Letter with attachments from *** to investigator, July 31, 2009.

 109 ***. 

 110 E-mail with attachments from *** to auditor, July 31, 2009.

 111 ***. Letter with attachments from *** to auditor, July 13, 2009. ***. Letter with attachments from *** to

investigator, August 4, 2009. ***. Letter with attachments from *** to investigator, July 31, 2009. ***. 

III-25

With several exceptions, U.S. producers reported higher average unit direct labor cost in interim

2009 compared to interim 2008.104 Of the larger volume producers and like the pattern of average unit

other factory costs noted above, ***.105

Financial Results

Over half of the U.S. producers reported operating losses in 2003. Table III-12 shows that fullyear financial results subsequently improved with absolute gross profits and operating income reaching

their highest levels in 2008. In contrast, gross profit margins and operating profit margins were highest in

2006. In general, the timing of peak company-specific profitability (see table III-13) was variable with

the only common feature, ***, being that U.S. producers reported their highest profitability (in absolute

terms and as a percent of sales) between 2006 and 2008. 

Most companies attributed the general improvement in profitability to a combination of improved

economic conditions and the presence of the order; i.e., the same general reasons cited above with respect

to higher sales quantity and higher average unit sales value. The abrupt decline in profitability in interim

2009 was in turn generally attributed to a substantial decline in demand.106 107 As originally reported

to the Commission, ***.108 ***.109

With respect to the smaller-volume producers, *** reported higher relative profitability in interim

2009 compared to interim 2008. CMC stated that this pattern ***.110

As revised for the posthearing report, supplemental information provided by the U.S. producers

generally indicates that the direct impact on the industry’s reported operating results of charges classified

by the industry as non-recurring was relatively large in interim 2009.111 

Research and Development Expenses, Capital Expenditures, Assets, and Return on Investment

Table III-15 presents data on company-specific research and development (“R&D”) expenses,

capital expenditures, total assets, and return on investment (“ROI”).
 112 ***. Letter with attachments from *** to auditor, July 13, 2009.

 113 ***. Letter with attachments from *** to investigator, July 31, 2009. ***. Letter with attachments from ***

to auditor, July 14, 2009. 

 114 ***. E-mail with attachments from *** to auditor, July 14, 2009. ***. 

 115 ***. E-mail with attachments from *** to auditor, July 17, 2009.

 116 Letter with attachments from *** to auditor, July 14, 2009.

III-26

Table III-15

CTL plate: Value of research and development expenses, capital expenditures, total assets, and return on

investment of U.S. producers, calendar and fiscal years 2003-08, January-June 2008, and January-June 2009

Calendar and fiscal year January-June

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

R&D expenses ($1,000)

* * * * * * *

 Total R&D expenses 5,320 3,139 2,277 2,643 3,367 4,231 1,848 2,685

Capital expenditures ($1,000)

* * * * * * *

 Total capital expenditures 35,127 31,078 82,374 109,443 151,739 125,765 63,558 47,032

Total assets ($1,000)

* * * * * * *

 Total assets 2,473,494 2,901,351 2,897,044 2,990,336 3,154,961 3,699,818 (1) (1)

Return on investment2

 (percent)

* * * * * * *

 Average return on investment (4.1) 28.7 41.2 52.6 49.2 44.8 (2) (2)

 1 Asset information was not collected for the interim period.

 2 Return on investment, as presented in this table, is the ratio of annual operating income to total assets. Interim return on investment is

not presented in this table.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

As shown in table III-15, capital expenditures increased in 2005, peaked in 2007, and then

declined somewhat in 2008. While the industry’s overall capital expenditures were lower in interim 2009

compared to interim 2008, the decline would have been notably larger in the absence of ***. 

While the distribution of capital expenditures largely tracks the share of cumulative sales (i.e., the

four largest producers in terms of cumulative sales quantity accounted for *** percent of total capital

expenditures), *** accounted for *** percent. In contrast, ***,112 ***,113 and ***.114 ***115 of cumulative

capital expenditures while the rest of the smaller U.S. producers (***) accounted for shares ranging from

*** percent to *** percent. 

With regard to the full-year period, ***.116

Consistent with the deterioration in financial conditions at the end of the period, the majority of

U.S. producers reported lower capital expenditures in interim 2009. As noted above, the level of ***,
 117 Letter with attachments from *** to investigator, July 31, 2009. 

 118 Letter with attachments from Kelley Drye on behalf of *** to investigator, July 31, 2009.

 119 E-mail with attachment from *** to auditor, July 30, 2009.

 120 Letter from *** to auditor, July 31, 2009.

III-27

reportedly reflecting ***. According to SSAB, ***.117 With regard to the relative decline in its capital

expenditures in interim 2009 compared to interim 2008, as shown in table III-15, ArcelorMittal stated that

***.118 Similarly, Evraz (Oregon) stated that ***.119 According to Nucor, ***.120

 1

 Three firms did not respond to the Commission’s questionnaire and 20 firms indicated that they did not import

CTL plate from any source since January 2003.

 2

 Micro-alloy steel plate imports, regardless of country of origin, are treated as nonsubject merchandise.

Commerce has issued a final determination that imports of CTL plate produced by the Chinese manufacturer Tianjin

or imported by Toyota Tsusho, with boron at concentrations of 0.0008 percent or more, is within the product scope. 

Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon

Steel Plate from the People’s Republic of China, 74 FR 40565, August 12, 2009. Staff has made no further

adjustments to U.S. import data, however, because the effective date of Commerce’s determination is after the period

for which data were collected. See Part I of this report for additional details. 

 3

 The Commission asked importers if they had arranged for the importation of CTL plate from China, Russia, or

Ukraine for delivery after June 30, 2009. No responding importers have made such arrangements.

IV-1

PART IV: U.S. IMPORTS AND THE FOREIGN INDUSTRIES

U.S. IMPORTS

The Commission sent questionnaires to 39 firms believed to have imported CTL plate since 2003. 

It received usable data from 16 of the firms.1

 Based on official Commerce statistics for imports of CTL

plate, importers' questionnaire data accounted for 43.9 percent of total U.S. imports during 2008 and 42.3

percent of total subject imports in 2008. Import data in this report are derived from official Commerce

statistics for CTL plate that have been adjusted to exclude grade X-70 steel plate and to include (as

nonsubject merchandise) micro-alloy steel plate.2

 

As shown in table IV-1, total subject imports were at their lowest level in 2003 (the second and

final year of the U.S. safeguard action on steel), then fluctuated greatly before ending the period at their

highest level in 2008. Initially, imports from China and Russia decreased in 2004, then increased in 2005

while imports from Ukraine increased in 2004 and decreased in 2005. From 2006 forward all subject

imports experienced increases and decreases in the same years. Imports of CTL plate from China were

largest at the beginning of the period in 2003 and thereafter were consistently the smallest source of

subject imports. Imports from Russia moved sporadically but were greatest in 2008. Ukraine was the

largest subject source of CTL plate imports in every year except 2003.3

Between 2003 and 2008, the share of total U.S. imports held by subject imports fluctuated widely 

from a low of 3.7 percent in 2003 to a high of 31.5 percent in 2008. The unit values of imported CTL

plate from subject and nonsubject sources followed the same general trends. All unit values were lowest

in 2003 and highest in 2008 when they climbed above one thousand dollars per short ton. The ratio of

subject U.S. imports of CTL plate from the three subject countries to U.S. production of CTL plate was

0.2 percent in 2003 and reached a peak of 3.1 percent in 2008.
IV-2

Table IV-1

CTL plate: U.S. imports, by sources, 2003-08, January-June 2008, and January-June 2009

Source

Calendar year January - June

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Quantity (short tons)

China 6,036 1,393 2,836 4,113 3,453 4,360 869 789

Russia 3,742 714 3,001 69,960 37,793 84,992 24,810 8,066

Ukraine 4,724 129,159 89,275 122,420 57,700 173,945 34,528 16,128

 Subtotal subject 14,502 131,265 95,113 196,494 98,947 263,298 60,206 24,983

All other sources 380,951 512,579 705,800 1,152,553 934,974 572,094 297,075 203,650

 Total 395,453 643,845 800,913 1,349,047 1,033,921 835,392 357,281 228,633

Value (1,000 dollars)

1

China 2,428 1,488 1,719 3,191 3,214 5,714 1,379 1,698

Russia 1,239 602 1,766 42,572 25,236 95,098 18,555 7,452

Ukraine 1,709 73,854 64,765 81,432 40,885 182,276 32,023 17,190

 Subtotal subject 5,375 75,943 68,250 127,195 69,335 283,089 51,957 26,340

All other sources 181,282 338,335 522,619 779,697 712,338 642,330 283,150 210,980

 Total 186,658 414,278 590,868 906,892 781,673 925,418 335,107 237,320

Unit value (dollars per short ton)

China 402 $1,068 606 776 931 1,311 1,587 2,153

Russia 331 843 588 609 668 1,119 748 924

Ukraine 362 572 725 665 709 1,048 927 1,066

 Subtotal subject 371 579 718 647 701 1,075 863 1,054

All other sources 476 660 740 676 762 1,123 953 1,036

 Average 472 643 738 672 756 1,108 938 1,038

 Table continued on next page.
IV-3

Table IV-1--Continued

CTL plate: U.S. imports, by sources, 2003-08, January-June 2008, and January-June 2009

Source

Calendar year January - June 

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Share of quantity (percent)

China 1.5 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.3

Russia 0.9 0.1 0.4 5.2 3.7 10.2 6.9 3.5

Ukraine 1.2 20.1 11.1 9.1 5.6 20.8 9.7 7.1

 Subtotal subject 3.7 20.4 11.9 14.6 9.6 31.5 16.9 10.9

All other sources 96.3 79.6 88.1 85.4 90.4 68.5 83.1 89.1

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of value (percent)

China 1.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.7

Russia 0.7 0.1 0.3 4.7 3.2 10.3 5.5 3.1

Ukraine 0.9 17.8 11.0 9.0 5.2 19.7 9.6 7.2

 Subtotal subject 2.9 18.3 11.6 14.0 8.9 30.6 15.5 11.1

Other sources 97.1 81.7 88.4 86.0 91.1 69.4 84.5 88.9

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Ratio of import quantity to U.S. production (percent)

China 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0

Russia 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.4 1.0 0.5 0.4

Ukraine 0.1 1.8 1.2 1.4 0.7 2.0 0.7 0.8

Subtotal 0.2 1.8 1.3 2.3 1.2 3.1 1.3 1.2

All other sources 5.9 7.2 9.6 13.5 11.0 6.7 6.4 9.9

Total 6.1 9.0 10.9 15.8 12.2 9.7 7.7 11.1

 1 Landed, duty-paid.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics under

HTS statistical reporting numbers 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000,

7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000,

7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000.

During the period for which data were collected, imports of CTL plate entered the United States

from a variety of sources other than the three countries subject to these reviews. The leading nonsubject

suppliers are shown in table IV-2. The leading source of nonsubject CTL plate imports during every year

of the period was Canada. Thailand was the second largest source of nonsubject CTL plate but its exports

to the United States were less than half the size of Canada’s, except in 2006 and 2007. South Africa,

formerly a subject source, was the sixth largest nonsubject source of CTL plate between 2003 and 2008. 

Three of the eleven largest nonsubject sources (Belgium, Germany, and Romania) were subject to orders

until 2007. The Commission reached negative determinations during its second reviews of the

antidumping and countervailing duty order covering imports of CTL plate from Belgium, and of the
 4 Certain Carbon Steel Products from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan,

Korea, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom, Inv. Nos. AA1921-197 (Second

Review); 701-TA-319, 320, 325-327, 348, and 350 (Second Review); and 731-TA-573, 574, 576, 578, 582-587, 612,

and 614-618 (Second Review), USITC Publication 3899, Volume I, January 2007, Determination.

IV-4

antidumping duty orders covering imports of CTL plate from Germany and Romania.4 Following

revocation of the orders, imports from these three countries decreased in 2008. 

Table IV-2

CTL plate: U.S. imports from leading nonsubject sources, 2003-08, January-June 2008, JanuaryJune 2009

Source

Calendar year January - June

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Quantity (short tons)

Canada 182,650 154,902 211,245 243,381 245,762 259,414 154,522 60,208

Thailand 2,646 17,038 120,102 228,176 229,139 94,742 27,998 11,618

Korea1 12,070 36,323 83,512 211,245 96,509 56,939 28,898 14,680

Malaysia 0 7,789 71,812 168,041 121,481 3,417 10 25,755

Romania2 69,552 112,393 49,813 0 48,311 20,467 10,232 0

South Africa3 16,086 17,646 27,588 45,401 23,556 13,689 12,669 4,401

Australia 7,831 3,518 9,091 72,439 36,132 9,107 6,569 4,946

Czech

Republic 40,866 36,166 18,919 18,259 1,390 473 462 0

Germany2 4,842 26,335 5,563 22,982 24,232 23,985 11,428 10,237

Japan1 7,962 11,167 13,178 15,992 18,338 16,816 7,473 7,714

Belgium2 9,696 13,097 13,994 14,130 14,341 7,764 3,038 2,043

 Subtotal 354,202 436,373 624,817 1,040,047 859,190 506,813 263,299 141,602

All other 22,749 68,207 60,408 92,523 68,856 51,892 26,379 61,828

Micro-alloy 4,000 8,000 20,576 19,983 6,928 13,389 7,397 220

 Total 380,951 512,579 705,800 1,152,553 934,974 572,094 297,075 203,650

Table continued on next page. 
IV-5

Table IV-2--Continued 

CTL plate: U.S. imports from leading nonsubject sources, 2003-08, January-June 2008, JanuaryJune 2009

Source

Calendar year January - June

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Value (1,000 dollars)

4

Canada 73,016 93,808 162,836 185,591 172,634 260,421 132,443 43,846

Thailand 813 9,932 68,872 120,853 144,442 99,624 20,895 12,664

Korea1 4,608 24,674 57,694 140,269 76,440 59,973 25,362 13,955

Malaysia 0 5,004 41,240 84,048 74,807 3,862 9 24,403

Romania2 20,706 59,942 31,292 0 35,887 20,406 7,265 0

South Africa3 5,564 9,848 20,926 32,350 20,656 12,771 11,537 3,922

Australia 2,621 1,978 5,769 45,820 24,975 8,077 4,726 4,587

Czech

Republic 13,181 17,931 9,546 11,945 1,362 344 320 0

Germany2 7,320 16,573 9,001 27,954 35,897 41,481 17,262 20,209

Japan1 12,343 13,504 15,516 17,991 26,496 26,207 10,697 15,419

Belgium2 7,709 9,964 13,520 13,282 11,921 11,690 4,287 3,323

 Subtotal 147,880 263,158 436,211 680,105 625,517 544,857 234,803 142,329

All other 30,103 65,976 70,197 85,070 80,186 80,342 39,786 68,290

Micro-alloy 3,300 9,200 16,210 14,522 6,635 17,131 8,561 362

 Total 181,282 338,335 522,619 779,697 712,338 642,330 283,150 210,980

Table continued on next page.
IV-6

Table IV-2--Continued 

CTL plate: U.S. imports from leading nonsubject sources, 2003-08, January-June 2008, JanuaryJune 2009

Source

Calendar year January - June 

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Unit value (per short ton)

Canada $400 $606 $771 $763 $702 $1,004 $857 $728

Thailand 307 583 573 530 630 1,052 746 1,090

Korea1 382 679 691 664 792 1,053 878 951

Malaysia

 

(

5

) 642 574 500 616 1,130 859 948

Romania2 298 533 628

 

(

5

) 743 997 710

 

(

5

)

South Africa3 346 558 759 713 877 933 911 891

Australia 335 562 635 633 691 887 720 927

Czech

Republic 323 496 505 654 980 728 692

 

(

5

)

Germany2 1,512 629 1,618 1,216 1,481 1,729 1,510 1,974

Japan1 1,550 1,209 1,177 1,125 1,445 1,558 1,432 1,999

Belgium2 795 761 966 940 831 1,506 1,411 1,627

 Average 418 603 698 654 728 1,075 892 1,005

All other 1,323 967 1,162 919 1,165 1,548 1,508 1,105

Micro-alloy 825 1,150 788 727 958 1,280 1,157 1,645

 Average 476 660 740 676 762 1,123 953 1,036

 1 Subject to order since 2000.

 2

 Order revoked in 2007.

 3

 Order revoked in 2002. 

 4

 Landed, duty-paid.

 5

 Not applicable. 

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics under HTS statistical reporting numbers 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060,

7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000,

7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000. 

The Commission collected separate information on imports of micro-alloy steel CTL plate from

all sources. The imports of micro-alloy steel CTL plate reported by responding importers are presented in

table IV-3. Of the subject countries, China was the largest source of micro-alloy imports and there were

none reported from Ukraine. Micro-alloy CTL plate is a nonsubject import regardless of the source. 

However, as described in Part I of this report, Commerce recently completed an antidumping

circumvention inquiry regarding imports of micro-alloy CTL plate produced by one firm in China and

imported by one firm into the United States. *** provided import data to the Commission. 
 5

 Three importers *** reported that they experienced no such changes since 2003, and six importers did not

respond. U.S. importer questionnaire responses, section II-2.

 6

 Importers reporting that they do not anticipate any changes in their operations were: ***. U.S. importer

questionnaire responses, section II-3.

 7

 ***. 

IV-7

Table IV-3

CTL micro-alloy plate: U.S. imports, by sources, 2003-08, January-June 2008, and January-June

2009

* * * * * * *

Importers were asked to indicate whether their firm had experienced any office or warehouse

openings, office or warehouse closings, relocations, expansions, acquisitions, consolidations, prolonged

shutdowns or importation curtailments, revised labor agreements, and any other changes in their CTL

plate import operations since 2003. Nearly half of responding importers indicated that they had

experienced such changes since 2003, and their responses are presented in table IV-4.5

 Most notable

among the changes were the acquisitions reported by six importers and the expansions carried out by

three importers since 2003.

Table IV-4

CTL plate: Changes in the character of U.S. importers’ operations since January 1, 2003

* * * * * * *

The Commission also asked importers to report anticipated changes in the character of their

operations relating to the importation of CTL plate. Fourteen importers reported that they do not

anticipate any operational changes,6

 and one importer did not answer.7 Only *** reported that it

anticipates such changes. Specifically, it is expanding its operations with ***.

U.S. IMPORTERS’ INVENTORIES

Data relating to U.S. importer’s inventories of CTL plate are presented in table IV-5. As the data 

illustrate, inventories of subject imports fluctuated during 2003 through 2007. Importers reported no endof-period inventories of imports from China from 2004-05 and relatively small inventories during the

other years of the period. In 2008, inventories of CTL plate imports from each of the three subject

countries reached their peak. From 2007 to 2008, inventories of imports from Russia increased by ***

percent while inventories of imports from Ukraine increased by *** percent. Combined inventories of

imports from the subject countries were higher in January-June 2009 compared to such inventories in

January-June 2008 (largely as a result of inventories of CTL plate from *** held by ***). Inventories of

imports from all other sources reached their peak in 2006 but as a ratio to imports and to U.S. shipments

of imports they were greatest in January-June 2009.
IV-8

Table IV-5

CTL plate: U.S. importers' end-of-period inventories of imports, by source, 2003-08, January-June

2008, and January-June 2009

Item

Calendar year January - June 

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Imports from China:

 Inventories (short tons) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ratio to imports *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ratio to U.S. shipments

 of imports (percent) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Imports from Russia:

 Inventories (short tons) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ratio to imports *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ratio to U.S. shipments

 of imports (percent) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Imports from Ukraine:

 Inventories (short tons) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ratio to imports *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ratio to U.S. shipments

 of imports (percent) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal:

 Inventories (short tons) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ratio to imports *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ratio to U.S. shipments

 of imports (percent) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Imports from all other sources:

 Inventories 

 (short tons) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ratio to imports

 (percent) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ratio to U.S. shipments

 of imports (percent) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Imports from all sources:

 Inventories 

 (short tons) 8,272 18,846 17,784 53,034 28,586 52,704 24,747 38,569

 Ratio to imports

 (percent) 3.2 3.7 3.5 6.7 5.1 14.4 8.2 82.4

 Ratio to U.S. shipments

 of imports (percent) 3.3 3.8 3.5 7.0 4.9 15.4 8.2 49.1

 1 Importers reported *** during January-June 2009. 

Note.–Data for January - June 2008 and January - June 2009 have been annualized. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission U.S. importer questionnaires.
 8

 ***. U.S. producer/processor questionnaire responses, section II-12. 

 9

 Importers that reported imports of CTL plate in the *** category were: ***. *** U.S. importer questionnaire

responses, section II-10. Pricing data collected in these investigations for CTL plate imported from China was

predominantly for product number ***. ***. 

IV-9

CUMULATION CONSIDERATIONS

In assessing whether subject imports are likely to compete with each other and with the domestic

like product with respect to cumulation, the Commission generally has considered the following four

factors: (1) the degree of fungibility, including specific customer requirements and other quality-related

questions; (2) presence of sales or offers to sell in the same geographic markets; (3) common channels of

distribution; and (4) simultaneous presence in the market. Channels of distribution and fungibility

(interchangeability) are discussed in Part II of this report. Additional information concerning fungibility,

geographical markets, and simultaneous presence in the market is presented below.

Fungibility

Table IV-6 shows U.S. shipments by plate thickness in terms of share of quantity in 2008. U.S.

producers' U.S. shipments were concentrated in the thinnest category, less than or equal to 1 inch. The

overwhelming majority of U.S. importers' limited U.S. shipments of CTL plate from China were in the

***. Such shipments of imports from Russia were closely divided between ***. Finally, shipments of

imports from Ukraine were greatest in ***. Five domestic producers reported shipments of CTL plate in

the thickest category, plate greater than 3 inches.8

Table IV-7 shows U.S. shipments by product type in terms of share of quantity in 2008. Carbon

structural steel plate accounted for the largest share of shipments for ***. Imports from China were

concentrated in the *** category. These imports appear to be HSLA CTL plate.9

 There were ***

shipments of *** reported from *** but ***.
IV-10

Table IV-6

CTL plate: U.S. producers’ and U.S. importers’ shipments, by plate thickness, 2008

Item 2008

Share of quantity (in percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments:

 ̃1.00" 69.6

TM 1.00" but  ̃ 3.00" 27.5

TM 3.00" 2.9

 Total 100.0

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of CTL plate from China: 

 ̃1.00" ***

TM 1.00" but  ̃ 3.00" ***

TM 3.00" ***

 Total 100.0

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments from Russia: 

 ̃1.00" ***

TM 1.00" but  ̃ 3.00" ***

TM 3.00" ***

 Total 100.0

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments from Ukraine: 

 ̃1.00" ***

TM 1.00" but  ̃ 3.00" ***

TM 3.00" ***

 Total 100.0

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments from all other sources: 

 ̃1.00" ***

TM 1.00" but  ̃ 3.00" ***

TM 3.00" ***

 Total 100.0

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments from all sources: 

 ̃1.00" 64.3

TM 1.00" but  ̃ 3.00" 24.1

TM 3.00" 11.6

 Total 100.0

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission U.S. producer/processor and U.S. importer questionnaires.
IV-11

Table IV-7

CTL plate: U.S. producers’ and U.S. importers’ shipments, by product, 2008 

Item 2008

Share of quantity (in percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments: 

Hot-rolled wide flat bar 9.2

Carbon structural steel plate 70.6

All other cut-to-length plate 20.1

 Total 100.0

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments from China:

Hot-rolled wide flat bar ***

Carbon structural steel plate ***

All other cut-to-length plate ***

 Total 100.0

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments from Russia:

Hot-rolled wide flat bar ***

Carbon structural steel plate ***

All other cut-to-length plate ***

 Total 100.0

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments from Ukraine:

Hot-rolled wide flat bar ***

Carbon structural steel plate ***

All other cut-to-length plate ***

 Total 100.0

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments from all other sources:

Hot-rolled wide flat bar ***

Carbon structural steel plate ***

All other cut-to-length plate ***

 Total 100.0

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments from all sources:

Hot-rolled wide flat bar 7.5

Carbon structural steel plate 79.6

All other cut-to-length plate 12.8

 Total 100.0

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission U.S. producer/processor and U.S. importer questionnaires. 
 10 Information on ports of entry was not included in the record of the first reviews. 

 11 Between January 1994 and March 1997, of all CTL plate imports from China, 27.0 percent entered through

Houston, TX and 24.6 percent entered through New Orleans, LA. Similarly, of all subject imports from Ukraine,

49.7 percent entered through Houston, TX and 27.0 percent entered through New Orleans, LA. Imports from Russia

entered predominantly through New Orleans, LA, 47.7 percent, and secondarily through Houston, TX, 26.1 percent. 

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

USITC Publication 3076, December 1997, table IV-2.

IV-12

Geographic Markets

As noted previously, CTL plate produced in the United States is shipped nationwide. Information

summarizing ports of entry of CTL plate imported from the subject countries in 2008 is presented in table

IV-8. Additional information on geographic markets may be found in Part II of this report. 

During the period 2003 through 2008 imports from China entered the United States

predominantly through the three ports listed in table IV-8. The share of shipments from China that

entered through each of the three ports was relatively close and totaled 67.7 percent of all such imports. 

In contrast, imports from Russia and Ukraine entered the United States overwhelmingly through HoustonGalveston, TX, which accounted for 63.8 percent of imports from Russia and 61.1 percent of imports

from Ukraine. At the time of the original investigations,10 specifically between January 1994 and March

1997, subject imports from all sources shared the same two largest ports; Houston, TX and New Orleans,

LA, although only imports from China were also entering through Los Angeles, CA, the fourth largest

port of entry for such imports.11

Table IV-8

CTL plate: U.S. imports from subject countries, by Customs district, 2003-08

Source Leading districts 

Largest Second largest Third largest

China Los Angeles, CA Houston-Galveston, TX New Orleans, LA

Russia Houston-Galveston, TX New Orleans, LA Philadelphia, PA

Ukraine Houston-Galveston, TX New Orleans, LA Philadelphia, PA

Source: Compiled from official statistics of Commerce for HTS numbers 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030,

7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000,

7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000.

Presence in the Market

Table IV-9 presents data on the monthly entries of U.S. imports of CTL plate, by source, during

2003-08, and January-June 2009. CTL plate produced in China, Russia, and Ukraine was generally

present in most months during 2006-08. Imports from China have been present in every month during the

first half of 2009 while imports from Russia and Ukraine entered the United States at the beginning of the

year only. Imports from all other sources combined were present throughout the period.
 12 ***. *** recognized this discrepancy in its data, noting that ***. Domestic interested parties, ArcelorMittal’s

and Nucor’s joint prehearing brief, exh. 2, citing an ***. 

 13 ***, domestic interested parties, ArcelorMittal’s and Nucor’s, joint prehearing brief, exh. 1a. The domestic

interested parties submit that this report should be used as the best estimate of Chinese CTL plate capacity because

its coverage is superior to *** coverage for this measure. Domestic interested party, ArcelorMittal’s, posthearing

brief, p. 41, domestic interested parties, Evraz Claymont, Evraz Inc, and SSAB’s, posthearing report, p. 13, and

domestic interested party, Nucor’s posthearing brief, pp. 19-20. 

 14 The *** data includes 2008 reversing mill capacity figures for Russian producers, Magnitogorsk (*** short

tons), and Severstal (*** short tons) that are smaller than the CTL plate capacity reported in questionnaire responses

by Magnitogorsk (*** short tons) and Severstal (*** short tons). ***, and Magnitogorsk’s and Severstal’s foreign

producer questionnaire responses, section II-16c. 

IV-13

Table IV-9

CTL plate: U.S. imports, monthly entries into the United States, by sources, 2003-08, January-June

2009

Source

Calendar year Jan.-June

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

China 6 11 12 12 12 12 6

Russia 5 4 4 11 8 11 1

Ukraine 4 6 8 10 9 12 2

All others 12 12 12 12 12 12 6

Source: Compiled from official statistics of Commerce for HTS numbers 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030,

7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000,

7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000. 

THE SUBJECT FOREIGN INDUSTRIES

Actual and Anticipated Changes in Capacity

Information on the production capacity for CTL plate in China, Russia, and Ukraine is presented

in table IV-10. As shown in the table, China has the largest CTL plate capacity of the three subject

countries. However, China’s 2007 capacity of *** short tons is understated compared to published

reversing mill production of *** short tons in 2007.12 A *** lists China’s 2008 reversing mill plate

capacity as *** short tons and plate in coil capacity as *** short tons.13 In addition, the capacity

information for Russia may be understated, particularly for Magnitogorsk.14

Table IV-10

CTL plate: Production capacity in China, Russia, and Ukraine, 2007

* * * * * * *

Since 2007, CTL plate producers in China and Russia have added capacity. Available

information on plate production in China indicates that multiple Chinese reversing mills have made recent

changes to their plate capacity, with more changes expected in 2010, as shown in table IV-11. 
 15 *** included as exh. 1A to domestic interested parties, ArcelorMittal’s and Nucor’s, joint prehearing brief, p.

56, exh. 1A. 

 16 ***.

 17 Wuyang Iron & Steel to lift plate capacity up to 39%, American Metal Markets, September 4, 2008, found at

http://www.amm.com/2008-09-04_16-58-16.html, retrieved July 1, 2009. ***. 

 18 Two Chinese steelmakers geared for plate mill start, American Metal Markets, January 20, 2009, found at

http://www.amm.com/2009-01-20_16-28-47.html, retrieved July 1, 2009.

 19 ***. 

 20 Severstal’s foreign producer/exporter questionnaire response, section II-2. 

 21 Magnitogorsk’s foreign producer/exporter questionnaire response, section II-3. 

 22 ***, included as exh. 1c in domestic interested parties, ArcelorMittal’s and Nucor’s, joint prehearing brief. 

 23 ***, included as exh. 1c in domestic interested parties, ArcelorMittal’s and Nucor’s, joint prehearing brief. 

IV-14

Table IV-11

CTL plate: Recent and proposed changes in China’s potential plate mill capacity, 2008-10

* * * * * * *

Another source, *** completed a Chinese capacity study that concluded that China will add over

*** short tons of reversing mill plate capacity in 2009 and *** short tons in 2010.15 However, *** notes

that producers in China are expected to revise expansion plans in light of current economic conditions. 

As a result, the supply of plate within the region (East and South East Asia) is also expected to grow more

slowly than before the economic downturn.16

***. Wuyang provided a questionnaire response during the first review of the current

antidumping duty order covering imports from China. Wuyang plans to raise its plate-rolling capacity by

as much as 39 percent to 3.2 million tons a year by 2010 through upgrades. The plate rolling mill

upgrade, to 5,000 mm from 4,200 mm, will boost capacity for heavy plate to between 1.8 million and 2.2

million tons a year from more than 1.3 million tons currently.17 Laiwu, China’s 10th largest steelmaker,

is preparing to commission a new plate mill. The company successfully tested its new 1.8 million tonsper-year heavy and wide plate mill in January, according to a government web site.18 In addition, ***

reports that ***. Also, ***.19

The CTL plate operations of Russian producers *** since the first reviews. Severstal reported

that it *** of capacity in 2008.20 Magnitogorsk ***.21 In 2009 Russian producer *** is expected to ***. 

This project will include ***.22 Finally, as of September 2008, it was reported that Russian producer ***

was planning to ***.23

Table IV-12 presents information on global steel plate production, not limited to CTL plate,

published by World Steel Dynamics. Data are available through 2007 only and data for that year are

estimates. As shown in the table, production in each of the subject countries increased from 2003-07. 

China experienced the largest growth in production, 184.3 percent. 
IV-15

Table IV-12

Plate: Subject countries’ plate production, 2003-07

Country

2003 2004 2005 2006 20071

Production (short tons)

China2

 Heavy2 26,619,000 30,766,000 35,110,000 42,618,000 54,465,000

 Medium2 16,566,000 26,753,000 40,862,000 50,053,000 68,321,000

 Total2 43,185,000 57,519,000 75,972,000 92,671,000 122,786,000

Russia

 Heavy 6,172,900 6,580,700 6,635,800 7,098,800 7,231,100

 Medium - - - - -

 Total 6,172,900 6,580,700 6,635,800 7,098,800 7,231,100

Ukraine

 Heavy 4,188,700 5,070,600 5,059,600 5,346,200 5,588,700

 Medium - - - - -

 Total 4,188,700 5,070,600 5,059,600 5,346,200 5,588,700

 All subject sources

 Heavy 36,980,600 42,417,300 46,805,400 55,063,000 67,284,800

 Medium 16,566,000 26,753,000 40,862,000 50,053,000 68,321,000

 Total 53,546,600 69,170,300 87,667,400 105,116,000 135,605,800

 1 Data for 2007 are estimates. 

 2

 Chinese production of “heavy” plate is believed to represent reversing mill plate production, while “medium” plate is believed

to represent strip mill products in plate gauges. 

Note.–2007 is the latest year available for data from all countries.

Note.–Original data were published in metric tons which are converted to short tons using a conversion factor of 1.1023.

Source: Global Steel Mill Product Matrix, Core Report-F, World Steel Dynamics, March 2009, 3-152-155, and 3-180-181.

Table IV-13 presents information on steel plate production in China, Russia, and Ukraine

published by ***. Data for 2007 and 2008 are estimates. As shown in the table, production in the subject

countries ***.

Table IV-13

Reversing mill plate: Subject countries’ plate production, 2003-08

* * * * * * *
 24 ***.

 25 ***. 

 26 China Steel output to grow despite falling demand, The Age, August 2, 2009, found at

http://www.news.theage.au/breaking-news-world/china-steel-output-to-grow-despite-falling.html, retrieved August

4, 2009. 

 27 ***. 

 28 ***. 

 29 Domestic interested party, U.S. Steel’s, posthearing brief, exh. 3 citing China removes most steel export taxes

from 1 December, Steel Business Briefing, November 14, 2008, found at Dow Jones Factiva. 

 30 Domestic interested party, U.S. Steel’s, posthearing brief, exh. 4 citing China abolishes steel export licensing

system, Steel Business Briefing, January 6, 2009, found at Dow Jones Factiva . 

 31 Domestic interested party, U.S. Steel’s, posthearing brief, exh. 5 citing China net steel imports climb as exports

continue to fall, Steel Business Briefing, June 12, 2009, found at Dow Jones Factiva. 

 32 Severstal explained that “In today’s Russia, tight domestic supply, coupled with the continued growth of

domestic consumption, has resulted in a shortage of steel within Russia, as shown by rising imports.” Severstal’s

response to the Commission’s notice of institution, September 22, 2008, p. 18. 

 33 ***. Severstal’s response to the Commission’s notice of institution, September 22, 2008, exh. 9 ***. 

IV-16

China’s production of steel plate increased steadily with the largest gain in ***. China is

expected to produce *** percent less plate in 2009 than in 2008. According to ***. *** explains that

***.”24

Table IV-14 presents information on reversing mill steel plate consumption in China, Russia, and

Ukraine. Data for 2007 and 2008 are estimates. Reversing mill data does not account for CTL plate cut

from coiled plate. 

Table IV-14

Reversing mill plate: Subject countries’ plate consumption, 2003-08

* * * * * * *

As shown in table IV-14, consumption of steel plate in China *** while consumption in Russia

and Ukraine ***. China’s consumption of steel plate *** with the ***. *** forecasts that ***.25 The

World Steel Association reached a similar conclusion and forecasts that China’s steel demand is likely to

fall five percent in 2009.26 According to ***.27 However, the report noted that ***.28

Exports, Imports, and Net Trade Balance

Data concerning net trade balance reported for each subject country is presented in table IV-15. 

These data show that, on an aggregate basis, the three subject countries were net exporters during

2003-07. Ukraine was the largest subject country exporter during 2003-05 and China was the largest

subject country exporter during 2006-07. Ukraine was a substantial net exporter during each year of the

period. China began the period as a net importer but by 2006 was the largest subject exporter. 

The Government of China has taken steps recently to boost steel exports, including plate. These

measures include the removal of export taxes effective December 1, 2008,29 the abolition of the steel

export licensing system covering plate, effective January 1, 2009,30 and the imposition of nine percent

export rebates on exports of plate, effective June 9, 2009.31 Russia began the period as a net exporter but

by 2006 had become a net importer.32 According to a recent *** report ***.33
 34 Domestic interested parties’ response to the notice of institution, September 22, 2008, p. 14 citing the World

Trade Organization, G/ADP/N/119/AUS, found at http://www.wto.org. Australian Customs Dumping Notice No.

2004/12, Certain Hot Rolled Steel Plate Exported to Australia From China, Indonesia, Japan, and The Republic of

(continued...)

IV-17

Table IV-15

CTL plate: Subject country exports, imports, and net trade balances, 2003-07

Source

Calendar year

2003 2004 2005 2006 20071

Export quantity (short tons)

China 1,240,100 1,814,400 2,030,400 5,639,400 10,330,000

Russia 1,717,400 1,470,500 1,358,000 1,261,000 1,530,000

Ukraine 3,766,600 4,630,800 4,930,600 4,393,800 4,673,800

Total subject 6,724,100 7,915,700 8,319,000 11,294,200 16,533,800

Import quantity (short tons)

China 3,212,100 2,196,900 1,237,900 1,216,900 1,456,100

Russia 815,700 837,750 763,890 1,310,600 1,621,500

Ukraine 24,251 30,864 54,013 145,500 375,880

Total subject 4,052,051 3,065,514 2,055,803 2,673,000 3,453,480

Trade balance (short tons)

China (1,972,000) (382,500) 792,500 4,422,500 8,873,900

Russia 901,700 632,750 594,110 (49,600) (91,500)

Ukraine 3,742,349 4,599,936 4,876,587 4,248,300 4,297,920

Total subject 2,672,049 4,850,186 6,263,197 8,621,200 13,080,320

 1 Data for 2007 are estimates. 

Note.–2007 is the latest year available for data from all countries.

Source: Global Steel Mill Product Matrix, Core Report-F, World Steel Dynamics, March 2009, pp. 3-152-155, and 3-180-181.

Tariff or Non-Tariff Barriers to Trade

The Commission asked producers of CTL plate in the subject countries to identify tariff or nontariff barriers to trade (for example, antidumping or countervailing duty findings or remedies, tariffs,

quotas, or regulatory barriers) concerning their exports of CTL plate to countries other than the United

States. The Commission also asked the subject foreign producers to identify ongoing investigations in

countries other than the United States that could result in tariff or non-tariff barriers to trade for their

exports of CTL plate. All responding producers reported barriers to trade. 

In their response to the Commission’s notice of institution, the domestic interested parties

described barriers to the importation of CTL plate from China in other countries. They stated that Canada

has an antidumping duty order on such goods and that in 2003 Australia imposed duties on hot-rolled

steel plate from China.34
 34 (...continued)

Korea, April 1, 2004, found at http://www.customs.gov.au/webdata/resources/notices/acdn04112.pdf, retrieved

September 30, 2009. Notice, Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Plate, Canada Border Services Agency, April 10, 2008, found

at http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/sima-Imsi/ri-re/ad1139-1304/ad1130-1304-notice–avis–eng.pdf, retrieved October 1,

2009. 

 35 Severstal’s foreign producer/exporter questionnaire response, section II-12. 

 36 Severstal’s response to the Commission’s notice of institution, September 22, 2008, p. 20. 

 37 Severstal’s foreign producer/exporter questionnaire response, section II-12a. 

 38 Severstal did not identify these countries. Severstal’s response to the Commission’s notice of institution,

September 22, 2008, pp. 14-15. 

 39 Canadian International Trade Tribunal Issues Orders, Hot-rolled carbon steel plate from China, South Africa,

and Russia, January 9, 2008, found at http://www.citt-tcce.gc.ca/press/rr2h001_e.asp, retrieved August 11, 2009. 

 40 Magnitogorsk’s foreign producer/exporter questionnaire response, section II-12. 

 41 Ibid. 

 42 The domestic interested parties have stated that to the best of their knowledge, import restrictions on subject

exports from Ukraine are still in effect in Russia, the Czech Republic, Turkey, and Hungary. Domestic interested

parties’ response to the notice of institution, September 22, 2008, p. 14. 

 43 Azovstal’s foreign producer/exporter questionnaire response, section II-12a. 

 44 Ibid., section II-12b. 

 45 The scope of the Canadian investigation is: hot-rolled carbon steel plate and high-strength low-alloy steel plate

not further manufactured than hot-rolled, heat-treated or not, in cut lengths in widths from 24 inches (610 mm) to

152 inches (3,860 mm) inclusive and in thicknesses from 0.187 inch (4.75 mm) up to and including 3.0 inches (76.0

mm) inclusive; excluding universal mill plate, plate for use in the manufacture of pipe and plate having a rolled,

raised figure at intervals on the surface (known as floor plate). Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Plate and High-Strength

Low-Alloy Steel Plate, Preliminary Injury Inquiry No. PL-2009-002, Notice of Commencement of Preliminary Injury

Inquiry, Canadian International Trade Tribunal, July 6, 2009. 

 46 Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Plate and High-Strength Low-Alloy Steel Plate, Preliminary Injury Inquiry No. PL2009-002, Determination, Canadian International Trade Tribunal, September 4, 2009. 

 47 Turkey raises strip product import taxes to 13-15%, Metal Bulletin, January 5, 2009, found at

http://www.metalbulletin.com//PrintArticle.aspx?ArticleID=2076870, retrieved July 1, 2009. 

IV-18

Russian producer, Severstal, reported that ***. According to Severstal, ***. Severstal’s ***. In 

addition, ***.35 There has been ***.36 The ***.37 In addition, there are ***. According to Severstal,

***.38 Most recently, in 2008, Canada terminated an antidumping duty order on hot-rolled carbon steel

plate.39

Russian producer, Magnitogorsk, reported that ***.40 According to Magnitogorsk, ***.41

In response to the Commission’s questionnaire, Ukrainian producer, Azovstal, reported that

***.42 Its exports of ***. Its exports of ***. Azovstal’s ***. Finally, ***.43 Most recently, ***.44 

Since the questionnaires were issued, Canada initiated a preliminary antidumping investigation

concerning hot-rolled carbon steel plate and high-strength low-alloy steel plate45 from Ukraine. The

Canadian International Trade Tribunal made an affirmative determination on September 4, 2009.46

According to news reports, Turkey recently increased import taxes on certain steel products from

Russia, Ukraine, and China. The import duty on hot-rolled wide strip and plate was increased from 5

percent to 13 percent while the import duty on cold-rolled plate and sheet was increased from 6 percent to

14 percent.47
 48 Anshan; Anyang Iron & Steel (Group) Co., Ltd.; Baoshan; Chongqing Iron & Steel Co.; Jinan Iron & Steel

Group Corp.; Kunming Iron & Steel Corp.; Nanjing Iron & Steel Works; Shanghai Pudong Iron & Steel (Group)

Co., Ltd.; Shaoguan Iron & Steel Corp., Ltd.; Taiyun Iron & Steel Co.; Tianjin Tiandun Co., Ltd.; and Wuhan Iron

& Steel Co. Certain Carbon Steel Plate From China, Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-753-756

(Final), USITC Publication 3076, December 1997, p. VII-1. 

 49 Anshan; Baoshan; Shanghai Sangang Steel Co., Ltd.; Wuhan Iron & Steel Co.; and Wuyang. Cut-to-Length

Carbon Steel Plate from China, Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-753-756 (Review), USITC

Publication 3626, September 2003, p. IV-4. 

 50 Angang New Steel Co., Ltd; Anshan; Baoshan; Beijing Shougang Xingang Co., Ltd.; Chongqing Iron & Steel

Co.; Hunan Valin Xiangtan Iron & Steel Co., Ltd.; Jinan Iron & Steel Group; Nanjing Iron & Steel Group Co.;

Shanghai Pudong Iron & Steel Co. Group; Taiyuan Iron & Steel (Group) Co., Ltd.; Wuhan Iron & Steel Co.;

Wuyang. Domestic interested parties’ response to the Commission’s notice of institution, September 22, 2008, exh.

VII. ***. 

 51 McDonald, Joe, China tightening control over steel industry, Breitbart.com, found at

http://www.breitbart.com/print.php?id=cp_h4i0610s5&show_article=1, retrieved July 27, 2009.

 52 Ibid.

 53 Tianjin plans 23m-ton steel group, China Daily online, found at

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2009-04/13/content_7672029.htm, retrieved July 14, 2009.

 54 China Steel output to grow despite falling demand, The Age, August 2, 2009, found at

http://www.news.theage.au/breaking-news-world/china-steel-output-to-grow-despite-falling.html, retrieved August

4, 2009. 

IV-19

THE INDUSTRY IN CHINA

Overview

Twelve firms, accounting for approximately two-thirds of Chinese CTL plate production and

about 90 percent of such exports to the United States, provided data in response to the Commission’s

questionnaire in the original investigations.48 Five firms, accounting for 93 percent of U.S. CTL plate

imports from China during 2002, provided data in response to the Commission’s questionnaire in the first

reviews.49 In the current reviews, no responses to the Commission’s questionnaire were received from

producers of CTL plate in China. As a result, the data in this section of the report are based on

information collected in the original investigations, the first reviews, and published information. 

The general structure of the CTL plate industry in China, in terms of leading producers, has not

changed dramatically since the original investigations. The domestic interested parties identified 12 firms

in their response to the notice of institution and all but two of those firms had been previously identified

as CTL plate producers.50

There is a trend toward consolidation of steel producers underway in China. The Government of

China is reportedly trying to streamline its numerous mills by arranging mergers among state-owned

producers and shutting down small, private mills.51 To this end, a merger of two state-owned mills in

2008 created the world’s fifth-largest steelmaker by output, Hebei Iron and Steel Group, which replaced

Baosteel Group as China’s biggest producer.52 In addition, China’s northern city of Tianjin plans to

merge its four state-owned steel mills into a group with annual capacity of about 23 million tons.53 In

May, the Government of China allegedly called on banks to curb loans to steel makers to persuade them

to reduce production and to cut off loans to mills with outdated technology.54

Table IV-16 presents comparative information available from the original investigations and first

reviews.
 55 ***.

 56 ***, domestic interested parties, ArcelorMittal’s and Nucor’s, joint prehearing brief, exh. 1a. 

 57 China steel mart set for oversupply in '09, American Metal Markets, February 20, 2009, found at

http://www.amm.com/2009-02-20_19-11-24.html, retrieved July 1, 2009.

 58 Severstal’s response to the Commission’s notice of institution, September 22, 2008, p. 13. 

 59 Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-753-756 (Review), Final Staff Report, INV-AA-108, July

31, 2003, p. IV-5. 

 60 Lian, Ruby, China’s plate exporters bow out of market, American Metal Markets, February 26, 2009, found at

http://www.amm.com/2009-02-26_00-49-00.html, retrieved February 26, 2009.

IV-20

Table IV-16

CTL plate: Comparison of select Chinese industry data, 1996, and 2002

Item 1996 2002

Capacity (short tons) *** 4,845,428

Production (short tons) *** 4,273,556

Capacity utilization (percent) *** 88.2

Exports/shipments (percent) *** ***

Inventories/shipments (percent) *** ***

Note.- - Data for 1996 were provided by Anshan; Anyang Iron & Steel (Group) Co., Ltd.; Baoshan; Chongqing Iron & Steel Co.;

Jinan Iron & Steel Group Corp.; Kunming Iron & Steel Corp.; Nanjing Iron & Steel Works; Shanghai Pudong Iron & Steel (Group)

Co., Ltd.; Shaoguan Iron & Steel Corp. Ltd; Taiyun Iron & Steel Co.; Tianjin Tiandun Co., Ltd; and Wuhan Iron & Steel Co.; data

for 2002 were provided by Anshan; Baoshan; Shanghai Sangang Steel Co., Ltd.; Wuhan Iron & Steel Co.; and Wuyang.

Source: Certain Carbon Steel Plate From China, Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-753-756 (Final), USITC

Publication 3076, December 1997, p. VII-1, table VII-1, and Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from China, Russia, South Africa,

and Ukraine, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-753-756 (Review), USITC Publication 3626, September 2003, tables IV-3 and IV-4. 

CTL Plate Operations

Based on information provided during the first reviews, CTL plate accounted for between ***

and *** percent of total sales for reporting Chinese mills in their most recent fiscal years at that time. 

Several mills reported producing plate products “other than CTL plate” on the same equipment used to

produce CTL plate, including alloy, low-alloy, shipbuilding, high-grade structural, and pressure vessel

plate. 

As of 2007, published available capacity of mills in China was *** short tons at *** reversing

plate mills, and *** short tons at a ***.55 A *** provides higher figures for China’s capacity. It lists

China’s 2008 reversing mill plate capacity as *** short tons and plate in coil capacity as *** short tons

per year.56 The vice chairman of the China Iron & Steel Association has stated that “China’s domestic

steel industry will suffer from serious overcapacity this year.”57 In its response to the Commission’s

notice of institution, Severstal argued that shortages of some raw materials, especially coking coal, are

constraining the production of crude steel, especially in China.58

At the time of the first reviews, the primary Chinese CTL plate export markets were ***.59 Korea

has traditionally been the top buyer of Chinese plate according to American Metal Markets but demand

there has “collapsed with the country hit hard by the global economy crisis.”60 The Chinese government

eliminated export duties on plate starting December 1, 2008. The government reportedly made the
 61 China confirms hot coil, plate duties nixed, American Metal Markets, November 14, 2008, found at

http://www.amm.com/2008-11-14_15-29-15.html, retrieved July 1, 2009.

 62 ***.

 63 Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from China, Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-753-756

(Review), USITC Publication 3626, September 2003, table IV-4.

 64 ***. 

 65 Ibid. 

 66 Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-753-756 (Final), Final Staff Report, INV-U-081,

November 14, 1997, p. IV-5. 

 67 Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-753-756 (Review), Final Staff Report, INV-AA-108, July

31, 2003, p. IV-11. 

 68 JSC Orsk-Khalilovsk Iron & Steel Works, Magnitogorsk, Novolipetsk, and Severstal. Domestic interested

parties’ response to the notice of institution, September 22, 2008, exh. VII. 

 69 Severstal’s response to the Commission’s notice of institution, September 22, 2008, p. 11. 

 70 Evraz Claymont’s, Evraz Inc.’s, and SSAB’s joint response to the Commission’s notice of institution,

September 22, 2008, exh. VII. 

 71 Ibid. p. 12. 

IV-21

change to help boost the Chinese steel industry during a severe slowdown in its economy.61 *** forecasts

***.62

Responding Chinese producers in the first reviews projected that their capacity would increase by

520,769 short tons in 2003 while their production would decline by 270,516 short tons. Forecasts for

2004 were that capacity and production would increase by 7,702 short tons and 63,162 short tons,

respectively.63 Published information indicates that China’s production of steel plate (manufactured on

reversing mills) increased in 2003 by *** percent (*** short tons) and in 2004 by ***percent (*** short

tons).64 This trend in production continued until *** when China experienced a *** percent decrease in

production. However, *** forecasts that China’s production will ***.65 

 

THE INDUSTRY IN RUSSIA 

Overview

Four firms, accounting for *** percent of Russian production of CTL plate, provided data in

response to the Commission’s questionnaire in the original investigations: Severstal, Nosta, Novolipetsk

Iron & Steel Co. (“Novolipetsk”), and Magnitogorsk.66 Three firms, accounting for *** percent of

imports during 2002, provided data in response to the Commission’s questionnaire in the first reviews: 

Severstal, Nosta, and Magnitogorsk.67

The structure of the CTL plate industry in Russia has changed little since the original suspension

agreement, with four firms identified in the response to the institution notice by domestic interested

parties.68 In its response to the Commission’s notice of institution, Severstal identified seven Russian

CTL plate producers in addition to itself: Magnitogorsk, JSC NTMK (Evraz), Nosta, Novolipetsk, JSC

Mechel (“Mechel”), JSC Volgograd Steel Works (“Volgograd”), and Asha Iron & Steel Works.69 In their

response to the Commission’s notice of institution, the domestic interested parties identified an additional

Russian CTL plate producer, JSC Orsk-Khalilovsk Iron & Steel Works.70

Severstal estimates that total Russian production of CTL plate (including plate used internally for

downstream products) is *** short tons.71 Severstal estimates that in 2008 it accounted for *** percent of

total production of CTL plate in Russia and *** percent of total exports to the United States of CTL plate
 72 Severstal’s foreign producer/exporter questionnaire response, section II-16c. In its response to the

Commission’s notice of institution it estimated that it accounted for *** percent of total production of CTL plate in

Russia, based on a total Russian production figure of *** short tons and Severstal’s production of *** short tons. 

Severstal’s response to the Commission’s notice of institution, September 22, 2008, p. 12.

 73 Magnitogorsk’s foreign producer/exporter questionnaire response, section II-16c. In its response to the notice

of institution it estimated that its share of the production output of steel products sold domestically was about

*** percent. Magnitogorsk’s response to the Commission’s notice of institution, September 22, 2008, p. 3.

 74 Magnitogorsk’s foreign producer/exporter questionnaire response, section II-16c. 

 75 Magnitogorsk’s response to the Commission’s notice of institution, September 22, 2008, p. 3. 

 76 Heavy plate producer Dansteel freezes expansion plans, American Metal Markets, February 9, 2009, found at

http://www.amm.com/2009-02-09_06-56-00.html, retrieved July 1, 2009.

 77 NLMK restarts No. 5 furnace after 5 months, American Metals Markets, May 8, 2009, found at

http://www.amm.com/2009-05-08_14-28-32.html, retrieved May 28, 2009.

 78 Severstal’s response to the Commission’s notice of institution, September 22, 2008, exh. 11 (Steel Business

Briefing, Issue 23, October 12, 2006, page 6).

IV-22

from Russia.72 Magnitogorsk estimates that it accounted for *** percent of total production of CTL plate

in Russia in 2008.73 Magnitogorsk estimates that it accounted for *** percent of total exports to the

United States of CTL plate from Russia in 2008.74 Furthermore, the company reportedly had ***.75

Non-responding producer, Novolipetsk owns Danish heavy plate producer Dansteel, and supplies

Dansteel with the mill’s slab feed. Dansteel has a 550,000 tons per year capacity and as of February 2009

was operating at 70 percent capacity utilization.76 In February of this year Novolipetsk restarted its 1.7

million-tons-per-year number 4 blast furnace at its mill in Lipetsk, Russia. The furnace had been idled in

November 2008 for maintenance.77

Urals Steel, formerly known as Nosta, which did not provide a questionnaire, belongs to

Metalloinvest and as of 2006 had plans to add a 1.2 million tons per year, 5m-wide plate mill, a 600,000

tons per year large diameter pipe mill, and a new blast oxygen furnace shop by 2009, according to a 2006

Steel Business Briefing report. The same report indicated that Russian producer NLMK had plans to add

a 5m-wide plate mill by 2011.78

Responses to the Commission’s questionnaire were received from two producers. Accordingly,

the data presented on Russian production of CTL plate for the current reviews are for Severstal and

Magnitogorsk, which combined represent approximately *** percent of total CTL plate production in

Russia. Table IV-17 presents comparative information available from the original investigations, first

reviews, and these reviews. 
 79 Certain Carbon Steel Plate From China, Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-753-756 (Final),

Final Staff Report, INV-U-081, November 1997, p. IV-4; Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-753-

756 (Review), Final Staff Report, INV-AA-108, July 31, 2003, p. IV-11; *** foreign producer/exporter questionnaire

responses. 

 80 Severstal’s response to the Commission’s notice of institution, September 22, 2008, p. 19. 

 81 *** foreign producer/exporter questionnaire responses, section II-16c.

 82 *** foreign producer/exporter questionnaire responses, section II-16c.

IV-23

Table IV-17

CTL plate: Comparison of select Russian industry data, 1996, 2002, and 2008

Item 1996 2002 2008

Capacity (short tons) *** 4,261,392 ***

Production (short tons) *** 2,293,373 ***

Capacity utilization (percent) *** 53.8 ***

Exports/shipments (percent) *** *** ***

Inventories/shipments (percent) *** *** ***

Note.--Data for 1996 were provided by Severstal, Nosta, Magnitogorsk, and Novolipetsk; data for 2002 were provided by JSC

Severstal; JSC Nosta; and JSC Magnitogorsk Iron and Steel Works; data for 2008 were provided by Severstal and

Magnitogorsk. 

Source: Certain Carbon Steel Plate From China, Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-753-756 (Final), Final

Staff Report, INV-U-081, November 1997, table VII-2; Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-753-756 (Review),

Final Staff Report, INV-AA-108, July 31, 2003, table IV-6; and foreign producer/exporter questionnaire responses. 

CTL plate represented *** percent of Severstal’s total sales during the original investigations,

*** percent during the first reviews, and *** percent in the most recent fiscal year. Magnitogorsk’s CTL

plate sales were *** percent of its total sales during the original investigations, *** percent of its total

sales during the first reviews, and *** percent in the most recent fiscal year.79 80

CTL Plate Operations

Data provided by Severstal and Magnitogorsk concerning their CTL plate operations in Russia

during calendar years 2003-08, January-June 2008, and January-June 2009 are presented in table IV-18. 

Table IV-18

CTL plate: Data for producers in Russia, 2003-08, January-June 2008, and January-June 2009

 * * * * * * *

The combined capacity to produce CTL plate in Russia fluctuated, but increased overall from

2003 to 2008. The CTL plate producers in Russia reported *** during 2003-08. The variations in

Russia’s reported capacity were the result of *** for Severstal and the *** by Magnitogorsk.81

Severstal’s capacity fluctuated from a high of *** tons in *** to a low of *** tons in ***. 

Magnitogorsk's capacity fluctuated between a high of *** tons in *** to a low of *** tons in ***.82
 83 Ibid. 

 84 Severstal’s response to the Commission’s notice of institution, September 22, 2008, p. 4. 

 85 *** foreign producer/exporter questionnaire response, section II-16c.

 86 Severstal’s response to the Commission’s notice of institution, September 22, 2008, p. 16. 

 87 Severstal’s foreign producer/exporter questionnaire response, section II-7. 

 88 Magnitogorsk’s foreign producer/exporter questionnaire response, section II-7. 

 89 Magnitogorsk’s and Severstal’s foreign producer/exporter questionnaire responses, section II-8. 

 90 Severstal’s foreign producer/exporter questionnaire response, section II-16a. 

 91 Magnitogorsk’s foreign producer/exporter questionnaire response, section II-8. 

 92 Severstal’s foreign producer/exporter questionnaire response, section II-2. 

 93 Severstal’s foreign producer/exporter questionnaire response, section II-3. 

 94 Magnitogorsk’s foreign producer/exporter questionnaire response, section II-2. 

 95 Magnitogorsk’s foreign producer/exporter questionnaire response, section II-3. 

 96 Magnitogorsk has reportedly already signed for two separate credit facilities from state-backed Sberbank worth

a total of $430 million to ensure the mill’s completion. It now hopes to secure a $110 billion general purpose credit

facility from the same bank to help pay various raw materials costs and other debts. MMK looking for third

Sberbank loan, American Metal Markets, February 25, 2009, found at http://www.amm.com/2009-02-25_05-50-

00.html, retrieved February 26, 2009.

 97 Magnitogorsk’s foreign producer/exporter questionnaire response, section II-3. This ***. According to

Magnitogorsk, these are all ***. These steel products are reportedly ***. Magnitogorsk reported that ***. Instead,

the company ***. Magnitogorsk stresses that its ***, with over *** percent of Magnitogorsk’s CTL plate being

shipped to ***. In addition, Magnitogorsk exports CTL plate to ***. Magnitogorsk’s response to the

Commission’s notice of institution, September 22, 2008, pp. 3-4. 

IV-24

Severstal and Magnitogorsk reported their CTL plate capacity based on operating *** hours per

week, *** weeks per year.83 The combined capacity utilization rates remained *** percent during the

period for which data were collected but *** individual capacity utilization rate was much higher. In its

response to the Commission’s notice of institution, Severstal explained that it is operating close to ***

percent capacity and is ***. It suggested that the other Russian CTL plate producers are in a similar

situation.84 However, the capacity utilization of Magnitogorsk *** during the period for which data were

collected.85 Severstal reports that the Russian mills have orders in the domestic and export markets in

excess of their capacities.86

In response to a Commission question on capacity constraints, Severstal reported ***.87

Magnitogorsk reported ***.88

Severstal and Magnitogorsk produce ***. Severstal *** but explained that ***.89 From 2003

through 2008, Severstal produced ***. In each year, Severstal’s production of ***. Its production of

***.90

Magnitogorsk ***. According to Magnitogorsk, ***.91 Between 2003 and 2008, the vast

majority of Magnitogorsk’s production was dedicated to *** while ***. From 2003 until 2005,

production of *** was largest, but then from 2006 until 2008, production of *** exceeded production of

***.

Severstal reported the following changes to the character of its operations since 2003:

***.92 The company indicated that it ***.93

Magnitogorsk indicated that it ***,94 but that it ***.95 According to Magnitogorsk, it has pursued

a production policy of ***. To this end, Magnitogorsk has ***. It considers its ***. In ***

Magnitogorsk ***.96 The 2009 capacity of the ***. The ***.97
 98 Magnitogorsk’s and Severstal’s foreign producer/exporter questionnaire responses, section I-4. 

 99 Ibid., section I-5. 

 100 Ibid., section II-10. 

 101 Ibid., section II-11. 

 102 After the late 1990s Severstal reportedly turned from export oriented production to its domestic market

customers and has positioned itself to take advantage of increased steel demand in Russia. It has focused its longterm strategy on high-margin value-added and niche products. Its domestic strategy is focused on the segmentation

of Severstal’s customers by reference to steel consuming industries. According to Severstal, industry sectors of

strategic importance in the Russian domestic market include pipe manufacturing, the automotive industry, metal

ware, the fuel and energy industry, heavy machinery, shipbuilding, and white goods manufacturing. The company

explains that while some of these industries (e.g. white goods) do not use significant amounts of plate, they are

lucrative. Severstal points out that its hot-rolled capacity is used for value-added products used in these markets. 

Severstal’s response to the Commission’s notice of institution, September 22, 2008, p. 16. 

 103 Severstal’s response to the Commission’s notice of institution, September 22, 2008, p. 12. 

 104 Ibid., p. 23. 

 105 Nord Stream waits for Swedish decision on environment, Business, March 10, 2009, included as exh. 19 in

domestic interested parties, Evraz Claymont’s, Evraz Inc.’s, and SSAB’s, joint prehearing brief. Domestic interested

parties, ArcelorMittal’s and Nucor’s, joint prehearing brief, pp. 80-81. 

 106 Severstal’s response to the Commission’s notice of institution, September 22, 2008, pp. 22-23. Severstal

provided information on Russian pipeline projects and their steel demand through 2012. The information provided is

that the production requirements for 12,060 km of gas pipelines will be 10,666,000 tons and for 19,460 km of oil

pipelines will be 14,406,000 tons. Severstal’s response to the Commission’s notice of institution, September 22,

2008, exh. 9 (“new large pipeline projects in 2007-10’’).

 107 Gazprom says pipeline to China delayed due to pricing, LNGpedia (Reuters), June 17, 2009, included as exh.

11 to domestic interested parties, Evraz Claymont’s, Evraz Inc.’s, and SSAB’s, joint prehearing brief. 

IV-25

The responding Russian producers have ***.98 Severstal and Magnitogorsk both indicated that

neither they nor any related firm ***.99 Since 2003, neither Russian producer has ***.100 In addition,

***.101

Total shipments of CTL plate produced by Russian producers initially decreased after 2003 and

began to increase in 2006 before peaking in 2007. Total shipments in January-June 2009 were *** as

large as total shipments in January-June 2008. The largest change occurred in the category of *** which

experienced a large and steady increase in every full year of the period. Home market shipments

constituted the *** Russian producers' shipments in every year.102

Severstal reports that much of its CTL plate production is dedicated to downstream production

because it has a large diameter pipe mill that uses plate.103 Severstal is the sole supplier of plate to Izhora

pipe mill, Severstal’s subsidiary. The Izhora pipe mill has a long-term agreement with GAZPROM to

supply the “Nord Stream” project.104 Severstal anticipates growth in pipe and tube demand for oil and gas

production projects and has already participated as a supplier of hot-rolled plate to two major projects: 

“Nord Stream” and “Eastern-Siberia-Pacific Ocean.” According to Severstal, Nord Stream will be one of

the longest sub-sea pipelines in the world, a 1200-kilometer long off-shore natural gas pipeline stretching

through the Baltic Sea from Russia to Germany. In the spring of 2009, the Nord Stream project was still

pending approval from Sweden and it must obtain permits from Russia, Finland, Denmark, and

Germany.105 The oil pipeline system, Eastern Siberia-Pacific Ocean is designed to supply Russia and

Asian Pacific markets and is undergoing a feasibility study.106 Russia’s plans to build gas pipelines to

China have been indefinitely delayed due to pricing issues according to Gazprom.107 
 108 Magnitogorsk’s response to the Commission’s notice of institution, September 22, 2008, pp. 3-4. 

 109 Severstal has ***, Severstal’s response to the Commission’s notice of institution, September 22, 2008, p. 20. 

 110 Ibid. ***. 

 111 Severstal’s foreign producer/exporter questionnaire response, section II-16c. 

 112 Severstal’s response to the Commission’s notice of institution, September 22, 2008, pp. 5 and 20. Severstal’s

foreign producer/exporter questionnaire response, section II-13. Severstal reported that it *** and ***. According

to Severstal, CTL plate demand has been very strong in the global market and demand outside of the United States

has increased, particularly in the developing countries of the Middle East, Asia, and South America. Severstal’s

sales to *** are reportedly due to ***. 

 113 Magnitogorsk’s foreign producer/exporter questionnaire response, section II-16c. 

 114 Ibid., section II-13. 

 115 Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-753-756 (Review), Final Staff Report, INV-AA-108, July

31, 2003, p. IV-11. 

 116 Ibid. 

 117 Severstal’s response to the Commission’s notice of institution, September 22, 2008, p. 15. 

IV-26

Magnitogorsk explained that its sales policy in recent years has been to *** and explained that

***.108

Exports increased steadily during the period and reached their peak in ***. At the beginning of

the period, in 2003, *** was the largest market for Russia’s CTL plate exports but exports to this region

then declined steadily in the following ***. In interim 2009, however, Russia’s exports to *** such

exports in interim 2008, consistent with reports that ***.

Severstal’s principal European Union export markets are ***,109 its principal Asian export

markets are ***,110 ***, and *** and its principal other export markets include ***.111 Severstal reports

that it exports to *** and that no single country accounts for a predominant share of its export market.112

Magnitogorsk’s principal European Union export markets are ***, and its principal Asian export

markets are ***, and its principal other export markets include ***.113 Magnitogorsk reported that ***. 

However, since 2003, ***114

During the first reviews, the Russian mills (Severstal, JSC Nosta, and Magnitogorsk) reportedly

***.115 At that time, the responding Russian mills indicated that their primary export markets were ***.116

In the current reviews this list has changed to exclude *** and to include multiple other export destination

countries.

Severstal argues that exports of Russian-origin CTL plate are likely to decrease because of

(1) very high capacity utilization at Russian mills, which is close to *** percent; (2) strong home market

demand that has resulted from stable economic development and the rapid increase in Russia’s Gross

Domestic Product; (3) Russian investment in downstream products (such as pipe); (4) the weak U.S.

dollar exchange ratio; and (5) increased ocean freight rates.117 

Product Mix

Table IV-19 presents data on Russian CTL plate producers' share of shipments by plate thickness

during 2008. In that year, the *** were of plate that was *** in thickness. Plate in thicknesses *** was

the second largest category, and plate that was *** in thickness was ***.
 118 Severstal’s response to the Commission’s notice of institution, September 22, 2008, p. 17. 

 119 Azovstal and Ilyich. Certain Carbon Steel Plate From China, Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine, Inv. Nos.

731-TA-753-756 (Final), USITC Publication 3076, December 1997, p. VII-3. 

 120 Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-753-756 (Review), Final Staff Report, INV-AA-108, July

31, 2003, p. IV-19. 

 121 Azovstal’s and Ilyich’s joint response to the Commission’s notice of institution, September 22, 2008, p. 1. On

August 18, 2009, Ilyich informed the Commission that “given a recent corporate reorganization and associated

difficulties, the Company cannot respond to the Commission’s questionnaires...” Letter from ***, August 18, 2009. 

 122 Domestic interested parties’ response to the Commission’s notice of institution, September 22, 2008, exh. VII;

Azovstal’s and Ilyich’s joint response to the Commission’s notice of institution, September 22, 2008, p. 5. 

IV-27

Table IV-19

CTL plate: Russian producers' shipments, by plate thickness, 2008

* * * * * * *

Table IV-20 presents data on Russian CTL plate producers' share of shipment by plate product

during 2008. The Russian producers reported shipping ***. Their shipments to all markets were *** in

the category of ***.

Table IV-20

CTL plate: Russian producers’ shipments, by market, and by product, 2008

* * * * * * *

Severstal reported that its has continued to increase the share of high value-added products in,

and has added new products to, its existing product range in response to customer demand. In recent

years, the production of pre-painted galvanized material, high strength low alloy steel (“HSLA”),

interstitial free steel (“IF-steel”) for the automotive industry, and a new alloyed steel grade for pipe strips

for oil and gas pipelines (as per API 5L) and many other sophisticated materials have been launched.118

 

THE INDUSTRY IN UKRAINE

Overview

Two firms, accounting for over 75 percent of Ukrainian production of CTL plate and virtually all

exports, provided data in response to the Commission’s questionnaire in the original investigations.119 In

the first reviews the Commission received one response from a firm accounting for *** percent of U.S.

imports of CTL plate from Ukraine during *** and *** imports during ***: Azovstal.120 In response to

the Commission’s notice of institution of these reviews, two Ukrainian producers, Azovstal and Ilyich,

responded and stated that they would participate in the reviews.121 Both the responding Ukrainian

producers and the domestic interested parties identified three CTL plate producers in Ukraine, Azovstal,

Ilyich, and Alchevsk.122 The Commission received one response to its questionnaire in the current

reviews from Azovstal. Table IV-21 presents comparative information available from the original

investigations, the first reviews, and these reviews.

Table IV-21

CTL plate: Comparison of select Ukrainian industry data, 1996, 2002, and 2008

* * * * * * *
 123 Azovstal and Ilyich’s joint letter in response to the Commission’s request for additional information, October

6, 2008, p. 2. 

 124 Slow demand pushes CIS heavy plate offers down $25, MetalBulletin, February 23, 2009, found at

http://www.metalbulletin.com//PrintArticle.aspx?ArticleID=2107497, retrieved July 1, 2009.

 125 Demand dip pushes CIS slab offers down $20 per tonne, MetalBulletin, February 23, 2009, found at

http://www.metalbulletin.com/PrintArticle.aspx?ArticleID=2107671, retrieved July 1, 2009.

 126 Gas price for Ukranian steel industry set to halve in 2009, MetalBulletin, February 19, 2009, found at

http://www.metalbulletin.com//PrintArticle.aspx?ArticleID=2105111, retrieved July 1, 2009. 

 127 Azovstal and Ilyich’s joint letter in response to the Commission’s request for additional information, October

6, 2008, p. 2. 

 128 Azovstal’s and Ilyich’s joint response to the Commission’s notice of institution, September 22, 2008, p. 7. 

 129 Azovstal’s foreign producer/exporter questionnaire response, sections II-6a and II-6e.

 130 Ibid., section II-7. 

 131 Ukranian steel output will fall 19% in '09, minister predicts, MetalBulletin, March 12, 2009, found at

http://www.metalbulletin.com//PrintArticle.aspx?ArticleID=2124427, retrieved July 1, 2009.

IV-28

In its response to the Commission’s notice of institution, Azovstal reported that Ukranian

production of CTL plate in 2007 totaled *** of which Ilyich accounted for *** percent and Azovstal

accounted for *** percent.123

Sources indicate Ilyich has scaled back heavy plate production to concentrate on semis as the

market looks weaker for the second quarter of 2009.124 There were reports in February 2009 that Ilyich

was switching its focus onto spot market slabs sales and away from plate production.125 Ilyich is reputed

to be one of the most gas-intensive steel mills in Ukraine and as a result will benefit from anticipated

lower gas prices. The price of natural gas supplies for Ukranian steel and iron ore producers is set to

halve this year after prices were pegged to those of oil.126

CTL Plate Operations

Data provided by Ilyich concerning its CTL plate operations in Ukraine is limited to information

supplied in response to the Commission’s notice of institution. According to Ilyich, 2007 CTL plate

production in Ukraine totaled *** short tons and Ilyich produced *** short tons, an estimated *** percent

of total production.127 Also in 2007, Ilyich exported *** metric tons (***) of CTL plate to the United

States with a value of $***. This quantity is estimated to account for *** percent of the total Ukrainian

CTL plate exports to the United States in that year.128 

Data provided by Azovstal concerning its CTL plate operations in Ukraine during calendar years

2003-08 and January-June 2008 and January-June 2009 are presented in table IV-22. Azovstal’s capacity

to produce CTL plate in Ukraine *** percent but the company reported ***. Azovstal reported its overall

production capacity for 2003 and explained that ***. 

Therefore, the apparent ***. Its capacity also fluctuated with a high in *** of *** tons and a low

of *** tons in ***.129

Azovstal indicated that it reported CTL plate capacity based on a calculation of its rolling mill

capacity using a detailed formula. The firm reported ***.130 Azovstal’s capacity utilization rate remained

*** percent in any full year but reached a peak of *** percent during ***, a time of strong global

demand. Ukraine’s deputy minister of industrial policy has predicted a 19 percent fall, possibly lower, in

the country’s total steel output year-on-year in 2009.131
 132 Azovstal’s foreign producer/exporter questionnaire response, section II-9. 

 133 Azovstal’s foreign producer/exporter questionnaire response, section II-8. 

 134 Ibid., preamble, p. 2. 

 135 Data for 2003 was not provided and is reportedly not available because of a change in data systems undertaken

in 2004. Ibid., section II-16e. 

 136 Ibid., section II-21a.

 137 Ibid., section II-21b.

 138 Ibid., section II-16a. 

 139 Ibid., sections II-2, II-3. 

 140 Ibid., section II-3. 

 141 ***, Azovstal’s foreign producer/exporter questionnaire response, section I-4. 

 142 Ibid., section I-5.

 143 Ibid., section II-10.

 144 Ibid., section II-11.

 145 Steel producers are reportedly hoping that a $16.4 million loan from the International Monetary Fund will

boost construction of railways, bridges, hotels, and a new stadium for the Euro 2012 football tournament. Spotlight: 

Ukraine metals revival threatened by IMF complications, MetalBulletin, February 25, 2009, found at

http://www.metalbulletin.com//PrintArticle.aspx?ArticleID=2114381, retrieved July 1, 2009. The same article noted

that “domestic demand makes up a traditionally minor proportion of demand for Ukranian metal, with the export

market providing the most orders.” 

IV-29

Table IV-22

CTL plate: Data for producers in Ukraine, 2003-08, January-June 2008, and January-June 2009

* * * * * * *

CTL plate represented *** percent of Azovstal’s total sales during the first reviews and

*** percent in the most recent fiscal year.132 It explained that ***.133 As a result, the company seeks to

first produce more ***.134 Azovstal produces ***, and ***. Production of subject CTL plate accounted

for the ***.135 Its production of *** fluctuated greatly between 2004 and 2008. The largest annual

quantity of *** was manufactured during 2008 while just a third of that quantity was manufactured the

year before.136 In the first half of 2009, Azovstal has produced ***.137

The company also produces *** but it did not provide data for these products separately, but

rather included them with reported *** based on a standard definition (BS EN 10020:2000 “Definition

and Classification of Steel Grades”) that includes what the Commission has defined as micro-alloy plate

within alloy plate.138

The company indicated that it ***.139 Azovstal reported that it has *** plans to add, expand,

curtail, or shut down production capacity and/or production of CTL plate in Ukraine in the foreseeable

future. Furthermore, it ***.140

Azovstal ***.141 Azovstal indicated that neither it nor any related firm ***.142 Since 2003,

Azovstal has ***.143 In addition, ***.144

Total shipments of CTL plate produced by Ukranian producer, Azovstal, initially decreased from

*** then reached a period high in ***. Total shipments in January-June 2009 were *** percent lower

compared to total shipments in January-June 2008. The largest variations occurred in the quantities of

CTL plate shipped to *** and exported to ***. Home market shipments were *** in 2006-08.145 Internal

consumption was never ***. 
 146 Azovstal’s foreign producer/exporter questionnaire response, section II-13.

 147 Azovstal’s foreign producer/exporter questionnaire response, section II-16e.

 148 Ibid., section II-18.

 149 Ibid., section II-18.

 150 Azovstal’s foreign producer/exporter questionnaire response, section II-18.

 151 Azovstal’s foreign producer/exporter questionnaire response, section II-6a. 

IV-30

Exports fluctuated during the period and reached their peak in ***. *** were the largest

destination for export from Azovstal in ***. Azovstal reported that it ***.146 However, there is a change

in the markets that it identified as its principal export markets. Only *** was identified as a principal

export market during the first reviews and the current reviews. During the first reviews the following

were identified as Azovstal’s principal export markets: ***. Today, Azovstal listed as its principal

European Union export markets ***, it principal Asian export markets are *** and its principal other

export markets include ***.147

Product Mix

Table IV-23 presents data on Ukrainian CTL plate producer, Azovstal’s product mix during 2008. 

During 2008, Azovstal produced CTL plate in *** but plate with a thickness of *** accounted for the

bulk, *** percent, of the companys’ shipments that year.148 CTL plate with a thickness between *** was

the second largest category while CTL plate of *** accounted for only *** percent of total 2008

shipments.149

Table IV-23

CTL plate: Ukranian producers’ shipments by plate thickness, 2008

* * * * * * *

Table IV-24 presents data on Azovstal’s 2008 shipments by market and by product. The

company reported ***. During 2008 the share of its total shipments to its home market, the United States

and other export markets was predominantly comprised of ***.150 However, these *** because Azovstal

noted in its questionnaire response that “***.”151 

Table IV-24

CTL plate: Ukranian producers’ shipments, by market, and by product, 2008

* * * * * * *
 152 ***. 

 153 Production data compiled by *** are for reversing mill plate and are believed to account for a large share of

global CTL plate production. Such data do not include plate cut from coils produced on hot-strip mills or

on “Steckel” mills, as such mills are not dedicated to plate production. *** data includes both carbon and noncarbon steel; accordingly, the production totals reported for reversing mill plate production are somewhat overstated.

 154 Likewise, consumption data compiled by *** are for reversing mill plate and are believed to account for the

large majority of global CTL plate consumption, although such data do not include plate cut from coils produced on

a strip mill or Steckel mill plate. *** data do not distinguish between carbon and non-carbon steel; accordingly, the

consumption totals reported for reversing mill plate are somewhat overstated.

IV-31

GLOBAL MARKET

Production

Global production of reversing mill plate has grown considerably since 1997 with especially

strong growth during 2003-08. According to one published source,152 global production of reversing mill

plate increased by *** percent between 1997 and 2002, and by *** percent between 2003 and 2008. 

Production varied widely by region with an overall decline during 1997-2002 in the Americas and Europe

while increasing everywhere else. During 2003-08, all regions experienced growth. During both periods,

the greatest driver of global production growth was China, which more than doubled its production during

2003-08. Data compiled by *** on historical, current, and forecasted global production of reversing mill

plate appear in tables IV-25 through IV-27.153

Table IV-25

Reversing mill plate: Global and regional production of reversing mill plate, 1997-2002

* * * * * * *

Table IV-26

Reversing mill plate: Global and regional production of reversing mill plate, 2003-08

* * * * * * *

Table IV-27

Reversing mill plate: Forecast of global and regional production of reversing mill plate, 2008-13

* * * * * * *

Consumption

Data compiled by *** on historical, current, and forecasted global consumption of reversing

mill plate are presented in tables IV-28 through IV-30.154 Worldwide consumption of reversing mill plate

increased by *** percent between 1997 and 2002, despite reductions in consumption in North America

that were accounted for by consumption declines in the United States. Worldwide consumption increased

by *** percent between 2003 and 2008, paced by a more than *** of consumption in China. 
 155 Original data are published in metric tons, and were converted to short tons using the following conversion

factor: 1 metric ton = 1.1023 short tons. MEPS, World Carbon Steel Product Prices, found at

http://www.meps.co.uk/World%20Carbon%20Price.htm, retrieved September 24, 2009. This pricing series is

available to the public and its use is unrestricted; as of September 24, 2009, public price data up to May 2009 were

available. 

 156 Prices are an arithmetic average of the low transaction values identified in the EU, Asia, and North America,

converted into U.S. dollars.

 157 MEPS, International Steel Review, January 2008 - September 2009, and World Steel Dynamics, Steel

Benchmarker: Price History, http://www.steelbenchmarker.com/files/history.pdf, retrieved September 25, 2009.

IV-32

Table IV-28

Reversing mill plate: Global and regional consumption of reversing mill plate, 1997-2002

* * * * * * *

Table IV-29

Reversing mill plate: Global and regional consumption of reversing mill plate, 2003-08

* * * * * * *

Table IV-30

Reversing mill plate: Forecast of global and regional consumption of reversing mill plate,

2008-13

* * * * * * *

Prices

Published price data are available from several reputable sources, although often such data are

available by subscription only and cannot be reproduced without the consent of their publisher. These

data, however, are collected based on different product categories, timing, and commercial considerations,

and thereby may not be directly comparable with each other. Moreover, such data are distinct from the

pricing data presented in Part V of this report, which are for sales in the U.S. market from different

sources and collected directly from U.S. producers and U.S. importers via the Commission’s

questionnaires according to precise product definitions. 

As reported by MEPS, world prices for hot-rolled plate increased irregularly between January

2003 and January 2005, increasing from $296 per short ton to $686 per short ton during that time. After

January 2005, prices declined for the rest of that year to $588 per short ton in December. Prices began to

recover in 2006, increasing from $590 per short ton in January to $687 in December. During 2007, prices

increased almost continuously from $678 per short ton to $759 per short ton in December. Prices

experienced continuous increases for the first half of 2008 from $768 per short ton in January to a peak of

$1,186 per short ton in July. Thereafter, prices decreased precipitously, falling from $1,179 per short ton

in August 2008 to $549 per short ton in May 2009. ***.155 156

As presented in tables IV-31 and IV-32, country- and region-specific monthly transaction prices

for hot-rolled plate are also compiled by MEPS and World Steel Dynamics,157 and show monthly price

fluctuations across major producing countries. Across all markets, however, prices swept upwards

through the first half of 2008 and into the second half, before declining rapidly through the early months

of 2009, then starting to stabilize in the summer of 2009 for most regions.
IV-33

Table IV-31

Hot-rolled plate: Negotiated transaction prices (ex-mill) for prime hot-rolled plate, by selected

country or region and by month, January 2008-September 2009

* * * * * * *

Table IV-32

Hot-rolled plate: Transaction prices, by selected country or region, and by month, January 2008-

September 2009

Period

United States

(fob mill) China (ex-works)

Western Europe

(ex-works)

World export

price (fob port of

export)

2008 (U.S. dollars per short ton)

January 830 537 833 743

February 885 594 914 813

March 949 637 961 904

April 1,080 678 1,032 987

May 1,262 713 1,125 1,097

June 1,324 722 1,200 1,119

July 1,439 721 1,213 1,135

August 1,434 661 1,139 1,050

September 1,356 604 1,090 996

October 1,293 414 874 761

November 1,067 383 769 522

December 919 396 761 497

2009 (U.S. dollars per short ton)

January 825 431 779 533

February 756 406 729 533

March 675 374 586 484

April 593 361 500 469

May 558 376 563 439

June 533 394 523 481

July 595 427 (1

) 496

August 619 425 (1

) 509

September 632 397 (1

) 512

1

 Data are unavailable.

Note.–World Steel Dynamics defines hot-rolled plate as having the following dimensions: 24mm x 2400mm x 6000mm except for

the United States where plate has the dimensions: 1" x 96" x 240".

Note.–Transaction prices reflect the most recent actual transaction price adjusted to eliminate any surcharges for transaction

quantities in the range of 551 - 2,205 short tons. World Steel Dynamics releases prices semi-monthly. Only the second issued

monthly price is given unless it is unavailable in which case the first issued monthly price is given.

Transaction references in different areas are as follows:

 United States - East of the Mississippi

 Western Europe - France and Germany

 World export market - Atlantic and Pacific Basins

Source: Compiled from data published by World Steel Dynamics, Steel Benchmarker: Price History,

http://www.steelbenchmarker.com/files/history.pdf, retrieved September 25, 2009.
 158 ***. 

 159 MEPS International Steel Review, September 2009 edition.

 160 The World Bank, “World Bank Updates Global Economic Forecasts,” http://web.worldbank.org/, March 31,

2009, retrieved July 27, 2009.

 161 American Metal Market, “Low steel demand to hit output through ’09: Fitch,” http://www.amm.com/2009-07-

06__16-35-23.html, July 6, 2009, retrieved August 3, 2009.

IV-34

In addition, *** compiles country- and region-specific monthly prices for steel plate,

presented in table IV-33. Based on ***’s published monthly prices for steel plate, during most of 2003,

U.S. prices were lower than all other regions except the Far East. In September, U.S. prices exceeded

those in Western Europe, Japan, and Far East. U.S. prices continued to climb in relation to other regions

and exceeded all regions except the UK at the beginning of 2004. During the latter half of 2004, U.S.

prices were higher than in all other regions. During 2005, U.S. prices remained higher than in most other

regions with the exception of Germany and the UK; prices in those two countries sometimes exceeded the

U.S. price during 2005. During most of 2006, U.S. prices exceeded prices in other regions except for the

UK in May and August. From November 2006 - April 2008, prices in Germany and the UK exceeded

U.S. prices. Beginning in May 2008 and continuing until September 2008, U.S. prices increased and

generally exceeded prices in the rest of the world. September 2008 marked the beginning of a global

price decrease that continued through early 2009. During June-July 2009, prices began to stabilize in

most regions, increased in August 2009, and in September 2009 in most regions either increased or

stabilized with the exception of China and the Far East. Industry sources differ on the reason for these

price movements and their significance. One source states that demand in the plate market has

strengthened during the last few months.158 Another source believes that price increases in the United

States due to increased scrap costs ended in July but demand is beginning to increase; that demand in

China is poor; that in Japan one major producer increased prices in September, and that in Western

Europe, government stimulus packages in various countries are starting to generate increased plate

demand.159

Table IV-33

Plate: Prices for steel plate, by country or by region, and by month, January 2003-September 2009

* * * * * * *

Additional Global Supply and Demand Factors

Demand

The economic downturn that began in the third quarter of 2008 continues to impact CTL plate

demand. The current economic weakness is global in scope with the combined impacts of recession,

credit crunch, and lack of consumer confidence.160 The major plate-consuming industries -- construction,

energy (pipelines for oil and gas), shipbuilding, and transportation, must be able to obtain financing for

their projects but the current credit crunch has reportedly dried up funding resulting in a decrease in plate

consumption.161 Industry sources report that many projects have been canceled due to the lack of 
 162 American Metal Market, “Carbon plate said on course for price uptick,”

http://www.amm.com/2009-07-31__17-38-58.html, July 31, 2009, retrieved August 3, 2009. 

 163 American Metal Market, “Hot band tags forge higher; China still defying trend,”September 16, 2009, 

http://www.amm.com/2009-09-16__14-45-29.html, retrieved September 17, 2009. 

 164 ArcelorMittal’s posthearing brief, p. 5, SSAB’s and Evraz’s posthearing brief, pp. 29-34, and U.S. Steel’s

posthearing brief, p. 6.

 165 Nucor’s posthearing brief, p. 12.

 166 ***.

 167 Ibid.

 168 ***.

IV-35

financing.162 There are various industry opinions on current steel demand with some sources claiming an

increase in steel demand while others believe that steel demand is weak except for the automotive

sector.163 Information on global consumption by plate-consuming industries is presented in table IV-34.

Table IV-34

Plate: Actual and forecasted global consumption by selected end-use industry segment, 2003-13 

* * * * * * *

Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked how demand for CTL plate outside the United

States has changed since January 2003. Nine producers, seven importers, and ten purchasers reported that

demand outside the United States fluctuated, citing similar factors that affected U.S. demand (increased

demand until mid- to late-2008, and then decreased demand due to global recession). Several firms

alluded to China’s prominence both as a consumer and a producer of CTL plate, along with high-growth

countries such as India. Two producers, two importers, and four purchasers reported that demand outside 

the United States increased. One producer reported that demand outside the United States decreased, and

two importers and seven purchasers reported that demand remained the same.

According to the domestic interested parties, U.S. and global CTL plate demand is currently

weak and will remain so for the reasonably foreseeable future,164 and the U.S. industry is “suffering

through the worst steel market in decades.”165

Supply

Producers have cut production sharply since 2008, attempting to match the decrease in demand.

As shown in table IV-27, production is projected to decline during 2008-09 and is not expected to recover

until 2011. However, the production cutbacks during 2008 and the first half of 2009 were insufficient to

stop the decline in prices. Exacerbating the supply situation was the high level of inventories. Although

inventories decreased in absolute terms, they were still high as a ratio to shipments. North American

service centers had about four months’ worth of inventories while Europe’s inventories were equivalent

to six months’ sales. These levels were considered well above normal.166 The high inventory levels

resulted in service centers selling off inventory instead of purchasing new plate for sales, which helped

put downward pressure on prices.167 

However, the extent of sales from inventory during the last several months suggests that

destocking may be coming to an end soon.168 Data from Metals Service Centers Institute for the United

States show that plate shipments increased for two consecutive months in June and July 2009 (although

June and July shipment quantities are still below those even of March 2009) before decreasing in August
 169 Metals Service Centers Institute, Metals Activity Report, Monthly Shipments and Inventory, January-August

2009.

 170 American Metal Market, “ArcelorMittal fires up Ind. furnace; more said on way,” July 29, 2009,

http://www.amm.com/2009-07-29__17-17-52.html, retrieved September 22, 2009 and

“ArcelorMittal restarting second Cleveland blast furnace,” September 11, 2009, http://www.amm.com/2009-09-

11__18-16-08.html , retrieved September 22, 2009. 

 171 American Metal Market, “Furnace problem delays USS’ Great Lakes restart,” August 13, 2009,

http://www.amm.com/2009-08-13__17-15-51.html, retrieved September 17, 2009.

IV-36

2009. Plate inventories decreased steadily during January-July; service centers had about four months’

worth of inventories in January decreasing to three months’ worth in July and August.169 

Recent mill furnace restart announcements may also indicate increased steel supply albeit not

necessarily increased CTL plate supply. ArcelorMittal restarted its furnace in East Chicago, IN, in July

2009 and announced plans to restart its Cleveland, OH, furnace in September.170 In August 2009, U.S.

Steel announced plans to restart one of three furnaces (all are currently idled) at its Great Lakes Works in

Michigan but the restart was delayed due to technical issues.171 Furnace restarts have also been

announced in other countries; a selection of these announcements are presented in table IV-35.

Table IV-35

Selected blast furnace restarts, by country, 2009

Country Company Restart date

Russia Evraz (West Siberia) June

Russia Magnitogorsk September

Russia Mechel (Chelyabinsk) April

Ukraine Ilyich November 

Austria Voestalpine (Linz) September

Belgium ArcelorMittal (Ghent) August 

Brazil Gerdau (Açominas) July

Brazil Usimas (Ipatinga) July

France ArcelorMittal (Florange) Third quarter 

Holland Corus (IJmuiden) June 

Italy Ilva (Taranto) September or October

Japan Nippon Steel (Oita) August 

Korea Posco (Gwangyang) July

Spain ArcelorMittal (Gijón) September 

Taiwan China Steel Corp. August

United Kingdom Corus (Port Talbot) October 

Source: Compiled from articles published in American Metal Market, Metal Bulletin, and a press release by Mechel.

Capacity

As shown in table IV-36, worldwide, in 2008, the majority of reversing mill plate capacity

resided in East and South East Asia - *** percent, by ***’s estimate, compared to *** percent in Western

Europe. The Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) accounted for a further *** percent. 
 172 Data were obtained from the World Trade Organization.

IV-37

Table IV-36

Reversing plate mills: Capacity, by region, 2008

* * * * * * *

Safeguard Measures

While there are currently no safeguard measures in place for CTL plate, several countries 

implemented or maintained safeguard measures during the period examined, 2003-08. The tabulation

below presents data on the products covered, countries, and implementation and termination dates for

these safeguard measures.172

Country Products covered Safeguard type

Implementation

 date Termination date

European Union Subject products: Carbon

steel plate.

Non-subject products: Hotrolled and cold-rolled sheet,

and strip.

Alloy steel flat-rolled

products.

Alloy steel fittings and

flanges.

Definitive– Initial tariff

quotas are based on

the average annual

import volume over the

prior 3 years plus 10

percent. The quota

level is to increase by

5 percent in each

subsequent year

beginning Sept. 29,

2002.

Tariff rates for abovequota imports range

from 14.1 percent to

26.0 percent

depending on product

category.

Sept. 29, 2002 Dec. 5, 2003

Hungary Subject products: Carbon

steel plate.

Non-subject products: 

Carbon sheet, bar, rod,

sections, pipe, tube, hollow

profiles, wire-cloth, grill

netting, and fencing.

Tariff rate quota

increases by 2.5

percent in each

successive 6-months

period.

Tariff rates for abovequota imports set

between 15-25

percent, depending on

product category, and

declines by 5 percent

in each successive 6-

months period.

Provisional: June 3,

2002

Definitive: 

Apr. 2, 2003

May 1, 2004

United States Subject products: Carbon

steel plate.

Non-subject products: clad

plate, slab, hot-rolled sheet,

cold-rolled sheet, coated

sheet, hot-rolled bar and

light shapes, cold-finished

bar, reinforcing bar, certain

welded pipe and tube,

fittings and flanges, stainless

steel bar, stainless steel rod,

and stainless steel wire.

Tariff rate of 30

percent in the first

year, 24 percent in the

second year, and 18

percent in the third

year.

March 20, 2002 December 4, 2003

 1

 U.S. integrated plate facilities (such as ArcelorMittal’s) are self-sufficient in iron ore and make most of their

own coke. Other plate facilities, such as SSAB’s and Nucor’s, use scrap as their primary raw material.

V-1

PART V: PRICING AND RELATED INFORMATION

FACTORS AFFECTING PRICES

 Raw Material Costs

Raw materials constitute a substantial portion of the final cost of CTL plate. The key costs in

producing CTL plate are raw materials such as iron ore, coal, and steel scrap, along with energy and labor

costs. The price of iron ore and coal remained relative stable during 2003-07 and began to increase in

2008 (figure V-1). However, prices of iron and steel scrap1 increased between 2003 and 2004, fluctuated

at higher levels before rising steeply, then declining sharply, in 2008, and partially recovering in 2009

(figure V-2). In addition, the prices of blast furnace coke, natural gas, and electricity generally rose

between 2003 and 2008, with noticeable increases for each in 2008 and declines in 2009 (table V-1).

Figure V-1

Material costs: Producer price indexes of iron ore and coal by months, January 2003-August 2009

(May-August 2009 = predicted prices)

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/srgate, September 16, 2009.
V-2

Figure V-2

Material costs: Consumer prices of iron and steel scrap by months, January 2003-August 2009 

Source: American Metals Market, http://www.amm.com/pricing/, September 21, 2009.

Table V-1

Energy costs: U.S. natural gas, electricity, and coke prices, 2003-09

Item 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

2009

projected/estimated

U.S. natural

gas industrial

price1 $5.89 $6.53 $8.56 $7.87 $7.65 $9.58 $4.90 - projected

Electricity

industrial

price2 5.1¢ 5.3¢ 5.6¢ 6.2¢ 6.4¢ 7.2¢ 7.0¢ -projected

Blast furnace

coke prices3 4

$95.00 $198.00 $244.00 $172.00 $214.00 $513.00

Jan-Mar

-estimated

$100.47

Apr-Jun

-estimated

$96.60

 1 Price to industrial users per thousand cubic feet.

 2

 Price to industrial users per kilowatt-hour.

 3

 Price to industrial users per short ton.

 4

 Prices are estimated average prices on the spot market and may not represent prices actually paid by U.S.

steel companies. U.S. companies who purchase coke do so primarily under contracts (possibly long-term) with their

suppliers. 

Sources: U.S. Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.doe.gov; U.S. Department of Energy; Short-Term

Energy Outlook (September 9, 2009); U.S. Department of Commerce; American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute.
 2

 *** questionnaire. 

 3

 *** U.S. producers’ questionnaire.

 4

 Ibid.

 5

 *** U.S. producers’ questionnaire and *** U.S. importers’ questionnaire. 

V-3

When asked to discuss changes in raw material costs since January 2003, most responding firms

indicated that fluctuations in these costs have affected prices, reporting, for example, that extreme scrap

price volatility “has placed a great burden on managing sales”2 of CTL plate since 2003 and has been

“unprecedented in recent years with 2008 proving the most dramatic.”3 Raw material prices also

reportedly decreased recently less than finished good prices “on a percentage and absolute basis.”4 The

majority of U.S. producers and importers reported that CTL plate prices follow the raw material prices

trend closely. In particular, as discussed in greater detail in Part II, several U.S. producers and purchasers

reported the use of surcharges to pass on raw material costs, generally beginning in 2004. Some

responding firms reported that raw materials price volatility will remain present in the CTL plate industry

and will perpetuate the uncertainty about future costs.5

U.S. Inland Transportation Costs

Five of 6 responding producers and 8 of 16 responding importers indicated that their firm

generally arranges for transportation to the customers’ locations. U.S. producers estimated their U.S.

inland transportation costs were between 1.5 and 5.0 percent, while importers estimated that their

transportation costs ranged between zero (when selling direct discharge to truck) and 10.0 percent. 

Transportation Costs to the U.S. Market

Transportation costs of CTL plate from China, Russia, and Ukraine to the U.S. market are

estimated to be 8.5 percent, 9.4 percent, and 7.3 percent respectively of the 2008 customs value. These

estimates are derived from official import data and represent the transportation and other charges on

imports valued on a c.i.f. basis, as compared with customs value. Freight costs, as measured by the Baltic

Dry Index, increased noticeably through the summer of 2008, then decreased sharply through the end of

the year and have remained at lower levels in 2009 (figure V-3).
 6

 Producers generally quote f.o.b. warehouse or f.o.b. plant. Importers usually quote f.o.b. port of entry.

V-4

Figure V-3

Transportation costs: Baltic Dry Index, April 2006-August 2009

Source: http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui, retrieved August 10, 2009.

PRICING PRACTICES

Pricing Methods

Seven of 15 responding producers indicated that they determined prices on a transaction-bytransaction basis, 2 firms indicated that they use price lists, and 6 producers reported using combination

of methods. Eleven of 15 responding importers reported that they determine prices on a transaction-bytransaction basis, 1 firm uses set price lists, and three use contracts (2 in conjunction with transaction-bytransaction negotiation). 

The majority of U.S. producers (9 of 15) and U.S. importers (10 of 13) quote prices on an f.o.b.

basis.6 Of the remaining responding producers and importers, 3 producers and 1 importer usually quote

prices on a delivered basis, and 3 producers and 2 importers quote prices using both methods. 

CTL plate is commonly sold on a spot and, to a lesser extent, short- and long-term contract basis. 

Fourteen of 15 producers sell the majority of their product on a spot basis. Five producers reported that

they sell CTL plate on long-term contracts (the share of total sales varies between 3 and 15 percent). Ten

other producers reported that they sell CTL plate on short-term contracts (the share of total sales varies

between 5 and 52 percent). Of the responding importers, 11 firms sell subject product only on a spot sale

basis, while 2 firms sell the majority of their CTL plate on a spot basis; 2 firms reported only short-term

contracts, and 1 firm reported selling on a spot, long- and short-term contracts. 

 Five producers reported long-term contracts that varied between 3 and 36 months. Only one

importer reported long-term contracts of 3 years. Ten producers and 4 importers reported similar shortterm contract characteristics: contracts varied between 3 and 12 months. 

The majority of producers’ and importers’ short-term contracts can be renegotiated. Eight

responding producers and the four responding importers reported that both prices and quantities are

initially fixed, and one producer reported that only quantity is fixed during a short-term contract period.
 7

 Out of the 85 quarters of possible price comparisons, 3 included particularly low or high prices. Staff reviewed

these data and, in each instance, the prices and quantities were verified by the responding importers.

V-5

 Sales Terms and Discounts

 Discount policies vary widely among U.S. producers and importers of CTL plate. Questionnaire

responses indicate that producers are more likely to provide discounts than importers. Five of 13

producers reported one or more discount policies, while the remaining 8 reported no discount policy. 

Among the producers reporting discount policies, quantity discounts and total annual volume discounts

were both reported by two producers. Thirteen of 15 importers reported having no discount policy, while

1 reported quantity discounts and 1 reported both quantity and annual total volume discounts.

PRICE DATA

U.S. producers and importers of CTL plate were asked to provide quarterly data for the total

quantity and f.o.b. (U.S. point of shipment) value of four selected products that were shipped to unrelated

customers in the U.S. market from January 2003 through June 2009. The products for which pricing data

were requested were as follows:

Product 1.-- Hot-rolled CTL carbon steel plate, ASTM A-36 or equivalent as rolled,

sheared edge, not heat treated, not cleaned or oiled, in cut lengths, 72" through 96" in

width, 0.250" thick.

Product 2.-- Hot-rolled CTL carbon steel plate, ASTM A-36 or equivalent as rolled,

sheared edge, not heat treated, not cleaned or oiled, in cut lengths, 72" through 96" in

width, 0.3125" thick.

Product 3.-- Hot-rolled CTL carbon steel plate, ASTM A-36 or equivalent as rolled,

sheared edge, not heat treated, not cleaned or oiled, in cut lengths, 72" through 120" in

width, 0.375" through 2.00" in thickness.

Product 4.-- Hot-rolled CTL carbon steel plate, high strength low alloy (HSLA), ASTM A572, Grade 50, sheared edges, not cleaned or oiled, in cut lengths, 72" through 120" in

width, 0.5" through 1.5" in thickness.

Eight U.S. producers and 3 importers provided price data. By quantity, pricing data provided by

responding firms accounted for approximately 15.1 percent of U.S. producers’ commercial shipments

during January 2003-June 2009, 55.3 percent of reported U.S. commercial shipments of imports from

China, 44.7 percent of reported U.S. commercial shipments of imports from Russia, and 9.1 percent of

such shipments from Ukraine.7 Price data are presented in tables V-2 to V-5 and figure V-4.
V-6

Table V-2

CTL plate: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities for product 1, and margins of

underselling/(overselling), January 2003-June 2009

Period

United States Russia Ukraine

Price Quantity Price Quantity Margin Price Quantity Margin

per 

short ton

short

tons

per 

short ton

short

tons percent

per 

short ton

short

tons percent

2003:

 January-March $378 14,222 - 0 - - 0 -

 April-June 367 19,902 - 0 - - 0 -

 July-September 368 20,932 - 0 - - 0 -

 October-December 398 13,797 - 0 - - 0 -

2004: 

 January-March 560 19,358 - 0 - - 0 -

 April-June 759 17,959 *** *** *** - 0 -

 July-September 857 16,814 - 0 - - 0 -

 October-December 841 13,268 - 0 - - 0 -

2005: 

 January-March 797 17,423 *** *** *** - 0 -

 April-June 755 17,682 - 0 - - 0 -

 July-September 762 18,673 - 0 - - 0 -

 October-December 798 17,845 *** *** *** - 0 -

2006:

 January-March 742 25,863 *** *** *** - 0 -

 April-June 800 25,550 *** *** *** - 0 -

 July-September 818 23,130 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 October-December 782 17,894 *** *** *** - 0 -

2007: 

 January-March 718 26,173 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 April-June 766 21,929 *** *** *** - 0 -

 July-September 748 18,521 *** *** *** - 0 -

 October-December 737 16,953 *** *** *** - 0 -

2008: 

 January-March 804 20,715 *** *** *** - 0 -

 April-June 1,092 20,311 *** *** *** - 0 -

 July-September 1,289 17,787 *** *** *** 0 -

 October-December *** *** *** *** *** 0 -

2009: 

 January-March 724 11,735 *** *** *** 0 -

 April-June 632 2,659 *** *** *** 0 -

Product 1 – Hot-rolled CTL carbon steel plate, ASTM A-36 or equivalent as rolled, sheared edge, not heat treated, not cleaned or

oiled, in cut lengths, 72" through 96" in width, 0.250" thick.

Note.--Margins are calculated from unrounded data. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-7

Table V-3

CTL plate: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities for product 2, and margins of

underselling/(overselling), January 2003-June 2009

Period

United States Russia Ukraine

Price Quantity Price Quantity Margin Price Quantity Margin

per 

short ton

short

tons

per 

short ton

short

tons percent

per 

short ton

short

tons percent

2003:

 January-March $376 2,492 - 0 - - 0 -

 April-June 373 3,493 - 0 - - 0 -

 July-September 383 3,340 - 0 - - 0 -

 October-December 401 2,291 - 0 - - 0 -

2004: 

 January-March 526 5,252 - 0 - - 0 -

 April-June 728 5,049 - 0 - - 0 -

 July-September 811 4,676 - 0 - *** *** ***

 October-December 782 2,862 - 0 - - 0 -

2005: 

 January-March 840 3,029 - 0 - *** *** ***

 April-June 751 3,498 - 0 - - 0 -

 July-September 735 3,608 - 0 - - 0 -

 October-December 763 2,656 - 0 - - 0 -

2006:

 January-March 749 4,611 - 0 - - 0 -

 April-June 789 4,172 *** *** *** - 0 -

 July-September 786 5,092 *** *** *** - 0 -

 October-December 775 4,329 *** *** *** - 0 -

2007: 

 January-March 751 3,521 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 April-June 799 3,645 *** *** *** - 0 -

 July-September 762 4,023 - 0 - - 0 -

 October-December 718 3,124 - 0 - - 0 -

2008: 

 January-March 800 3,431 - 0 - - 0 -

 April-June 1,101 3,700 - 0 - - 0 -

 July-September 1,191 5,084 - 0 - - 0 -

 October-December *** *** - 0 - - 0 -

2009: 

 January-March 918 2,632 - 0 - - 0 -

 April-June 650 756 - 0 - *** *** ***

Product 2 – Hot-rolled CTL carbon steel plate, ASTM A-36 or equivalent as rolled, sheared edge, not heat treated, not cleaned or

oiled, in cut lengths, 72" through 96" in width, 0.3125" thick.

Note.--Margins are calculated from unrounded data. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-8

Table V-4

CTL plate: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities for product 3, and margins of

underselling/(overselling), January 2003-June 2009

Period

United States China Russia

Price Quantity Price Quantity Margin Price Quantity Margin

per 

short ton

short

tons

per 

short ton

short

tons percent

per 

short ton

short

tons percent

2003:

 January-March $310 146,101 - 0 - - 0 -

 April-June 303 164,096 - 0 - - 0 -

 July-September 310 183,712 - 0 - - 0 -

 October-December *** *** - 0 - - 0 -

2004: 

 January-March 431 195,692 - 0 - - 0 -

 April-June 569 194,801 - 0 - - 0 -

 July-September 664 200,207 - 0 - - 0 -

 October-December 722 145,244 - 0 - *** *** ***

2005: 

 January-March *** *** - 0 - - 0 -

 April-June 708 147,795 - 0 - - 0 -

 July-September 643 169,042 - 0 - - 0 -

 October-December 692 170,157 - 0 - *** *** ***

2006:

 January-March 692 201,773 - 0 - *** *** ***

 April-June 703 227,280 - 0 - *** *** ***

 July-September 718 202,049 - 0 - *** *** ***

 October-December 705 158,873 - 0 - *** *** ***

2007: 

 January-March 687 158,859 - 0 - *** *** ***

 April-June 723 174,237 - 0 - *** *** ***

 July-September 706 197,342 - 0 - *** *** ***

 October-December 691 186,138 - 0 - *** *** ***

2008: 

 January-March 726 249,397 - 0 - *** *** ***

 April-June 1,047 236,026 - 0 - *** *** ***

 July-September 1,285 223,110 - 0 - *** *** ***

 October-December 1,134 103,969 *** *** *** *** *** ***

2009: 

 January-March 715 100,898 - 0 - *** *** ***

 April-June 533 66,110 - 0 - *** *** ***

Table continued on following page.
V-9

Table V-4-- Continued

CTL plate: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities for product 3, and margins of

underselling/(overselling), January 2003-June 2009

Period

United States Ukraine

Price Quantity Price Quantity Margin

per 

short ton short tons

per 

short ton short tons percent

2003:

 January-March $310 146,101 - 0 -

 April-June 303 164,096 - 0 -

 July-September 310 183,712 - 0 -

 October-December *** *** - 0 -

2004: 

 January-March 431 195,692 - 0 -

 April-June 569 194,801 - 0 -

 July-September 664 200,207 *** *** ***

 October-December 722 145,244 *** *** ***

2005: 

 January-March *** *** *** *** ***

 April-June 708 147,795 *** *** ***

 July-September 643 169,042 *** *** ***

 October-December 692 170,157 *** *** ***

2006:

 January-March 692 201,773 - 0 -

 April-June 703 227,280 *** *** ***

 July-September 718 202,049 *** *** ***

 October-December 705 158,873 *** *** ***

2007: 

 January-March 687 158,859 *** *** ***

 April-June 723 174,237 - 0 -

 July-September 706 197,342 - 0 -

 October-December 691 186,138 - 0 -

2008: 

 January-March 726 249,397 - 0 -

 April-June 1,047 236,026 - 0 -

 July-September 1,285 223,110 *** *** ***

 October-December 1,134 103,969 *** *** ***

2009: 

 January-March 715 100,898 *** *** ***

 April-June 533 66,110 *** *** ***

Product 3 – Hot-rolled CTL carbon steel plate, ASTM A-36 or equivalent as rolled, sheared edge, not heat treated, not cleaned or

oiled, in cut lengths, 72" through 120" in width, 0.375" through 2.00" in thickness.

Note.--Margins are calculated from unrounded data. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-10

Table V-5

CTL plate: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities for product 4, and margins of

underselling/(overselling), January 2003-June 2009

Period

United States China Russia

Price Quantity Price Quantity Margin Price Quantity Margin

per 

short ton

short

tons

per 

short ton

short

tons percent

per 

short ton

short

tons percent

2003:

 January-March $332 57,012 - 0 - - 0 -

 April-June 333 69,594 - 0 - - 0 -

 July-September 331 61,233 - 0 - - 0 -

 October-December 330 63,526 - 0 - - 0 -

2004: 

 January-March 446 74,862 - 0 - - 0 -

 April-June 576 76,902 - 0 - - 0 -

 July-September 683 83,164 - 0 - - 0 -

 October-December 760 75,251 - 0 - - 0 -

2005: 

 January-March 775 68,549 *** *** *** - 0 -

 April-June 756 51,927 *** *** *** - 0 -

 July-September 720 40,296 *** *** *** - 0 -

 October-December 728 41,603 0 - 0 -

2006:

 January-March 743 63,391 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 April-June 760 69,905 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-September 769 55,963 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 October-December 759 48,799 *** *** *** *** *** ***

2007: 

 January-March 746 44,120 - 0 - *** *** ***

 April-June 775 52,930 - 0 - *** *** ***

 July-September 773 56,604 - 0 - *** *** ***

 October-December 751 55,475 - 0 - - 0 -

2008: 

 January-March *** *** - 0 - *** *** ***

 April-June 1,025 71,012 - 0 - *** *** ***

 July-September 1,301 67,907 - 0 - *** *** ***

 October-December 1,218 48,307 *** *** *** *** *** ***

2009: 

 January-March 833 25,286 - 0 - *** *** ***

 April-June 626 23,940 - 0 - - 0 -

Table continued on following page.
V-11

Table V-5-- Continued

CTL plate: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities for product 4, and margins of

underselling/(overselling), January 2003-June 2009

Period

United States Ukraine

Price Quantity Price Quantity Margin

per 

short ton short tons

per 

short ton short tons percent

2003:

 January-March $332 57,012 - 0 -

 April-June 333 69,594 - 0 -

 July-September 331 61,233 - 0 -

 October-December 330 63,526 - 0 -

2004: 

 January-March 446 74,862 - 0 -

 April-June 576 76,902 - 0 -

 July-September 683 83,164 *** *** ***

 October-December 760 75,251 *** *** ***

2005: 

 January-March 775 68,549 *** *** ***

 April-June 756 51,927 - 0 -

 July-September 720 40,296 - 0 -

 October-December 728 41,603 - 0 -

2006:

 January-March 743 63,391 - 0 -

 April-June 760 69,905 - 0 -

 July-September 769 55,963 - 0 -

 October-December 759 48,799 *** *** ***

2007: 

 January-March 746 44,120 *** *** ***

 April-June 775 52,930 - 0 -

 July-September 773 56,604 - 0 -

 October-December 751 55,475 - 0 -

2008: 

 January-March *** *** - 0 -

 April-June 1,025 71,012 - 0 -

 July-September 1,301 67,907 - 0 -

 October-December 1,218 48,307 *** *** ***

2009: 

 January-March 833 25,286 - 0 -

 April-June 626 23,940 *** *** ***

Product 4 – Hot-rolled CTL carbon steel plate, high strength low alloy (HSLA), ASTM A-572, Grade 50, sheared edges, not

cleaned or oiled, in cut lengths, 72" through 120" in width, 0.5" through 1.5" in thickness.

Note.--Margins are calculated from unrounded data. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Figure V-4

CTL plate: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of products 1-4, by country, 

January 2003-June 2009

* * * * * * *
 8

 In September 2009, “prices have inched higher in the past few weeks, with carbon coiled and cut-to-length plate

now around $660 per ton, up 3.1 percent from $640 per ton. Sources said prices have risen due to increases in scrap

prices and a tightness of supply in the market.” (AMM) Plate tags rising despite lack of spark from infrastructure

stimulus, MetalBuletin, http://www.metalbulletin.com//PrintArticle.aspx?ArticleID=2305819, September 29, 2009. 

V-12

Price Trends

Overall, prices for both U.S.-produced and imported CTL plate fluctuated during the period

January 2003-June 2009.8 Specifically, there were two major increases in 2004 and 2008, followed by a

steep decline in the final three quarters of the period examined. Table V-6 presents a summary of price

trends, by country.

Table V-6

CTL plate: Summary of weighted-average f.o.b. prices for products 1-5, by country

Country Number of

quarters

Highest price Lowest price

Percentage

increase

(decrease) 

in price1

Per short ton Per short ton Percent

Product 1

United States 26 $1,289 $367 67.1

China - - - -

Russia *** *** *** ***

Ukraine *** *** *** ***

Product 2

United States 26 1,191 373 72.5

China - - - -

Russia *** *** *** ***

Ukraine *** *** *** ***

Product 3

United States 26 1,285 303 72.1

China *** *** *** ***

Russia *** *** *** ***

Ukraine *** *** *** ***

Product 4

United States 26 1,301 330 88.7

China *** *** *** ***

Russia *** *** *** ***

Ukraine *** *** *** ***

 1 Percentage change from the first quarter in which price data were available to the last quarter in which price data

were available.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-13

Weighted-average prices for domestic CTL plate increased substantially in 2004, fluctuated

within a narrow band until first quarter of 2008, started to increase again in the second quarter of 2008,

then peaked around the third quarter of 2008. By the end of the period, however, prices had returned to

levels similar to 2004 prices. Prices for imports from China, Russia, and Ukraine followed a similar

pattern to the U.S. prices. 

Purchasers were asked if there has been a change in the price of domestically produced and

Chinese-origin CTL plate since 2003. Eleven of 21 responding purchasers reported that U.S.-produced

CTL plate has changed relative to the price of CTL plate from China; 9 firms reported that prices have

changed by the same amount; and 1 firm reported no change in price. Of the purchasers reporting change

in prices of domestically produced and Chinese CTL plate, 2 purchasers also reported that domestic CTL

plate is lower priced than Chinese CTL plate, and 7 purchasers reported that domestic CTL plate is priced

higher than Chinese CTL plate. 

Purchasers were also asked if there has been a change in the price of domestically produced and

Russian-origin CTL plate since 2003. Ten of 23 responding purchasers reported that U.S.-produced CTL

plate has changed relative to the price of CTL plate from Russia; 11 firms reported that prices have

changed by the same amount; and 2 firms reported no change in price. Of the purchasers reporting

change in prices of domestically produced and Russian CTL plate, 3 purchasers also reported that

domestic CTL plate is lower priced than Russian CTL plate, and 4 purchasers reported that domestic CTL

plate is priced higher than Russian CTL plate. 

Purchasers were also asked if there has been a change in the price of domestically produced and

Ukrainian-origin CTL plate since 2003. Eight of 20 responding purchasers reported that U.S.-produced

CTL plate has changed relative to the price of CTL plate from Ukraine; 10 firms reported that prices have

changed by the same amount; and 2 firms reported no change in price. Of the purchasers reporting

change in prices of domestically produced and Ukrainian CTL plate, 3 purchasers also reported that

domestic CTL plate is lower priced than Ukrainian CTL plate, and 3 purchasers reported that domestic

CTL plate is priced higher than Ukrainian CTL plate. 

When purchasers were asked if there was a price leader in the CTL plate industry, 27 of the

purchasers reported “yes,” with nearly all purchasers citing more than one U.S. producer. U.S. purchasers

most frequently identified ArcelorMittal, Nucor, and SSAB as price leaders. Most purchasers reported

that these firms exhibited price leadership by being the first to announce changes in price. 
V-14

Price Comparisons

As shown in table V-7, there were 85 instances where prices for domestic CTL plate and

imported CTL plate from China, Russia, and Ukraine could be compared. U.S.-produced CTL plate

products were priced higher than imports from China, Russia, and Ukraine in 42 of the 85 possible

comparisons. 

Table V-7

CTL plate: Instances of underselling/overselling and the range and average of margins, 

January 2003-June 2009

Item

Underselling Overselling

Number of

instances

Range

(percent)

Average

margin

(percent)

Number of

instances

Range

(percent)

Average

margin

(percent)

Product 11 5 0.0-24.8 11.6 13 0.6-59.2 13.8

Product 2 6 4.5-29.6 18.0 3 1.9-24.6 12.5

Product 3 14 1.1-19.1 7.3 17 5.0-60.7 19.5

Product 4 17 0.9-72.4 12.9 10 0.5-33.0 10.8

 Total 42 43

China 4 0.9-16.5 8.2 5 0.5-21.9 10.4

Russia1 22 0.0-72.4 9.9 27 0.6-60.7 14.5

Ukraine 16 3.7-29.6 14.5 11 2.8-59.2 19.2

 Total 42 0.9-72.4 11.6 43 0.5-60.7 15.3

 1 In one instance, the price of Russian CTL plate was less than 0.05 percent lower than the price for domestic

CTL plate.

Note.– In the original investigations, CTL plate from China undersold comparable domestic plate in 69 of 78

comparisons; CTL plate from Russia undersold comparable domestic plate in 54 of 55 comparisons; and CTL plate

from Ukraine undersold comparable domestic plate in all 59 comparisons. In the first reviews, CTL plate from China

undersold comparable domestic plate in 33 of 59 comparisons; CTL plate from Russia undersold comparable

domestic plate in 39 of 47 comparisons; and CTL plate from Ukraine undersold comparable domestic plate in 20 of

39 comparisons (margins were calculated to sales to service centers/distributors/processors and end users

separately).

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and original and first review 

Staff Reports.
A-1

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES 

44968 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 149 / Friday, August 1, 2008 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Applications for Duty-Free Entry of 

Scientific Instruments 

Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the 

Educational, Scientific and Cultural 

Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. 

L. 89–651, as amended by Public Law 

106–36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301), 

we invite comments on the question of 

whether instruments of equivalent 

scientific value, for the purposes for 

which the instruments shown below are 

intended to be used, are being 

manufactured in the United States. 

Comments must comply with 15 CFR 

301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the regulations and 

be postmarked on or before August 21, 

2008. Address written comments to 

Statutory Import Programs Staff, Room 

2104, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Washington, DC 20230. Applications 

may be examined between 8:30 a.m. and 

5 p.m. at the U.S. Department of 

Commerce in Room 2104. 

Docket Number: 08–022. Applicant: 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 

1617 Cole Blvd., Golden, CO 80401. 

Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model 

Quanta 600 FEG. Manufacturer: FEI 

Company, Czech Republic. Intended 

Use: The instrument is intended to be 

used to study the microstructure and 

composition of material used in 

photovoltaic (solar cell) applications 

(mostly semiconductor materials). It 

will also be used to characterize a 

variety of nano-structured materials 

such as quantum dots and carbon 

nanotubes. Application accepted by 

Commissioner of Customs: May 8, 2008. 

Docket Number: 08–025. Applicant: 

Oklahoma State University, 203 

Whitehurst, Stillwater, OK 74078–3011. 

Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model 

Quanta 600 FEG. Manufacturer: FEI 

Company, Czech Republic. Intended 

Use: This instrument will be used to 

study the basic properties of various 

types of nanomaterials. Specifically, the 

instrument is intended to be used to 

investigate microbial interactions with 

geologic media, including the role of 

microbial nanowires in geoelectrical 

properties of biostimulated sediments. 

Application accepted by Commissioner 

of Customs: May 9, 2008. 

Docket Number: 08–028. Applicant: 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 

1617 Cole Blvd., Golden, CO 80401. 

Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model 

NOVA 630 NanoSEM. Manufacturer: 

FEI Company, Czech Republic. Intended 

Use: The instrument is intended to be 

used to study the microstructure and 

composition of material used in 

photovoltaic (solar cell) applications, 

mostly semiconductor materials. It will 

also be used to characterize a variety of 

nano-structured materials such as 

quantum dots and carbon nanotubes. 

Application accepted by Commissioner 

of Customs: June 12, 2008. 

Docket Number: 08–031. Applicant: 

University of Rochester Medical Center, 

575 Elmwood Avenue, Box 626, 

Rochester, NY 14642. Instrument: 

Electron Microscope, Hitachi H–7650. 

Manufacturer: Hitachi HighTechnologies Corp., Japan. Intended 

Use: The instrument is intended to be 

used to perform nanotoxicology 

experiments on biological tissues and 

cells. Specifically, the instrument will 

be used to find and confirm the 

presence of nanoparticle elements in 

biological tissue. Application accepted 

by Commissioner of Customs: June 19, 

2008. 

Docket Number: 08–035. Applicant: 

Washington State University, French 

Administration Building, 220, P.O. Box 

641020, Pullman, Washington 99164–

1020. Instrument: Electron Microscope, 

Model FEI Quanta 200. Manufacturer: 

FEI Company, Czech Republic. Intended 

Use: The instrument is intended to be 

used for several purposes, including the 

following: Researching the cell biology 

of certain plant tissue (e.g., the phloem) 

and studying plant systematics and 

evolution, researching particle and 

microbial material surface interactions, 

and studying the physical chemistry of 

polymers and composites. Application 

accepted by Commissioner of Customs: 

July 3, 2008. 

Docket Number: 08–037. Applicant: 

Duke University, 2351 Erwin Rd., 

Durham, NC 27710. Instrument: 

Electron Microscope, Model JEM–1400. 

Manufacturer: JEOL, Ltd., Japan. 

Intended Use: The instrument is 

intended to be used for ultra structural 

analysis and immunolocalization of 

proteins. The experiment aims at 

defining the ultra structures of normal 

and diseased tissues of the visual 

system and at the localization of specific 

proteins important for function within 

the tissues, in an effort to preserve and 

restore sight. Application accepted by 

Commissioner of Customs: July 18, 

2008. 

Dated: July 29, 2008. 

Faye Robinson, 

Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff. 

[FR Doc. E8–17702 Filed 7–31–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–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 and countervailing duty 

orders listed below. The International 

Trade Commission (‘‘the Commission’’) 

is publishing concurrently with this 

notice its notice of Institution of Fiveyear Review which covers the same 

orders. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 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 

and countervailing duty orders: 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 149 / Friday, August 1, 2008 / Notices 44969 

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. 

DOC Case No. ITC Case No. Country Product Department Contact 

A–570–849 ......................... 731–TA–753 

(Second Review) 

PRC Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel Demitrios Kalogeropoulos (202) 482–2623 

A–821–808 ......................... 731–TA–754 

(Second Review) 

(Suspended) 

Russia Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel Sally Gannon (202) 482–0162 

A–823–808 ......................... 731–TA–756 Ukraine Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel 

(Second Review) (Suspended) 

Judith Rudman (202) 482–0192 

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 

requirements.1 Please consult the 

Department’s regulations for 

information regarding the Department’s 

conduct of Sunset Reviews. 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: July 24, 2008. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–17709 Filed 7–31–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–533–809 

Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges 

from India; Preliminary Intent to 

Rescind Administrative Review and 

Rescission in Part 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

forged stainless steel flanges (stainless 

steel flanges) from India manufactured 

by Pradeep Metals Limited (Pradeep), 

Echjay Forgings Pvt., Ltd. (Echjay) and 

Hotmetal Forge (India) Pvt, Ltd. 

(Hotmetal). The period of review (POR) 

is February 1, 2007, through January 31, 

2008. We preliminarily determine that 

Pradeep had no bona fide U.S. sales 

during the period of review (POR), and 

therefore, we intend to rescind the 

review. We are also rescinding the 

review with respect to Echjay and 

Hotmetal because they both withdrew 

their requests for the review, and no 

other party requested a review of these 

companies. 

We invite interested parties to 

comment on this preliminary intent to 

rescind with respect to Pradeep. Parties 

who submit argument in these 

proceedings are requested to submit 

with the argument: (1) a statement of the 

issues; and (2) a brief summary of the 

argument. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 1, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred 

Baker or Robert James, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–2924 or (202) 482–

0649, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On February 9, 1994, the Department 

published the antidumping duty order 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 149 / Friday, August 1, 2008 / Notices 45071 

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. 08–5-187, 

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. 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–753, 754, and 

756 (Second Review)] 

Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From 

China, Russia, and Ukraine 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of five-year reviews 

concerning the antidumping duty order 

on cut-to-length carbon steel plate from 

China and the suspended investigations 

on cut-to-length carbon steel plate from 

Russia and Ukraine. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it has instituted reviews 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) 

to determine whether revocation of the 

antidumping duty order on cut-to-length 

carbon steel plate from China and/or the 

termination of the suspended 

investigations on cut-to-length carbon 

steel plate from Russia and Ukraine 

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 September 22, 2008. 

Comments on the adequacy of responses 

may be filed with the Commission by 

October 15, 2008. For further 

information concerning the conduct of 

these reviews and rules of general 

application, consult the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 

201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 

201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and 

F (19 CFR part 207). 

DATES: Effective Date: August 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 

these reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background. On October 24, 1997, the 

Department of Commerce suspended 

antidumping duty investigations on 

imports of cut-to-length carbon steel 

plate from China, Russia, and Ukraine 

(62 FR 61766, 61773, and 61780, 

November 19, 1997). Following fiveyear reviews by Commerce and the 

Commission, effective September 17, 

2003, Commerce issued a continuation 

of the suspended investigations on 

imports of cut-to-length carbon steel 

plate from China, Russia, and Ukraine 

(68 FR 54417). The suspension 

agreement concerning cut-to-length 

carbon steel plate from China was 

subsequently terminated and an 

antidumping duty order was imposed 

effective November 3, 2003 (68 FR 

60081). The Commission is now 

conducting second reviews to determine 

whether revocation of the order 

concerning cut-to-length carbon steel 

plate from China and/or termination of 

the suspended investigations 

concerning cut-to-length carbon steel 

plate from Russia and Ukraine would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of material injury to the 

domestic industry within a reasonably 

foreseeable time. It will assess the 

adequacy of interested party responses 

to this notice of institution to determine 

whether to conduct full reviews or 

expedited reviews. The Commission’s 

determinations in any expedited 

reviews will be based on the facts 

available, which may include 

information provided in response to this 

notice. 

Definitions. The following definitions 

apply to these reviews: 

(1) Subject Merchandise is the class or 

kind of merchandise that is within the 

scope of the five-year reviews, as 

defined by the Department of 

Commerce. 

(2) The Subject Countries in these 

reviews are China, Russia, and Ukraine. 

(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 

determinations, the Commission 

defined the Domestic Like Product as 

cut-to-length plate, co-extensive with 

Commerce’s scope, produced by U.S. 

mills or cut from coiled plate by service 

centers. In its full five-year review 

determinations, the Commission 

defined the Domestic Like Product as 

cut-to-length plate, including cut-tolength plate made from microalloy steel. 

One Commissioner defined the 

Domestic Like Product differently in the 

first five-year reviews. 

(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 determinations 

and its full five-year review 

determinations, the Commission 

defined the Domestic Industry to 

include all producers of the Domestic 

Like Product, whether toll producers, 

integrated producers, or processors. One 

Commissioner defined the Domestic 

Industry differently in the first five-year 

reviews. 

(5) An Importer is any person or firm 

engaged, either directly or through a 

parent company or subsidiary, in 

importing the Subject Merchandise into 

the United States from a foreign 

manufacturer or through its selling 

agent. 

Participation in the reviews and 

public service list. Persons, including 

industrial users of the Subject 

Merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in the reviews as parties 

must file an entry of appearance with 

the Secretary to the Commission, as 

provided in section 201.11(b)(4) of the 

Commission’s rules, no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register . The Secretary will 

maintain a public service list containing 

the names and addresses of all persons, 

or their representatives, who are parties 

to the reviews. 

Former Commission employees who 

are seeking to appear in Commission 

five-year reviews are 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. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

45072 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 149 / Friday, August 1, 2008 / Notices 

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 these reviews available to 

authorized applicants under the APO 

issued in the reviews, provided that the 

application is made no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. Authorized 

applicants must represent interested 

parties, as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), 

who are parties to the reviews. A 

separate service list will be maintained 

by the Secretary for those parties 

authorized to receive BPI under the 

APO. 

Certification. Pursuant to section 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules, any 

person submitting information to the 

Commission in connection with these 

reviews must certify that the 

information is accurate and complete to 

the best of the submitter’s knowledge. In 

making the certification, the submitter 

will be deemed to consent, unless 

otherwise specified, for the 

Commission, its employees, and 

contract personnel to use the 

information provided in any other 

reviews or investigations of the same or 

comparable products which the 

Commission conducts under Title VII of 

the Act, or in internal audits and 

investigations relating to the programs 

and operations of the Commission 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3. 

Written submissions. Pursuant to 

section 207.61 of the Commission’s 

rules, each interested party response to 

this notice must provide the information 

specified below. The deadline for filing 

such responses is September 22, 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 expedited 

or full reviews. The deadline for filing 

such comments is October 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 reviews 

must be served on all other parties to 

the reviews (as identified by either the 

public or APO service list as 

appropriate), and a certificate of service 

must accompany the document (if you 

are not a party to the reviews you do not 

need to serve your response). 

Inability to provide requested 

information. Pursuant to section 

207.61(c) of the Commission’s rules, any 

interested party that cannot furnish the 

information requested by this notice in 

the requested form and manner shall 

notify the Commission at the earliest 

possible time, provide a full explanation 

of why it cannot provide the requested 

information, and indicate alternative 

forms in which it can provide 

equivalent information. If an interested 

party does not provide this notification 

(or the Commission finds the 

explanation provided in the notification 

inadequate) and fails to provide a 

complete response to this notice, the 

Commission may take an adverse 

inference against the party pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act in making its 

determinations in the reviews. 

Information to be Provided in 

Response to this Notice of Institution: If 

you are a domestic producer, union/ 

worker group, or trade/business 

association; import/export Subject 

Merchandise from more than one 

Subject Country; or produce Subject 

Merchandise in more than one Subject 

Country, you may file a single response. 

If you do so, please ensure that your 

response to each question includes the 

information requested for each pertinent 

Subject Country. As used below, the 

term ‘‘firm’’ includes any related firms. 

(1) The name and address of your firm 

or entity (including World Wide Web 

address if available) and name, 

telephone number, fax number, and email address of the certifying official. 

(2) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of 

the Domestic Like 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 these reviews by providing 

information requested by the 

Commission. 

(4) A statement of the likely effects of 

the revocation of the antidumping duty 

order with respect to China and the 

termination of the suspended 

investigations with respect to Russia 

and Ukraine 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 each Subject 

Country that currently export or have 

exported Subject Merchandise to the 

United States or other countries after 

2002. 

(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(ies), provide 

the following information on your 

firm’s(s’) operations on that product 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 149 / Friday, August 1, 2008 / Notices 45073 

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 each 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 each 

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 each Subject Country. 

(9) If you are a producer, an exporter, 

or a trade/business association of 

producers or exporters of the Subject 

Merchandise in the Subject 

Country(ies), 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 each Subject Country accounted for 

by your firm’s(s’) production; and 

(b) the quantity and value of your 

firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of 

Subject Merchandise and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total 

exports to the United States of Subject 

Merchandise from each Subject Country 

accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. 

(10) Identify significant changes, if 

any, in the supply and demand 

conditions or business cycle for the 

Domestic Like Product that have 

occurred in the United States or in the 

market for the Subject Merchandise in 

each Subject Country after 2002, 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(ies), 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: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.61 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Issued: July 21, 2008. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E8–17179 Filed 7–31–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–567] 

In the Matter of Certain Foam 

Footwear; Notice of Commission 

Decision To Modify a Final Initial 

Determination and To Terminate the 

Investigation With a Finding of No 

Violation of Section 337 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined to modify 

a final initial determination (‘‘ID’’) of 

the presiding administrative law judge 

(‘‘ALJ’’). The Commission has 

determined that there is no violation of 

section 337 in the above-captioned 

investigation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Clint Gerdine, Esq., Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

708–2310. Copies of non-confidential 

documents filed in connection with this 

investigation are or will be available for 

inspection during official business 

hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the 

Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, 

telephone (202) 205–2000. General 

information concerning the Commission 

may also be obtained by accessing its 

Internet server at http://www.usitc.gov. 

The public record for this investigation 

may be viewed on the Commission’s 

electronic docket (EDIS) at http:// 

edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired 

persons are advised that information on 

this matter can be obtained by 

contacting the Commission’s TDD 

terminal on (202) 205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission instituted this investigation 

on May 11, 2006, based on a complaint, 

as amended, filed by Crocs, Inc. 

(‘‘Crocs’’) of Niwot, Colorado. 71 FR 

27514 (2006). The amended complaint 

alleges violations of section 337 of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 

U.S.C. 1337), in the importation into the 

United States, the sale for importation, 

and the sale within the United States 

after importation of certain foam 

footwear, by reason of infringement of 

claims 1–2 of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,858 

(‘‘the ‘858 patent’’); U.S. Patent No. 

D517,789 (‘‘the ‘789 patent’’); and the 

Crocs trade dress (the image and overall 

appearance of Crocs-brand footwear). 

The complaint further alleges that an 

industry in the United States exists as 

required by subsection (a)(2) of section 

337. The complaint requests that the 

Commission issue a permanent general 

exclusion order and permanent cease 

and desist orders. The complaint 

identifies 11 respondents that include: 

(1) Collective Licensing International, 

LLC (‘‘Collective’’) of Englewood, 

Colorado; (2) Double Diamond 

Distribution Ltd. (‘‘Double Diamond’’) of 

Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; (3) 

Effervescent Inc. (‘‘Effervescent’’) of 

Fitchburg, Massachusetts; (4) Gen-X 

Sports, Inc. (‘‘Gen-X Sports’’) of 

Toronto, Ontario; (5) Holey Soles 

Holding Ltd. (‘‘Holey Soles’’) of 

Vancouver, British Columbia; (6) 

Australia Unlimited, Inc. of Seattle, 

Washington; (7) Cheng’s Enterprises Inc. 

of Carlstadt, New Jersey; (8) D. Myers & 

Sons, Inc. of Baltimore, Maryland; (9) 

Inter-Pacific Trading Corp. of Los 

Angeles, California; (10) Pali Hawaii of 

Honolulu, Hawaii; and (11) Shaka Shoes 

of Kaliua-Kona, Hawaii. The 

Commission terminated the 

investigation as to the trade dress 

allegation on September 11, 2006. A 

twelfth respondent, Old Dominion 

Footwear, Inc. of Madison Heights, 

Virginia, was added to the investigation 

on October 10, 2006. All but five 

respondents have been terminated from 

the investigation on the basis of a 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES


70368 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 225 / Thursday, November 20, 2008 / Notices 

Publication 4043 (November 2008), 

entitled Certain Lightweight Thermal 

Paper from China and Germany: 

Investigation Nos. 701–TA–451 and 

731–TA–1126–1127 (Final). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: November 17, 2008. 

William R. Bishop, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E8–27626 Filed 11–19–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–753, 754, and 

756 (Second Review)] 

Cut-To-Length Carbon Steel Plate 

From China, Russia, and Ukraine 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of Commission 

determinations to conduct full five-year 

reviews concerning the antidumping 

duty order on cut-to-length carbon steel 

plate from China and the suspended 

investigations on cut-to-length carbon 

steel plate from Russia and Ukraine. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it will proceed with full 

reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(5)) to determine whether 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

order on cut-to-length carbon steel plate 

from China and/or the termination of 

the suspended investigations on cut-tolength carbon steel plate from Russia 

and Ukraine would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury within a reasonably foreseeable 

time. A schedule for the reviews will be 

established and announced at a later 

date. For further information concerning 

the conduct of these reviews and rules 

of general application, consult the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207). 

DATES: Effective Date: November 4, 

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 

these reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

November 4, 2008, the Commission 

determined that it should proceed to 

full reviews in the subject five-year 

reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of 

the Act. The Commission found that the 

domestic interested party group 

response to its notice of institution (73 

FR 45071, August 1, 2008) was adequate 

and that the respondent interested party 

group responses with respect to Russia 

and Ukraine were adequate and decided 

to conduct full reviews with respect to 

the suspended investigations 

concerning cut-to-length carbon steel 

plate from Russia and Ukraine. The 

Commission found that the respondent 

interested party group response with 

respect to China was inadequate. 

However, the Commission determined 

to conduct a full review concerning the 

antidumping duty order on cut-to-length 

carbon steel plate from China to 

promote administrative efficiency in 

light of its decision to conduct full 

reviews with respect to the suspended 

investigations concerning cut-to-length 

carbon steel plate from Russia and 

Ukraine. A record of the 

Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, 

and any individual Commissioner’s 

statements will be available from the 

Office of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s Web site. 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.62 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: November 17, 2008. 

William R. Bishop, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E8–27591 Filed 11–19–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[OMB Number 1117–0012] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Proposed Collection; 

Comments Requested 

ACTION: 30-Day Notice of Information 

Collection Under Review: Application 

for Registration (DEA Form 225); 

Application for Registration Renewal 

(DEA Form 225a); Affidavit for Chain 

Renewal (DEA Form 225b) 

The Department of Justice (DOJ), Drug 

Enforcement Administration (DEA) 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 at 73 FR 53278 on September 

15, 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 December 22, 2008. 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 

agencies 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. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 235 / Friday, December 5, 2008 / Notices 74143 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–849] 

Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon Steel 

Plate From the People’s Republic of 

China: Notice of Final Results of 

Expedited Sunset Review of 

Antidumping Duty Order 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 5, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Demitri Kalogeropoulos, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 8, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–2623. 

SUMMARY: On August 1, 2008, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) initiated a sunset 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on certain cut–to-length carbon steel 

plate (‘‘CTL plate’’) from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). On the basis 

of a notice of intent to participate, and 

an adequate substantive response filed 

on behalf of domestic interested parties, 

as well as a lack of response from 

respondent interested parties, the 

Department conducted an expedited 

(120-day) sunset review. As a result of 

the 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. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On August 1, 2008, the Department 

published the notice of initiation of the 

sunset review of the antidumping duty 

order on CTL plate from the PRC 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). 

See Initiation of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Review, 73 FR 44968 (August 1, 2008). 

On August 5, 2008, the Department 

received a notice of intent to participate 

from a domestic interested party, Nucor 

Corporation (‘‘Nucor’’). On August 15, 

2008, the Department received a notice 

of intent to participate from SSAB North 

America Division (‘‘SSAB NAB’’), Evraz 

NA Oregon Steel Mills (‘‘OSM’’), and 

Evraz NA Claymont (‘‘Claymont’’), 

domestic interested parties. The 

Department received a notice of intent 

to participate from ArcelorMittal USA, a 

domestic interested party, on August 18, 

2008. Submissions of the notices of 

intent to participate filed by Nucor, 

SSAB NAB, OSM, Claymont, and 

ArcelorMittal (collectively ‘‘domestic 

interested parties’’) were within the 

deadline specified in section 

351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Department’s 

regulations. The domestic interested 

parties claimed interested party status 

under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as 

domestic producers of CTL plate in the 

United States. On August 29, 2008, the 

Department received a substantive 

response from the domestic interested 

parties within the deadline specified in 

section 351.218(d)(3)(i) of the 

Department’s regulations. We did not 

receive responses from any respondent 

interested parties to this proceeding. As 

a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) 

of the Act and section 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2) of the 

Department’s regulations, the 

Department determined to conduct an 

expedited review of the order. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by the order 

include hot–rolled carbon steel 

universal mill plates (i.e., flat–rolled 

products rolled on four faces or in a 

closed box pass, of a width exceeding 

150 millimeters but not exceeding 1,250 

millimeters and of a thickness of not 

less than 4 millimeters, not in coils and 

without patterns in relief), of 

rectangular shape, neither clad, plated 

nor coated with metal, whether or not 

painted, varnished, or coated with 

plastics or other nonmetallic substances; 

and certain hot–rolled carbon steel flat– 

rolled products in straight lengths, of 

rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither 

clad, plated, nor coated with metal, 

whether or not painted, varnished, or 

coated with plastics or other 

nonmetallic substances, 4.75 

millimeters or more in thickness and of 

a width which exceeds 150 millimeters 

and measures at least twice the 

thickness, as currently classifiable in the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) under item 

numbers 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 

7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 

7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 

7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 

7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 

7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 

7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000, 

7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and 

7212.50.0000. Included in the order are 

flat–rolled products of non–rectangular 

cross-section where such cross-section 

is achieved subsequent to the rolling 

process (i.e., products which have been 

‘‘worked after rolling’’) for example, 

products which have been beveled or 

rounded at the edges. Excluded from the 

order is grade X–70 plate. Also excluded 

from the order is certain carbon cut–tolength steel plate with a maximum 

thickness of 80 mm in steel grades BS 

7191, 355 EM, and 355 EMZ, as 

amended by Sable Offshore Energy 

Project specification XB MOO Y 15 

0001, types 1 and 2. Although the 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope is 

dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in this review are 

addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum’’ (‘‘Decision 

Memorandum’’) from Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, to David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, dated concurrently 

with this notice, and is hereby adopted 

by this notice. The issues discussed in 

the Decision Memorandum include the 

likelihood of continuation or recurrence 

of dumping and the magnitude of the 

margins likely to prevail if the order 

were 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 in room 1117 of 

the main Commerce building. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly on the web at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Final Results of Review 

Pursuant to section 752(c)(3) of the 

Act, we determine that revocation of the 

antidumping duty order on CTL plate 

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) 

Anshan (Anshan Iron 

and Steel Complex/ 

Anshan International 

Trade Corp./Sincerely 

Asia Ltd.) ................... 30.68 

Baoshan (Baoshan Iron 

and Steel Corp./ 

Baoshan International 

Trade Corp./Bao 

Steel Metals Trading 

Corp.) ........................ 30.51 

China Metallurgical Import and Export 

Liaoning Co. .............. 17.33 

Shanghai Pudong Iron 

and Steel Co. ............ 38.16 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
74144 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 235 / Friday, December 5, 2008 / Notices 

Manufacturers/ 

Exporters/Producers 

Weighted–Average 

Margin (percent) 

WISCO (Wuhan Iron 

and Steel Co./International Economic 

and Trading Corp./ 

Cheerwu Trader Ltd.) 128.59 

PRC–Wide .................... 128.59 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective orders 

(‘‘APO’’) of their responsibility 

concerning the return or destruction of 

proprietary information disclosed under 

APO in accordance with section 351.305 

of the Department’s regulations. Timely 

notification of the return or destruction 

of APO materials or conversion to 

judicial protective order is hereby 

requested. Failure to comply with the 

regulations and terms of an APO is a 

violation which is subject to sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing the 

results and notice in accordance with 

sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of 

the Act. 

Dated: December 1, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–28863 Filed 12–4–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–580–839 

Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From 

Korea: Final Results of the 2006–2007 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On May 30, 2008, the 

Department of Commerce published the 

preliminary results of the seventh 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

polyester staple fiber from the Republic 

of Korea. The review covers the 

shipments of subject merchandise to the 

United States by Huvis Corporation. 

Based on our analysis of the comments 

received from interested parties, we 

have made certain changes for the final 

results. The final weighted–average 

dumping margins are listed below in the 

‘‘Final Results of the Review’’ section of 

this notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 5, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andrew McAllister or Brandon 

Farlander, Office 1, AD/CVD 

Operations, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–1174 and (202) 482–0182, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On May 30, 2008, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) 

published Certain Polyester Staple Fiber 

from Korea: Preliminary Results of the 

2006/2007 Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 31058 

(May 30, 2008) (‘‘Preliminary Results’’) 

in the Federal Register. Prior to the 

publication of the Preliminary Results, 

on May 27, 2008, Wellman, Inc., Invista, 

S.a.r.L., and DAK Americas, LLC 

(collectively, ‘‘the petitioners’’) refiled 

their May 8, 2008, submission in 

accordance with the Department’s May 

22, 2008, letter allowing such refiling. 

On June 2, 2008, the petitioners 

submitted comments rebutting Huvis 

Corporation (‘‘Huvis’’)’s May 22, 2008, 

submission. On June 6, 2008, Huvis 

submitted additional comments 

regarding the petitioners’ May 27, 2008, 

submission. 

On June 30, 2008, the petitioners and 

Huvis filed case briefs. On July 14, 2008, 

the petitioners and Huvis filed rebuttal 

briefs. 

On September 15, 2008, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register an extension of the time limit 

for the completion of the final results of 

this review until no later than 

November 26, 2008, in accordance with 

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), and 19 

CFR 351.213(h)(2). See Certain Polyester 

Staple Fiber From the Republic of 

Korea: Notice of Extension of Time Limit 

for the Final Results of the 2006–2007 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 53190 

(Sept. 15, 2008). 

Scope of the Order 

For the purposes of this order, the 

product covered is certain polyester 

staple fiber (‘‘PSF’’). PSF is defined as 

synthetic staple fibers, not carded, 

combed or otherwise processed for 

spinning, of polyesters measuring 3.3 

decitex (3 denier, inclusive) or more in 

diameter. This merchandise is cut to 

lengths varying from one inch (25 mm) 

to five inches (127 mm). The 

merchandise subject to this order may 

be coated, usually with a silicon or 

other finish, or not coated. PSF is 

generally used as stuffing in sleeping 

bags, mattresses, ski jackets, comforters, 

cushions, pillows, and furniture. 

Merchandise of less than 3.3 decitex 

(less than 3 denier) currently classifiable 

under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 

of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) at 

subheading 5503.20.00.25 is specifically 

excluded from this order. Also 

specifically excluded from this order are 

polyester staple fibers of 10 to 18 denier 

that are cut to lengths of 6 to 8 inches 

(fibers used in the manufacture of 

carpeting). In addition, low–melt PSF is 

excluded from this order. Low–melt PSF 

is defined as a bi–component fiber with 

an outer sheath that melts at a 

significantly lower temperature than its 

inner core. 

The merchandise subject to this order 

is currently classifiable in the HTSUS at 

subheadings 5503.20.00.45 and 

5503.20.00.65. Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the merchandise 

under the order is dispositive. 

Period of Review 

The period of review (‘‘POR’’) is May 

1, 2006, through April 30, 2007. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties to this review 

are addressed in the November 26, 2008, 

Issues and Decision Memorandum for 

the Seventh Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Certain 

Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic 

of Korea (‘‘Decision Memorandum’’), 

which is hereby adopted by this notice. 

Attached to this notice as an appendix 

is a list of the issues which parties have 

raised and to which we have responded 

in the Decision Memorandum. 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 Department’s Central Records Unit, 

Room 1117 of the main Department 

building (‘‘CRU’’). In addition, a 

complete version of the Decision 

Memorandum can be accessed directly 

on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/ 

index.html. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of PSF 

from Korea to the United States were 

made at less than normal value (‘‘NV’’), 

we compared export price (‘‘EP’’) to the 

NV. We calculated EP, NV, constructed 

value (‘‘CV’’), and the cost of production 

(‘‘COP’’), based on the same 

methodologies used in the Preliminary 

Results, with the following exception: 

• We have revised the comparison 

market and margin programs to 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 236 / Monday, December 8, 2008 / Notices 74461 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–821–808 

Certain Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel 

Plate from Russia; Final Results of 

Expedited Sunset Review of the 

Suspension Agreement 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of the 

Expedited Sunset Review of the 

Suspension Agreement on Certain Cut– 

to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from 

Russia. 

SUMMARY: On August 1, 2008, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) initiated a sunset review 

of the suspended antidumping duty 

investigation on certain cut–to-length 

carbon steel plate (‘‘CTL plate’’) from 

the Russian Federation (‘‘Russia’’) 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). 

See Initiation of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Review, 73 FR 44968 (August 1, 2008) 

(‘‘Initiation Notice’’). On the basis of 

notices of intent to participate and 

adequate substantive comments filed on 

behalf of domestic interested parties, as 

well as no response from respondent 

interested parties, the Department is 

conducting an expedited (120-day) 

review. As a result of this review, the 

Department finds that termination of the 

suspension agreement and the 

underlying antidumping duty 

investigation on CTL plate from Russia 

would likely lead to continuation or 

recurrence of dumping at the levels 

indicated in the Final Results of Review 

section of this notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 8, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sally C. Gannon or Maureen Price, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, N.W., 

Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 

482–0162 or (202) 482–4271. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

History of the Suspension Agreement 

On December 3, 1996, the Department 

initiated an antidumping duty 

investigation under section 732 of the 

Act on certain CTL plate from Russia. 

See Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigations: Certain Cut–To-Length 

Carbon Steel Plate from the People’s 

Republic of China, Ukraine, the Russian 

Federation, and the Republic of South 

Africa, 61 FR 64051 (December 3, 1996). 

On June 11, 1997, the Department 

preliminarily determined that CTL plate 

from Russia was being, or was likely to 

be, sold in the United States at less than 

fair value. See Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value; Certain Cut–to-Length 

Carbon Steel Plate from the Russian 

Federation, 62 FR 31967 (June 11, 1997). 

The Department suspended the 

antidumping duty investigation on 

October 24, 1997, on the basis of an 

agreement by the Russian Government 

to restrict the volume of direct and 

indirect exports of CTL plate to the 

United States in order to prevent the 

suppression or undercutting of price 

levels of U.S. domestic like products. 

See Suspension of Antidumping Duty 

Investigation: Certain Cut–to-Length 

Carbon Steel Plate From the Russian 

Federation, 62 FR 61780 (November 19, 

1997). Thereafter, upon the request of 

the petitioners, the Department 

continued its investigation and 

published in the Federal Register its 

final determination of sales at less than 

fair market value. In the final 

determination, the Department 

calculated a weighted–average dumping 

margin of 53.81 percent for JSC 

Severstal, and 185.00 for ‘‘all other’’ 

Russian manufacturers, producers, and 

exporters of the subject merchandise. 

See Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 

Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From 

the Russian Federation, 62 FR 61787 

(November 19, 1997). On December 20, 

2002, a revised suspension agreement 

was signed by representatives of 

Russian CTL plate producers pursuant 

to section 734(b) of the Act. This 

agreement became effective January 23, 

2003, and replaced the previous non– 

market economy agreement that had 

been in effect since 1997. See 

Suspension of Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Certain Cut–to-Length 

Carbon Steel Plate from the Russian 

Federation, 68 FR 3859 (January 27, 

2003) (‘‘Suspension Agreement’’). 

On May 14, 2008, the Department 

concluded an administrative review of 

the Suspension Agreement with respect 

to CTL Plate from Russia. We found that 

JSC Severstal (‘‘Severstal’’) was in 

compliance with the agreement. See 

Certain Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel 

Plate from the Russian Federation; Final 

Results of Administrative Review of the 

Suspension Agreement, 73 FR 27795 

(May 14, 2008). 

The Suspension Agreement remains 

in effect for the signatory producers/ 

exporters of CTL plate from Russia: 

Severstal, JSC Magnitogorsk Iron and 

Steel Works and JSC NOSTA Integrated 

Iron–Steel Works. 

Background 

On August 1, 2008, the Department 

initiated a sunset review of the 

suspended antidumping duty 

investigation on CTL plate from Russia, 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. 

See Initiation Notice, 73 FR 44968. The 

Department received a timely notice of 

intent to participate in this sunset 

review from Nucor Corporation on 

August 5, 2008, from SSAB North 

America Division (‘‘SSAB N.A.D.’’), 

Evraz S.A. Oregon Steel Mills (‘‘OSM’’) 

and Evraz S.A. Claymont (‘‘Claymont’’) 

on August 15, 2008, and from 

ArcelorMittal USA, Inc. on August 18, 

2008 (collectively, ‘‘domestic interested 

parties’’), within the applicable deadline 

specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of 

the Department’s regulations. Domestic 

interested parties claimed interested– 

party status under section 771(9)(C) of 

the Act as producers of the domestic 

like products. In addition, domestic 

interested parties assert that they are not 

related to a foreign producer/exporter 

and are not importers, or related to 

importers, of the subject merchandise. 

At the request of the Department, on 

September 11, 2008, SSAB N.A.D., OSM 

and Claymont submitted a clarification 

to their notice of intent to participate. 

Respondent interested parties did not 

submit notices of intent to participate. 

The Department also received a 

complete, collective substantive 

response from the domestic interested 

parties within the 30-day deadline 

specified in the Department’s 

regulations under section 

351.218(d)(3)(i). After examining the 

substantive response from the domestic 

interested parties, on September 22, 

2008, the Department determined that 

the response was adequate, consistent 

with the requirements of 19 CFR 

351.218(e). See Memorandum from 

Maureen Price, Senior Policy Analyst, 

Office of Policy, Import Administration, 

to Sally C. Gannon, Director for Bilateral 

Agreements, Office of Policy, Import 

Administration, regarding ‘‘Sunset 

Review of the Agreement Suspending 

the Antidumping Investigation of 

Certain Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel 

Plate from the Russian Federation: 

Adequacy Determination’’ (September 

15, 2008). See also Letter from Edward 

C. Yang, Director, AD/CVD Operations, 

China/NME Group, Import 

Administration, to Robert Carpenter, 

Director, Office of Investigations, 

International Trade Commission 

(September 22, 2008). Because the 

response of the domestic interested 

parties constituted an adequate response 

to the notice of initiation and there was 

no response from the respondent 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

74462 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 236 / Monday, December 8, 2008 / Notices 

interested parties, the Department is 

conducting an expedited (120-day) 

sunset review in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(c)(2). 

Scope of Review 

The products covered by the 

Suspension Agreement include hot– 

rolled iron and non–alloy steel 

universal mill plates (i.e., flat–rolled 

products rolled on four faces or in a 

closed box pass, of a width exceeding 

150 mm but not exceeding 1250 mm 

and of a thickness of not less than 4 

mm, not in coils and without patterns 

in relief), of rectangular shape, neither 

clad, plated nor coated with metal, 

whether or not painted, varnished, or 

coated with plastics or other 

nonmetallic substances; and certain iron 

and non–alloy steel flat–rolled products 

not in coils, of rectangular shape, hot– 

rolled, neither clad, plated, nor coated 

with metal, whether or not painted, 

varnished, or coated with plastics or 

other nonmetallic substances, 4.75 mm 

or more in thickness and of a width 

which exceeds 150 mm and measures at 

least twice the thickness. Included as 

subject merchandise in the Suspension 

Agreement are flat–rolled products of 

nonrectangular cross-section where 

such cross-section is achieved 

subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., 

products which have been ‘‘worked 

after rolling’’) for example, products 

which have been beveled or rounded at 

the edges. This merchandise is currently 

classified in the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTS) 

under item numbers 7208.40.3030, 

7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 

7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 

7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000, 

7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 

7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 

7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 

7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 

7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000. 

Although the HTS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

scope of the Agreement is dispositive. 

Specifically excluded from subject 

merchandise within the scope of this 

Agreement is grade X–70 steel plate. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised by parties to this 

sunset review are addressed in the 

‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for 

the Final Results of the Expedited 

Sunset Review of the Agreement 

Suspending the Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Certain Cut–to-Length 

Carbon Steel Plate from the Russian 

Federation,’’ from Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy 

and Negotiations, Import 

Administration, to David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary, Import 

Administration (December 1, 2008) 

(‘‘Decision Memorandum’’), which is 

adopted by this notice. The issues 

discussed in the Decision Memorandum 

include the likelihood of continuation 

or recurrence of dumping and the 

magnitude of the margins likely to 

prevail were the suspended 

antidumping duty investigation to be 

terminated. Parties may find a complete 

discussion of all issues raised in this 

review and the corresponding 

recommendations in this public 

memorandum, which is on file in the 

Central Records Unit, room B–1117, of 

the main Commerce building. In 

addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly on the Web at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Final Results of Review 

We determine that termination of the 

Suspension Agreement and the 

underlying antidumping duty 

investigation on CTL plate from Russia 

would likely lead to a continuation or 

recurrence of dumping at the following 

percentage weighted–average margins: 

Manufacturer/producer/ 

exporter 

Weighted-average 

margin percentage 

Severstal ....................... 53.81 

Russia–wide ................. 185.00 

We are issuing and publishing this 

notice in accordance with sections 

751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff 

Act. 

Dated: December 1, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–29014 Filed 12–5–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–570–831 

Fresh Garlic from the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Results 

of the Antidumping Duty 

Administrative and New Shipper 

Reviews and Intent to Rescind, In Part, 

the Antidumping Duty Administrative 

and New Shipper Reviews 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(Department) is conducting 

administrative and new shipper reviews 

of the antidumping duty order on fresh 

garlic from the People’s Republic of 

China (PRC) covering the period of 

review (POR) of November 1, 2006 

through October 31, 2007. As discussed 

below, we preliminarily determine that 

sales have been made in the United 

States at prices below normal value 

(NV) with respect to certain exporters 

who participated fully and are entitled 

to a separate rate in the administrative 

or new shipper reviews (NSR). In 

addition, we are preliminarily 

rescinding the NSR for Anqiu Haoshun 

Trade Co., Ltd. (Haoshun). Finally, the 

Department intends to rescind the 

antidumping duty administrative 

reviews of three companies that had no 

shipments of subject merchandise to the 

United States during the POR. If these 

preliminary results are adopted in our 

final results of review, we will instruct 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) to assess antidumping duties on 

entries of subject merchandise during 

the POR for which importer–specific 

assessment rates are above de minimis. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 8, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Scott Lindsay, Nicholas Czajkowski, or 

Summer Avery, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 6, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–0780, (202) 482–1395, and (202) 

482–4052, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On November 16, 1994, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register the antidumping duty order on 

fresh garlic from the PRC. See 

Antidumping Duty Order: Fresh Garlic 

From the People’s Republic of China, 59 

FR 59209 (November 16, 1994) (Order). 

On November 1, 2007, the Department 

published a notice of opportunity to 

request an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on fresh garlic 

from the PRC for the period November 

1, 2006 through October 31, 2007. See 

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 

Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation; Opportunity to Request 

Administrative Review, 72 FR 61859 

(November 1, 2007). 

New Shipper Reviews 

On November 20, 2007 and November 

30, 2007, pursuant to section 

751(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

10614 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 11, 2009 / Notices 

In 1986, one Wihosa mask was 

acquired from Sylvester Matthias, a 

Pima, from Komatke, AZ, who inherited 

it as the last person in the (hereditary) 

line. The cultural item is used in the 

Navichu ceremony. 

Recorded information from museum 

records about the object of cultural 

patrimony states that the item was 

located on traditional Pima (Akimel 

O’odham) land. A tribal representative 

for the Gila River Indian Community of 

the Gila River Indian Reservation, 

Arizona, communicated to the San 

Diego Museum of Man that the item is 

an object of cultural patrimony and has 

ongoing historical, traditional, or 

cultural importance central to the Gila 

River Indian Community of the Gila 

River Indian Reservation itself, rather 

than being property owned by an 

individual. The Wihosa mask is still 

used in the Navichu ceremony and is 

not the property of a single individual. 

This object of cultural patrimony was 

previously described in a Notice of 

Intent to Repatriate in the Federal 

Register (73 FR 59653, October 9, 2008), 

and had been culturally affiliated to the 

Tohono O’odham Nation of Arizona. 

Since publication of the October 9, 2008 

notice, the Gila River Indian 

Community of the Gila River Indian 

Reservation, Arizona, has claimed the 

Wihosa mask as culturally affiliated to 

them. 

Officials of the San Diego Museum of 

Man have determined that, pursuant to 

25 U.S.C. 3001 (3)(D), the one cultural 

item described above has ongoing 

historical, traditional, or cultural 

importance central to the Native 

American group or culture itself, rather 

than property owned by an individual. 

Officials of the San Diego Museum of 

Man also have determined that, 

pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (2), there is 

a relationship of shared group identity 

that can be reasonably traced between 

the object of cultural patrimony and the 

Gila River Indian Community of the Gila 

River Indian Reservation, Arizona. 

Representatives of any other Indian 

tribe that believes itself to be culturally 

affiliated with the object of cultural 

patrimony should contact Philip Hoog, 

Archaeology and NAGPRA Coordinator, 

San Diego Museum of Man, 1350 El 

Prado, Balboa Park, San Diego, CA 

92101, telephone (619) 239–2001, before 

April 10, 2009. Repatriation of the 

object of cultural patrimony to the Gila 

River Indian Community of the Gila 

River Indian Reservation, Arizona may 

proceed after that date if no additional 

claimants come forward. 

The San Diego Museum of Man is 

responsible for notifying the Gila River 

Indian Community of the Gila River 

Indian Reservation, Arizona and 

Tohono O’odham Nation of Arizona that 

this notice has been published. 

Dated: February 12, 2009 

Sangita Chari, 

Acting Manager, National NAGPRA Program. 

[FR Doc. E9–5315 Filed 3–10–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–50–S 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Inv. Nos. 731–TA–753, 754, and 756 

(Second Review)] 

Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From 

China, Russia, and Ukraine 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Scheduling of full five-year 

reviews concerning the antidumping 

duty order on cut-to-length carbon steel 

plate from China and the suspended 

investigations on cut-to-length carbon 

steel plate from Russia and Ukraine. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of full reviews 

pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)) 

(the Act) to determine whether 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

order on cut-to-length carbon steel plate 

from China and the suspended 

investigations on cut-to-length carbon 

steel plate from Russia and Ukraine 

would be likely to lead to continuation 

or recurrence of material injury within 

a reasonably foreseeable time. The 

Commission has determined to exercise 

its authority to extend the review period 

by up to 90 days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(5)(B). For further information 

concerning the conduct of these reviews 

and rules of general application, consult 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207). 

DATES: Effective Date: March 5, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dana Lofgren (202–205–2539), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background—On November 4, 2008, 

the Commission determined that 

responses to its notice of institution of 

the subject five-year reviews were such 

that full reviews pursuant to section 

751(c)(5) of the Act should proceed (73 

FR 70368, November 20, 2008). A record 

of the Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, 

and any individual Commissioner’s 

statements are available from the Office 

of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s Web site. 

Participation in the Reviews and 

Public Service List—Persons, including 

industrial users of the subject 

merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in these reviews as parties 

must file an entry of appearance with 

the Secretary to the Commission, as 

provided in section 201.11 of the 

Commission’s rules, by 45 days after 

publication of this notice. A party that 

filed a notice of appearance following 

publication of the Commission’s notice 

of institution of the reviews need not 

file an additional notice of appearance. 

The Secretary will maintain a public 

service list containing the names and 

addresses of all persons, or their 

representatives, who are parties to the 

reviews. 

Limited Disclosure of Business 

Proprietary Information (BPI) under an 

Administrative Protective Order (APO) 

and BPI Service List—Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

gathered in these reviews available to 

authorized applicants under the APO 

issued in the reviews, provided that the 

application is made by 45 days after 

publication of this notice. Authorized 

applicants must represent interested 

parties, as defined by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), 

who are parties to the reviews. A party 

granted access to BPI following 

publication of the Commission’s notice 

of institution of the reviews need not 

reapply for such access. A separate 

service list will be maintained by the 

Secretary for those parties authorized to 

receive BPI under the APO. 

Staff Report—The prehearing staff 

report in the reviews will be placed in 

the nonpublic record on August 19, 

2009, and a public version will be 

issued thereafter, pursuant to section 

207.64 of the Commission’s rules. 

Hearing—The Commission will hold 

a hearing in connection with the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 11, 2009 / Notices 10615 

reviews beginning at 9:30 a.m. on 

September 9, 2009, at the U.S. 

International Trade Commission 

Building. Requests to appear at the 

hearing should be filed in writing with 

the Secretary to the Commission on or 

before September 1, 2009. A nonparty 

who has testimony that may aid the 

Commission’s deliberations may request 

permission to present a short statement 

at the hearing. All parties and 

nonparties desiring to appear at the 

hearing and make oral presentations 

should attend a prehearing conference 

to be held at 9:30 a.m. on September 2, 

2009, at the U.S. International Trade 

Commission Building. Oral testimony 

and written materials to be submitted at 

the public hearing are governed by 

sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), 207.24, 

and 207.66 of the Commission’s rules. 

Parties must submit any request to 

present a portion of their hearing 

testimony in camera no later than 7 

business days prior to the date of the 

hearing. 

Written Submissions—Each party to 

the reviews may submit a prehearing 

brief to the Commission. Prehearing 

briefs must conform with the provisions 

of section 207.65 of the Commission’s 

rules; the deadline for filing is August 

28, 2009. Parties may also file written 

testimony in connection with their 

presentation at the hearing, as provided 

in section 207.24 of the Commission’s 

rules, and posthearing briefs, which 

must conform with the provisions of 

section 207.67 of the Commission’s 

rules. The deadline for filing 

posthearing briefs is September 18, 

2009; witness testimony must be filed 

no later than three days before the 

hearing. In addition, any person who 

has not entered an appearance as a party 

to the reviews may submit a written 

statement of information pertinent to 

the subject of the reviews on or before 

September 18, 2009. On October 7, 

2009, the Commission will make 

available to parties all information on 

which they have not had an opportunity 

to comment. Parties may submit final 

comments on this information on or 

before October 9, 2009, but such final 

comments must not contain new factual 

information and must otherwise comply 

with section 207.68 of the Commission’s 

rules. All written submissions must 

conform with the provisions of section 

201.8 of the Commission’s rules; any 

submissions that contain BPI must also 

conform with the requirements of 

sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the 

Commission’s rules. The Commission’s 

rules do not authorize filing of 

submissions with the Secretary by 

facsimile or electronic means, except to 

the extent permitted by section 201.8 of 

the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67 

FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Even 

where electronic filing of a document is 

permitted, certain documents must also 

be filed in paper form, as specified in II 

(C) of the Commission’s Handbook on 

Electronic Filing Procedures, 67 FR 

68168, 68173 (November 8, 2002). 

Additional written submissions to the 

Commission, including requests 

pursuant to section 201.12 of the 

Commission’s rules, shall not be 

accepted unless good cause is shown for 

accepting such submissions, or unless 

the submission is pursuant to a specific 

request by a Commissioner or 

Commission staff. 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, 

each document filed by a party to the 

reviews must be served on all other 

parties to the reviews (as identified by 

either the public or BPI service list), and 

a certificate of service must be timely 

filed. The Secretary will not accept a 

document for filing without a certificate 

of service. 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.62 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Issued: March 5, 2009. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–5198 Filed 3–10–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

The Department of Justice, Office of 

Justice Programs 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. Comments are 

encouraged and will be accepted for 60 

days until May 11, 2009. This process 

is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 

1320.10. 

If you have comments, especially on 

the estimated public burden or 

associated response time, suggestions, 

or need a copy of the proposed 

information collection instrument with 

instructions or additional information, 

please contact Tricia Trice, Training and 

Technical Assistance Coordinator, 

Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention, Office of 

Justice Programs, Department of Justice, 

810 7th Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20531. Written comments and 

suggestions from the public and affected 

agencies concerning the proposed 

collection of information are 

encouraged. Your comments should 

address one or more of the following 

four points: 

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency/component, 

including whether the information will 

have practical utility; 

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agencies/components estimate of the 

burden of the proposed collection of 

information, including the validity of 

the methodology and assumptions used; 

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

(4) Minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including 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: 

New Information Collection. 

(2) The Title of the Form/Collection: 

OJJDP NTTAC Needs Assessment of the 

Juvenile Justice Field. 

(3) The Agency Form Number, if Any, 

and the Applicable Component of the 

Department of Justice Sponsoring the 

Collection: Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention, Office of 

Justice Programs, Department of Justice. 

(4) Affected public who will be asked 

or required to respond, as well as a brief 

abstract. Primary: State, Local or Tribal. 

Other: Federal Government; Individuals 

or households; Not-for-profit 

institutions; Businesses or other forprofit. Abstract: The Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s 

National Training and Technical 

Assistance Center (NTTAC) Needs 

Assessment is designed to assess the 

current training and technical assistance 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
11910 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 53 / Friday, March 20, 2009 / Notices 

1Petitioner is Korff Holdings, LLC d/b/a Quaker 

City Castings. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marsha Iyomasa, Deputy United States 

Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Suite 

2061, 14th and Constitution Avenue, 

Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482–5438. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

February 10, 2009, the Binational Panel 

issued a memorandum opinion and 

order, which granted the International 

Trade Administration’s Motion to 

Dismiss the Complaints, concerning 

Certain Softwood Lumber Products from 

Canada. The Secretariat was instructed 

to issue a Notice of Completion of Panel 

Review on the 31st day following the 

issuance of the Notice of Final Panel 

Action, if no request for an 

Extraordinary Challenge was filed. No 

such request was filed. Therefore, on the 

basis of the Panel Order and Rule 80 of 

the Article 1904 Panel Rules, the Panel 

Review was completed and the panelists 

were discharged from their duties 

effective February 10, 2009. 

Dated: March 13, 2009. 

Marsha Iyomasa, 

Deputy United States Secretary, NAFTA 

Secretariat. 

[FR Doc. E9–6034 Filed 3–19–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–GT–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–357–819, C–580–862] 

Ni-Resist Piston Inserts From 

Argentina and the Republic of Korea: 

Notice of Postponement of Preliminary 

Determination in the Countervailing 

Duty Investigations 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 20, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Conniff (Republic of Korea) or Kristen 

Johnson (Argentina), AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 3, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone 202–482–1009 and (202) 482– 

4793, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On February 23, 2009, the Department 

of Commerce (the Department) initiated 

the countervailing duty investigations of 

ni-resist piston inserts from Argentina 

and the Republic of Korea. See Ni-Resist 

Piston Inserts from Argentina and the 

Republic of Korea: Initiation of 

Countervailing Duty Investigations, 74 

FR 8054, and (February 23, 2009). 

Postponement of Due Date for 

Preliminary Determination 

Section 703(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act), requires the 

Department to issue the preliminary 

determination in a countervailing duty 

investigation within 65 days after the 

date on which the Department initiated 

the investigation. However, the 

Department may postpone making the 

preliminary determination until no later 

than 130 days after the date on which 

the administering authority initiated the 

investigation if, pursuant to section 

703(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, the 

Department concludes that the parties 

concerned in the investigation are 

cooperating and determines that the 

investigation is extraordinarily 

complicated or, pursuant to 

703(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, the 

Department finds that ‘‘additional time 

is necessary to the make the preliminary 

determination.’’ 

In the Korean investigation, the 

Department is currently investigating a 

number of complex alleged subsidy 

programs including loans from stateowned banks and lending programs 

where state-owned banks are using 

commercial banks as a means of 

financing Korean manufacturers and 

exporters. In the Argentine 

investigation, on March 5, 2009, 

petitioner submitted to the Department 

timely new subsidy allegations.1 In that 

submission, currently under review by 

the Department, petitioner alleges that 

Clorindo Appo SRL (Clorindo), the 

mandatory respondent, received various 

energy rate subsidies, technical business 

assistance from an enterprise 

development center, government 

financing subsidies in the form of preexport and post-export loans, import 

financing, investment financing for 

small and medium-sized enterprises, 

and working capital credit from 

government banks.

Due to the number and complexity of 

the alleged subsidy programs at issue in 

the Korean investigation and in light of 

the new subsidy allegations at issue in 

the Argentine investigation, we find that 

we require additional time to complete 

the preliminary determinations in the 

respective investigations. Therefore, in 

accordance with section 703(c)(1)(B)(ii) 

of the Act, we are fully extending the 

due date for the preliminary 

determinations to no later than 130 days 

after the day on which the 

investigations were initiated. The 

deadline for completion of the 

preliminary determinations is now June 

29, 2009. 

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to section 703(c)(2) of the Act. 

Dated: March 16, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–6150 Filed 3–19–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–823–808 

Certain Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel 

Plate from Ukraine; Final Results of 

Full Sunset Review of the Suspension 

Agreement 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of the 

Full Sunset Review of the Suspension 

Agreement on Certain Cut–to-Length 

Carbon Steel Plate from Ukraine 

SUMMARY: 

On November 25, 2008, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) published a notice of 

preliminary results of the full sunset 

review of the suspended antidumping 

duty investigation on certain cut–tolength carbon steel plate (‘‘CTL plate’’) 

from Ukraine pursuant to section 751(c) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(‘‘the Act’’). See Certain Cut–to-Length 

Carbon Steel Plate from Ukraine; 

Preliminary Results of Full Sunset 

Review of the Suspension Agreement, 73 

FR 71603 (November 25, 2008) 

(‘‘Preliminary Results’’). We provided 

interested parties an opportunity to 

comment on our Preliminary Results. 

The Department did not receive 

comments from either domestic or 

respondent interested parties. As a 

result of this review, the Department 

continues to find that termination of the 

suspended antidumping duty 

investigation on CTL plate from Ukraine 

would likely lead to a continuation or 

recurrence of dumping at the levels 

indicated in the ‘‘Final Results of 

Review’’ section of this notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 20, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Judith Wey Rudman or Jay Carreiro, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, N.W., 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 53 / Friday, March 20, 2009 / Notices 11911 

Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 

482–0192 or (202) 482–3674. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On November 25, 2008, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register a notice of preliminary results 

of the full sunset review of the 

suspended antidumping duty 

investigation on CTL plate from 

Ukraine, pursuant to section 751(c) of 

the Act. See Preliminary Results, 73 FR 

71603. In our Preliminary Results, we 

found that the termination of the 

suspended antidumping duty 

investigation on CTL plate from Ukraine 

would be likely to lead to a continuation 

or recurrence of dumping at the margins 

determined in the final determination of 

the original investigation. Id. We 

provided interested parties an 

opportunity to comment on our 

Preliminary Results. Id. We did not 

receive comments from either domestic 

or respondent interested parties. 

Scope of Review 

The products covered by the 

Agreement include hot–rolled iron and 

non–alloy steel universal mill plates 

(i.e., flat–rolled products rolled on four 

faces or in a closed box pass, of a width 

exceeding 150 mm but not exceeding 

1250 mm and of a thickness of not less 

than 4 mm, not in coils and without 

patterns in relief), of rectangular shape, 

neither clad, plated nor coated with 

metal, whether or not painted, 

varnished, or coated with plastics or 

other nonmetallic substances; and 

certain iron and non–alloy steel flat– 

rolled products not in coils, of 

rectangular shape, hot–rolled, neither 

clad, plated, nor coated with metal, 

whether or not painted, varnished, or 

coated with plastics or other 

nonmetallic substances, 4.75 mm or 

more in thickness and of a width which 

exceeds 150 mm and measures at least 

twice the thickness. Included as subject 

merchandise in the Agreement are flat– 

rolled products of nonrectangular cross– 

section where such cross–section is 

achieved subsequent to the rolling 

process (i.e., products which have been 

‘‘worked after rolling’’) for example, 

products which have been beveled or 

rounded at the edges. This merchandise 

is currently classified in the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTS) under item 

numbers 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 

7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 

7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 

7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 

7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 

7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 

7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000, 

7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and 

7212.50.0000. Although the HTS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of the 

Agreement is dispositive. Specifically 

excluded from subject merchandise 

within the scope of this Agreement is 

grade X–70 steel plate. 

Final Results of Review 

We have made no changes to our 

Preliminary Results, 73 FR 71603. We 

continue to find that termination of the 

suspended antidumping duty 

investigation on CTL plate from Ukraine 

would likely lead to a continuation or 

recurrence of dumping at the following 

percentage weighted–average margins: 

Manufacturer/producer/ 

exporter 

Weighted-average 

margin percentage 

Azovstal ........................ 81.43 

Ilyich .............................. 155.00 

Ukraine–wide ................ 237.91 

In accordance with section 752(c)(3) 

of the Act, we will notify the 

International Trade Commission of the 

final results of this full sunset review. 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective orders 

(‘‘APO’’) of their responsibility 

concerning the return or destruction of 

proprietary information disclosed under 

APO in accordance with section 351.305 

of the Department’s regulations. Timely 

notification of the return or destruction 

of APO materials or conversion to 

judicial protective order is hereby 

requested. Failure to comply with the 

regulations and terms of an APO is a 

violation which is subject to sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

notice in accordance with sections 

751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff 

Act. 

Dated: March 13, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–6160 Filed 3–19–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–846] 

Brake Rotors From the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Results 

of the 2007 Administrative Review and 

Partial Rescission 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is currently 

conducting the 2007 administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on brake rotors from the People’s 

Republic of China (PRC). We 

preliminarily determine that sales have 

not been made below normal value (NV) 

with respect to those exporters who 

participated fully and are entitled to a 

separate rate in the administrative 

review. If these preliminary results are 

adopted in our final results of this 

review, we will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) to liquidate 

without regard to antidumping duties, 

entries of subject merchandise during 

the period of review (POR) from these 

exporters. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

We will issue the final results no later 

than 120 days from the date of 

publication of this notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 20, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brian Smith or Terre Keaton Stefanova, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–1766 or (202) 482– 

1280, respectively. 

Case History 

On April 17, 1997, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on brake rotors 

from the PRC. See Notice of 

Antidumping Duty Order: Brake Rotors 

from the People’s Republic of China, 62 

FR 18740 (April 17, 1997) (the Order). 

On April 1, 2008, the Department 

published a notice of opportunity to 

request an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on brake rotors 

from the PRC. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

To Request Administrative Review, 73 

FR 17317 (April 1, 2008). 

On April 23 and 30, 2008, the 

Department received timely requests for 

an administrative review of this 

antidumping duty order in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.213 from the following 

companies: Longkou Orient Autoparts 

Co., Ltd. (Longkou Orient), Qingdao 

Meita Automotive Industry Co., Ltd. 

(Meita), Yantai Winhere Auto-Part 

Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Winhere), 

Laizhou Auto Brake Equipment Factory 

(LABEC), Laizhou City Luqi Machinery 

Co., Ltd. (Luqi), Longkou Haimeng 

Machinery Co., Ltd. (Haimeng), Laizhou 

Hongda Auto Replacement Parts Co., 

Ltd. (Hongda), Dixion Brake System 

1

 See 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(5)(D); 63 Fed. Reg. 29372, 29374 (May 29, 1998). 

2 These producers are Arcelormittal USA, Evraz NA Claymont, Evraz NA Oregon Steel Mills, Nucor

Corp., and SSAB North America Division.

EXPLANATION OF COMMISSION DETERMINATIONS ON ADEQUACY

in

Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from China, Russia, and Ukraine

Inv. Nos. 731-TA-753, 754, and 756 (Second Review)

On November 4, 2008, the Commission determined that it should proceed to full reviews in the

subject five-year reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(5)). 

The Commission, in consultation with the Department of Commerce, grouped these reviews because they

involve similar domestic like products.1

With respect to the orders concerning cut-to-length carbon steel plate (“CTL plate”) from China,

Russia, and Ukraine, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party group response was

adequate. The Commission received a consolidated response from five domestic producers that account

for a significant percentage of domestic production of CTL plate.2

 The Commission found the individual

response of each of the five domestic CTL plate producers, which contained company-specific data,

adequate.

The Commission found that the respondent interested party group responses were adequate with

respect to the orders on CTL plate from Russia and Ukraine because respondents from each of these

countries accounted for a significant share of the production of subject merchandise in their respective

countries. 

The Commission received adequate inidividual responses concerning the order on CTL plate

from Russia filed by JSC Severstal, a Russian producer and exporter of CTL plate, and OJSC

Magnitogorsk Iron and Steel Works, a Russian producer of CTL plate. With respect to the review of the

antidumping duty order on CTL plate from Ukraine, the Commission received an adequate joint response

filed by Azovstal Iron & Steel Works and Ilyich Iron & Steel Works, each of which is a Ukranian

producer and exporter of subject merchandise.

Because the group and individual responses from both domestic interested parties and respondent

interested parties were adequate in the reviews of the orders concerning CTL plate from Russia and

Ukraine, the Commission determined to conduct full reviews in these proceedings.

The Commission did not receive a response from any respondent interested parties in the review

concerning subject imports from China, and therefore determined that the respondent interested party

group response for this country was not adequate. The Commission nevertheless voted to conduct a full

review concerning subject imports from China to promote administrative efficiency in light of the

Commission’s determination to conduct full reviews of the majority of orders in these grouped reviews. 

A record of the Commissioners’ votes is available from the Office of the Secretary and on the

Commission’s website (http://www.usitc.gov).

B-1

APPENDIX B

HEARING WITNESSES 

B-3

CALENDAR OF PUBLIC HEARING

Those listed below appeared as witnesses at the United States International Trade Commission’s

hearing:

Subject: Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from China, Russia, and

Ukraine

Inv. Nos.: 731-TA-753, 754, and 756 (Second Review)

Date and Time: September 9, 2009 - 9:30 a.m.

Sessions were held in connection with these reviews in the Main Hearing Room (room 101),

500 E Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.

CONGRESSIONAL APPEARANCES:

The Honorable Peter J. Visclosky, U.S. Congressman, 1st District, State of Indiana

The Honorable Jo Bonner, U.S. Congressman, 1st District, State of Alabama

OPENING REMARKS:

In Support of Continuation of Orders (Roger B. Schagrin,

Schagrin Associates)

In Support of Continuation of Orders: 

Kelley Drye & Warren LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

ArcelorMittal USA

United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber,

Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial

and Service Workers International Union (“USW”)

Robert W. Insetta, Director, Specialty Plate,

ArcelorMittal USA

Jeffrey W. Unruh, Product Manger, Plates Sales

and Marketing, ArcelorMittal US

Thomas Conway, Thomas Conway, International

Vice President (Administration), USW
B-4

In Support of Continuation of

 Antidumping Orders:

Paul C. Rosenthal )

) – OF COUNSEL

Kathleen W. Cannon )

Schagrin Associates

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

SSAB NAD, Evraz NA Oregon Steel Mills

Evraz NA Claymont

David Britten, President, SSAB NAD

Glenn Gilmore, Trade Supervisor, SSAB NAD

Kent Thies, National Marketing Manager, Evraz

NA Oregon Steel Mills

Roger B. Schagrin )

) – OF COUNSEL

John W. Bohn )

Wiley Rein LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Nucor Corporation

Rick Blume, Director , Sales and Marketing,

Nucor Corporation

Jeff Whiteman, Sales Manger, Hertford County,

Nucor Corporation

Alan H. Price )

Daniel B. Pickard ) – OF COUNSEL

Christopher B. Weld )

CLOSING REMARKS:

In Support of Continuation of Orders (Alan H. Price,

Wiley Rein LLP)
C-1

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA 
 
Table C-1

CTL plate: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2003-08, January-June 2008, and January-June 2009

(Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-June Jan.-June

Item 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 2009 2003-08 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,393,512 7,217,372 7,536,148 8,988,128 8,531,296 8,635,333 4,480,239 2,212,950 35.1 12.9 4.4 19.3 -5.1 1.2 -50.6

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . . 93.8 91.1 89.4 85.0 87.9 90.3 92.0 89.7 -3.5 -2.7 -1.7 -4.4 2.9 2.4 -2.4

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0

 Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.4 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.9 -0.0 0.0 0.7 -0.3 0.5 -0.2

 Ukraine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 1.8 1.2 1.4 0.7 2.0 0.8 0.7 1.9 1.7 -0.6 0.2 -0.7 1.3 -0.0

 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 1.8 1.3 2.2 1.2 3.0 1.3 1.1 2.8 1.6 -0.6 0.9 -1.0 1.9 -0.2

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . 6.0 7.1 9.4 12.8 11.0 6.6 6.6 9.2 0.7 1.1 2.3 3.5 -1.9 -4.3 2.6

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 8.9 10.6 15.0 12.1 9.7 8.0 10.3 3.5 2.7 1.7 4.4 -2.9 -2.4 2.4

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,307,465 4,369,126 5,310,214 6,598,992 6,547,414 8,792,054 4,138,021 1,734,302 281.0 89.3 21.5 24.3 -0.8 34.3 -58.1

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . . 91.9 90.5 88.9 86.3 88.1 89.5 91.9 86.3 -2.4 -1.4 -1.6 -2.6 1.8 1.4 -5.6

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 -0.0 -0.1 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

 Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.4 1.1 0.4 0.4 1.0 -0.0 0.0 0.6 -0.3 0.7 -0.0

 Ukraine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 1.7 1.2 1.2 0.6 2.1 0.8 1.0 2.0 1.6 -0.5 0.0 -0.6 1.4 0.2

 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 1.7 1.3 1.9 1.1 3.2 1.3 1.5 3.0 1.5 -0.5 0.6 -0.9 2.2 0.3

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . 7.9 7.7 9.8 11.8 10.9 7.3 6.8 12.2 -0.6 -0.1 2.1 2.0 -0.9 -3.6 5.3

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1 9.5 11.1 13.7 11.9 10.5 8.1 13.7 2.4 1.4 1.6 2.6 -1.8 -1.4 5.6

U.S. imports from:

 China:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,036 1,393 2,836 4,113 3,453 4,360 869 789 -27.8 -76.9 103.6 45.0 -16.0 26.3 -9.2

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,428 1,488 1,719 3,191 3,214 5,714 1,379 1,698 135.4 -38.7 15.5 85.7 0.7 77.8 23.2

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $402 $1,068 $606 $776 $931 $1,311 $1,587 $2,153 225.9 165.6 -43.2 28.0 20.0 40.8 35.6

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Russia:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,742 714 3,001 69,960 37,793 84,992 24,810 8,066 2,171.5 -80.9 320.6 2,230.9 -46.0 124.9 -67.5

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,239 602 1,766 42,572 25,236 95,098 18,555 7,452 7,576.2 -51.4 193.6 2,310.9 -40.7 276.8 -59.8

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $331 $843 $588 $609 $668 $1,119 $748 $924 237.9 154.6 -30.2 3.4 9.7 67.6 23.5

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ukraine:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,724 129,159 89,275 122,420 57,700 173,945 34,528 16,128 3,582.5 2,634.3 -30.9 37.1 -52.9 201.5 -53.3

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,709 73,854 64,765 81,432 40,885 182,276 32,023 17,190 10,566.4 4,221.8 -12.3 25.7 -49.8 345.8 -46.3

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $362 $572 $725 $665 $709 $1,048 $927 $1,066 189.7 58.1 26.9 -8.3 6.5 47.9 14.9

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,502 131,265 95,113 196,494 98,947 263,298 60,206 24,983 1,715.6 805.2 -27.5 106.6 -49.6 166.1 -58.5

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,375 75,943 68,250 127,195 69,335 283,089 51,957 26,340 5,166.5 1,312.8 -10.1 86.4 -45.5 308.3 -49.3

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $371 $579 $718 $647 $701 $1,075 $863 $1,054 190.1 56.1 24.0 -9.8 8.3 53.4 22.2

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380,951 512,579 705,800 1,152,553 934,974 572,094 297,075 203,650 50.2 34.6 37.7 63.3 -18.9 -38.8 -31.4

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181,282 338,335 522,619 779,697 712,338 642,330 283,150 210,981 254.3 86.6 54.5 49.2 -8.6 -9.8 -25.5

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $476 $660 $740 $676 $762 $1,123 $953 $1,036 135.9 38.7 12.2 -8.6 12.6 47.4 8.7

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395,453 643,845 800,913 1,349,047 1,033,921 835,392 357,281 228,633 111.2 62.8 24.4 68.4 -23.4 -19.2 -36.0

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186,658 414,278 590,868 906,892 781,673 925,418 335,107 237,320 395.8 121.9 42.6 53.5 -13.8 18.4 -29.2

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $472 $643 $738 $672 $756 $1,108 $938 $1,038 134.7 36.3 14.7 -8.9 12.5 46.5 10.7

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . 8,272 18,846 17,784 53,034 28,586 52,704 24,747 38,569 537.1 127.8 -5.6 198.2 -46.1 84.4 55.9

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . . 9,612,515 9,358,706 9,824,667 10,420,197 10,464,249 10,882,642 5,581,791 5,064,916 13.2 -2.6 5.0 6.1 0.4 4.0 -9.3

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . . 6,464,022 7,129,899 7,337,156 8,515,159 8,463,676 8,583,931 4,636,079 2,064,300 32.8 10.3 2.9 16.1 -0.6 1.4 -55.5

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . . 67.2 76.2 74.7 81.7 80.9 78.9 83.1 40.8 11.6 8.9 -1.5 7.0 -0.8 -2.0 -42.3

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,998,059 6,573,527 6,735,235 7,639,081 7,497,375 7,799,941 4,122,958 1,984,317 30.0 9.6 2.5 13.4 -1.9 4.0 -51.9

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,120,807 3,954,848 4,719,346 5,692,100 5,765,741 7,866,636 3,802,914 1,496,982 270.9 86.5 19.3 20.6 1.3 36.4 -60.6

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $354 $602 $701 $745 $769 $1,009 $922 $754 185.2 70.2 16.5 6.3 3.2 31.1 -18.2

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 450,172 566,669 607,336 796,275 948,275 902,630 509,592 179,288 100.5 25.9 7.2 31.1 19.1 -4.8 -64.8

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185,825 438,474 512,712 664,872 842,197 911,760 506,319 126,919 390.7 136.0 16.9 29.7 26.7 8.3 -74.9

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $413 $774 $844 $835 $888 $1,010 $994 $708 144.7 87.5 9.1 -1.1 6.4 13.7 -28.8

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . 472,142 467,155 427,639 535,175 544,133 429,247 527,909 268,774 -9.1 -1.1 -8.5 25.1 1.7 -21.1 -49.1

 Inventories/total shipments (1) . . 7.3 6.5 5.8 6.3 6.4 4.9 5.7 6.2 -2.4 -0.8 -0.7 0.5 0.1 -1.5 0.5

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . . 4,184 3,498 3,576 3,732 3,853 4,191 4,401 3,716 0.2 -16.4 2.2 4.4 3.2 8.8 -15.6

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . . . 9,080 7,847 8,113 8,629 8,869 9,488 5,184 3,450 4.5 -13.6 3.4 6.4 2.8 7.0 -33.4

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . . 229,460 219,468 233,643 267,258 281,310 318,344 172,855 100,071 38.7 -4.4 6.5 14.4 5.3 13.2 -42.1

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $25.27 $27.97 $28.80 $30.97 $31.72 $33.55 $33.34 $29.00 32.8 10.7 3.0 7.5 2.4 5.8 -13.0

 Productivity (tons/1,000 hours) . 627.7 789.4 793.3 880.2 858.0 820.6 821.9 542.4 30.7 25.8 0.5 11.0 -2.5 -4.4 -34.0

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . $40.26 $35.43 $36.30 $35.19 $36.97 $40.89 $40.56 $53.47 1.6 -12.0 2.5 -3.1 5.1 10.6 31.8

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,686,152 6,170,413 6,365,139 7,436,868 7,447,725 7,655,181 4,198,215 1,890,838 34.6 8.5 3.2 16.8 0.1 2.8 -55.0

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,089,064 3,876,161 4,716,691 5,678,021 5,940,911 7,818,382 3,880,734 1,412,853 274.3 85.5 21.7 20.4 4.6 31.6 -63.6

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $367 $628 $741 $763 $798 $1,021 $924 $747 178.0 71.0 18.0 3.0 4.5 28.0 -19.2

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . . 2,040,663 2,924,844 3,399,302 3,988,778 4,258,383 6,018,354 2,960,527 1,466,433 194.9 43.3 16.2 17.3 6.8 41.3 -50.5

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . . . 48,401 951,317 1,317,389 1,689,243 1,682,528 1,800,028 920,207 (53,580) 3,619.0 1,865.5 38.5 28.2 -0.4 7.0 (2)

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150,714 117,739 124,784 116,397 130,271 143,355 73,586 46,707 -4.9 -21.9 6.0 -6.7 11.9 10.0 -36.5

 Operating income or (loss) . . . . . (102,313) 833,578 1,192,605 1,572,846 1,552,257 1,656,673 846,621 (100,287) (2) (2) 43.1 31.9 -1.3 6.7 (2)

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . 35,127 31,078 82,374 109,443 151,739 125,765 63,558 47,032 258.0 -11.5 165.1 32.9 38.6 -17.1 -26.0

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $359 $474 $534 $536 $572 $786 $705 $776 119.1 32.1 12.7 0.4 6.6 37.5 10.0

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . $27 $19 $20 $16 $17 $19 $18 $25 -29.3 -28.0 2.7 -20.2 11.8 7.1 40.9

 Unit operating income or (loss) . ($18) $135 $187 $211 $208 $216 $202 ($53) (2) (2) 38.7 12.9 -1.5 3.8 (2)

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97.7 75.5 72.1 70.2 71.7 77.0 76.3 103.8 -20.7 -22.2 -3.4 -1.8 1.4 5.3 27.5

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4.9) 21.5 25.3 27.7 26.1 21.2 21.8 (7.1) 26.1 26.4 3.8 2.4 -1.6 -4.9 -28.9

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Undefined.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis.

Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics.

C-3

D-1

APPENDIX D

COMMENTS BY U.S. PRODUCERS, IMPORTERS, PURCHASERS, AND

FOREIGN PRODUCERS/EXPORTERS REGARDING THE EFFECTS OF THE

SUSPENSION AGREEMENTS AND THE ORDER AND THE LIKELY EFFECTS

OF REVOCATION

D-3

U.S. PRODUCERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE EFFECTS OF THE SUSPENSION

AGREEMENTS AND THE ORDER AND THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF

REVOCATION

Significance of Suspension Agreements and Order In Terms of Trade and Related Data 

The Commission requested U.S. producers to describe the significance of the existing suspension

agreements covering imports of CTL plate from Russia and Ukraine, and the antidumping duty order

covering imports of CTL plate from China in terms of their effect on production capacity, production,

U.S. shipments, inventories, purchases, employment, revenues, costs, profits, cash flow, capital

expenditures, research and development expenditures, and asset values. Their responses are as follows:

***

“The existing orders support a balanced supply to the U.S. market.”

***

“Cause and effect cannot be directly shown. Additional cost, floor price, or limited availability

affects supply and the value of the product line.”

***

“The orders and the suspension agreements have reduced the availability of injurious dumped

imports in the market and have thus had a stabilizing effect on market pricing and supply related issues.

Although that stability is constantly under pressure as importers switch to new sources of dumped

product, it has contributed to *** ability to maintain production and profits that have in turn enabled the

company to reinvest in capital expenditures and continue employment levels.”

***

“No significance to ***.”

***

“None.”

***

“Supply and demand has been more balanced and the entire supply chain has been able to achieve

an acceptable return on capital.”

***

“The current suspension agreements and antidumping duty order have allowed us to be

competitive on the domestic market. We have experienced good demand, allowing us to have more

employees, purchase more raw materials, invest capital dollars into the equipment, and achieve profitable

years recently.”
D-4

***

“The surge of imports in the late 1990s resulted in over two years of declining sales and

profitability. The results of the orders have led to improving sales and the potential for sustainable

operations.”

***

“*** saw immediate improvement as a result of the suspension agreements and order at issue

here. Unfortunately, the recovery was short-lived due to another wave of unfairly-traded imports. The

harm that this caused to *** and other domestic producers is reflected in the Commission's determination

in 2000 (in which the Commission found that the industry was injured by imports from France, India,

Indonesia, Italy, Japan and Korea).

Nevertheless, these orders continue to perform a vital role by keeping out what would be a

devastating flood of imports from the subject countries. As shown by our response to Question III-10, ***

was generally profitable from 2004 to 2008. Our financial performance during this period, and during

prior years, would have been much worse if the trade relief at issue here had not been in place. The

subject countries are all major plate producers with a documented track record of injurious unfair trade in

this market. There is every reason to believe that they would behave in the same fashion if not constrained

by suspension agreements and anti-dumping orders. Given current substantially depressed market

conditions, a resumption of unfair trade would likely have particularly egregious results.”

***

“It has been *** experience in other product lines in which it competes with the producers in

China, Russia, and the Ukraine that government practices in those countries lead their industries to export

their production to any market that will take it almost regardless of prevailing price levels and without

regard to the impact that their practices have on these other markets. Based on this experience, *** has

little doubt that these orders helped the U.S. producers of CTL plate.”

***

“Antidumping duty orders and suspension agreements provide *** with a degree of market

stability which for a time allowed us to increase production, make capital improvements and provide

stable employment. Since mid-2008, however, demand has declined at unprecedented rates and our

performance has declined along with it. The producers subject to these orders are neither price nor cost

conscious and will target markets regardless of the implications. The continued presence of these imports

demonstrates their continued interest in this market despite the unprecedented decline in demand.”

***

“N/A”
D-5

***

No response was given.

Anticipated Operational and Organizational Changes 

If The Suspension Agreements and the Order Were To Be Revoked

The Commission requested U.S. producers to describe any anticipated changes in the character of

their operations or organization relating to the production of CTL plate in the future if the suspension

agreements on CTL plate from Russia and Ukraine and the antidumping duty order on CTL plate from

China were to be revoked. Their responses are as follows:

***

Indicated no anticipated changes.

***

No response was given.

***

Indicated no anticipated changes.

***

“Revocation of the subject suspension agreements and/or antidumping orders would allow CTL

plate imports to surge in the future - negatively impacting domestic prices, revenue and profits,

production volume, employment and employee hours, and capital expenditure projects. As a case in

point, prior to the subject trade actions, CTL plate imports from the subject countries surged from 25% to

45% of all CTL plate imports - and in 1998 - to 27% of the entire U.S. CTL plate market (as compared to

10% to 14% thereafter).”

***

“In either case, we would anticipate reduced volume, lower employment levels, reduced operating

shifts, higher costs, lower prices, and significantly worse operating performance. In light of the currently

depressed market conditions for CTL plate, even small volumes of additional imports from China, Russia,

and Ukraine will be very damaging.”

***

“Should the orders/agreements be revoked, *** anticipates that the subject countries will

immediately seek to regain market share by dumping product on the U.S. market. This will cause serious

injury in the form of price erosion, reduced profits, decreased production and lower employment rates. 

Should the injury continue unchecked via relief through a continuation of the present orders, *** would

be forced to consider shuttering some of its production facilities in the USA.”
D-6

***

“Changes to agreements would cause additional supply in the U.S., and therefore lower inventory

value.”

***

“We would project further reduction of operations if the suspension agreements were revoked,

potentially temporarily or permanently shutting down operations and eliminating jobs.”

***

“As discussed below in our answer to Question II - 18, the revocation of the orders at issue here

would quickly lead to significant volumes of low-priced dumped imports. Those imports would have

serious adverse effects on *** plate business.

Question II - 18: “The termination of the suspension agreements and order would result in

renewed unfair trade by the subject producers that would have serious adverse effect on our business. 

After many years of poor performance, our business was profitable from 2004 to 2008. If the orders are

revoked, we would expect our sales to decline sharply and our modest profitability to evaporate.”

***

“The revocation of the antidumping order and/or suspension agreements and the likely import

surge that would result would threaten our current investments in the production of CTL plate as well as

for plans for future investments. Current market conditions have already forced us to ***. Without

antidumping controls on imports from China, Russia, and Ukraine, we would expect much more difficulty

in getting those operations back to reasonable operation rates. Any investment plans to enhance our

operations become unjustifiable due to the shortened up cycles and the prolonged and deepened down

cycles that dumping creates.”

***

Indicated no anticipated changes.

***

Indicated no anticipated changes.

***

Indicated no anticipated changes and explained “*** has little doubt that if these orders are

revoked that the U.S. producers of CTL plate will be adversely affected by increased imports of unfairly

priced CTL plate from China, Russia, and Ukraine in very short order.”
D-7

Anticipated Changes in Trade and Related Data 

If The Suspension Agreements and the Order Were To Be Revoked 

The Commission requested U.S. producers to describe any anticipated changes in their production

capacity, production, U.S. shipments, inventories, purchases, employment, revenues, costs, profits, cash

flow, capital expenditures, research and development expenditures or asset values relating to the

production of CTL plate in the future if the suspension agreements on CTL plate from Russia and Ukraine

and the antidumping duty order on CTL plate from China were to be revoked. Their responses are as

follows:

***

“We would expect production, revenue, profit and employee count to be negatively impacted.”

***

Indicated no anticipated changes and explained “It has been *** experience in other product lines

in which it competes with the producers in China, Russia, and the Ukraine that government practices in

those countries lead their industries to export their production to any market that will take it almost

regardless of prevailing price levels and without regard to the impact that their practices have on these

other markets. Based on this experience, *** has little doubt that if these orders are revoked that the U.S.

producers of CTL plate will be adversely affected by increased imports of unfairly priced CTL plate from

China, Russia, and the Ukraine in very short order. This is particularly true in light of the decline in

economic activity since mid-to latter 2008 to the present.”

***

“We would expect supply to surge significantly causing prices to collapse. This would have the

potential to be catastrophic in terms of revenue and profitability.”

***

No response was given.

***

Indicated no anticipated changes.

***

“The revocation of the antidumping order and suspension agreements would most likely result in

significant reduction in our operations. This would impact our need to reduce manning levels; reduce

capital spending; reduce purchasing of raw materials and our conversion cost would increase. We would

anticipate not being able to maintain our competitive posture and could potentially experience a

temporary or permanent shut down of the entire operation.”
D-8

***

“Time and extent of effects is not predictable. Due to cycles in steel markets, additional will

impact wide flat supply and price negatively should duties be lifted.”

***

“Should the orders/suspension agreements be revoked, it is expected that foreign producers from

the subject countries, traders, and importers will continue with past practices and resume dumping

products on the U.S. market in increasing quantities. The increase in dumped products will reduce ***

sales revenues, sales volumes and consequently production and employment levels. The resumption of

dumping will suppress market prices which will negatively impact *** profits and preclude future capital

investments. The current depressed state of the world market will intensify the resumption of these

activities and the negative consequences.”

***

“We would anticipate an immediate surge of dumped, low priced imports from China, Russia,

and Ukraine if the antidumping orders and suspension agreements were revoked. This will have a

negative impact on our shipments, capacity utilization, employment level, and profitability. These factors

will disrupt our ability to make further capital investments. In light of current conditions, there is simply

no need for the current import quantities, much less the far higher quantities likely to be sent here if the

orders and suspension agreements are revoked.”

***

Indicated no anticipated changes.

***

“The termination of the suspension agreements and order would result in renewed unfair trade by

the subject producers that would have serious adverse effect on our business. After many years of poor

performance, our business was profitable from 2004 to 2008. If the orders were revoked, we would

expect our sales to decline sharply and our modest profitability to evaporate.”

***

“With increased supply of the product line, revenue would be lower, and profits would be lower.”

***

“Should the agreements or duties be revoked, we expect that subject countries will resume

exporting large quantities of dumped and subsidized plate to the United States which will have immediate

adverse effects on our operating rates, profitability and ultimately the levels of employment. The impact

is likely to be even more destructive to our firm as we are extremely vulnerable to unfairly traded imports

based on the depressed economy and resulting low operating rates. Imports alone do not negatively

impact demand, but the supply shocks that they case, most clearly seen in the late 1990s, can drive down

pricing to unprofitable levels which in turn limits our ability to re-invest in our operations and our people.
D-9

In the first sunset review, the Commission found that subject imports and domestically produced

plate were generally interchangeable and that purchases continue to be based primarily on price, resulting

in highly competitive pricing in order to “obtain sales and increase market share.” USITC Pub. 3364 at

29. *** strongly believes this market dynamic still prevails today.”

U.S. IMPORTERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE EFFECTS OF THE SUSPENSION

AGREEMENTS AND THE ORDER AND THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

Significance of Suspension Agreements and Order In Terms of Trade and Related Data 

The Commission requested U.S. importers to describe the significance of the existing suspension

agreements covering imports of CTL plate from Russia and Ukraine and the antidumping duty order

covering imports of CTL plate from China in terms of their effect on their imports, U.S. shipments of

imports, and inventories. Their responses are as follows:

***

“The existing suspension agreement and antidumping duty order affect the availability to source

from the above mentioned countries.”

***

“U.S. market conditions improved after the suspension agreements and antidumping order took

effect.”

***

No response was given.

***

“Less tons purchased.”

***

“The orders and the consequential reduction in dumped import availability have had a stabilizing

effect on market pricing although that stability is constantly under pressure as importers switch to new

sources of dumped product. *** has under these circumstances been able to augment its domestically

produced plate with product from Canada in order to meet its customers needs.”

***

“No effect because *** did not import CTL plate from subject countries.”
D-10

***

No response was given.

***

“It has been *** experience in other product lines in which it competes with the producers in

China, Russia, and the Ukraine that government practices in those countries lead their industries to export

their production to any market that will take it almost regardless of prevailing price levels and without

regard to the impact that their practices have on these other markets. Based on this experience, *** has

little doubt that if these orders are revoked that the U.S. producers of CTL plate will be adversely affected

by increased imports of unfairly priced CTL plate from China, Russia, and Ukraine in very short order.”

***

“The orders of suspension and antidumping had little to no direct effect on our firm’s operations.”

***

No response was given.

***

“We trade in spot markets. If a source is available we could negotiate purchases from those areas. 

Much depends on the marketing strategy of a given mill. Suspension agreements and antidumping keep

us away from those sources.”

***

“Restricts trade from these countries.”

***

“The existing suspension agreements covering imports from Russia and Ukraine and the

antidumping order from China has limited our firm’s ability to source the most competitively priced CTL

carbon plate from such countries that have a lower production cost, and thus can sell at lower prices.”

***

“Our business strategy no longer includes CTL plate due to small volumes of import and refocused efforts into other products.”
D-11

Anticipated Operational and Organizational Changes 

If The Suspension Agreements and the Order Were To Be Revoked

The Commission requested importers to describe any anticipated changes in the character of their

operations or organization relating to the importation of CTL plate in the future if the suspension

agreements on CTL plate from Russia and Ukraine and the antidumping duty order on CTL plate from

China were to be revoked. Their responses are as follows:

***

Indicated no anticipated changes.

***

Indicated no anticipated changes.

***

No response was given.

***

“*** imports carbon steel and micro-alloy steel plate to round out product lines with material not

available from U.S. production. Should the agreements be revoked, dumping from the named countries

will resume and *** will lose sales as a consequence, some of which may be comprised of imported

goods thus resulting in import reductions.”

***

“Any reduction in potential suppliers will cause U.S. to have less available product.”

***

Indicated no anticipated changes.

***

Indicated no anticipated changes.

***

Indicated no anticipated changes.

***

“We would anticipate changes due to the additional supply options.”
D-12

***

“We simply would have access to new sources of product. If market conditions allow, we might

be able to sell some of this product.”

***

Indicated no anticipated changes.

***

“If the suspension agreements and antidumping order were lifted, we would expect these

countries to increase their imports to the United States. The likely impact on the market would be quite

negative, making it difficult for us to import at profitable prices.”

***

No response was given.

***

Indicated no anticipated changes and explained “*** has little doubt that if these orders are

revoked that the U.S. producers of CTL plate will be adversely affected by increased imports of unfairly

priced CTL plate from China, Russia, and Ukraine in very short order.”

Anticipated Changes in Trade and Related Data If The Suspension Agreements and the Order

Were To Be Revoked 

The Commission requested importers to describe any anticipated changes in their imports, U.S.

shipments of imports, or inventories of CTL plate in the future if the suspension agreements on CTL plate

from Russia and Ukraine and the antidumping duty order on CTL plate from China were to be revoked. 

Their responses are as follows:

***

“No estimate.”

***

Indicated no anticipated changes.

***

Indicated no anticipated changes.

***

Indicated no anticipated changes.
D-13

***

Indicated no anticipated changes.

***

Indicated no anticipated changes.

***

“It could open up discussion for possible business.”

***

Indicated no anticipated changes and explained “It has been *** experience in other product lines

in which it competes with the producers in China, Russia, and the Ukraine that government practices in

those countries lead their industries to export their production to any market that will take it almost

regardless of prevailing price levels and without regard to the impact that their practices have on these

other markets. Based on this experience, *** has little doubt that if these orders are revoked that the U.S.

producers of CTL plate will be adversely affected by increased imports of unfairly priced CTL plate from

China, Russia, and Ukraine in very short order. This is particularly true in light of the decline in economic

activity since mid- to late-2008 to the present.”

***

“If the suspension agreements and antidumping order were lifted, we would expect these

countries to increase their exports to the United States. The likely impact on the market would be quite

negative, making it difficult for us to import at profitable prices.”

***

“We would anticipate an increase of availability.”

***

“Should the orders be revoked, it is expected that foreign producers from the subject countries,

traders, and importers will continue with past practices and resume dumping products on the U.S. market

in increasing quantities. The increase in dumped products will force prices down, reduce revenues and

volumes and curtail *** ability meet its customer’s plate demands.”

***

Indicated no anticipated changes and explained “Not under current market conditions.”
D-14

***

“Yes, we would anticipate changes in our imports if CTL carbon steel plate suspension

agreements and AD were lifted from Russia, Ukraine, and China. Within less than 6 months, assuming

‘normal’ market conditions, we would see increased imports of Chinese-produced CTL carbon steel plate. 

We would not expect to see larger volumes of CTL carbon plate from Russia and Ukraine, as these

producers tend to follow the market pricing and demand globally, not necessitating them to export to the

United States. Our company’s business plan dictates for us to simply market the highest quality products,

at the most competitive prices, to our customers, regardless of the producing country. As an independent

steel trading company, we are not obligated to market a certain manufacturer/country’s material.”

***

No response was given.

U.S. PURCHASERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE EFFECTS OF THE SUSPENSION

AGREEMENTS AND THE ORDER AND THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

Effects on Future Activities of the Firms and the U.S. Market as a Whole

The Commission requested purchasers to comment on the likely effects of revocation of the

suspension agreements for imports of CTL plate from Russia and Ukraine and the antidumping duty order

for imports of CTL plate from China on (1) the firm’s future activities and (2) the U.S. market as a whole. 

Their responses are as follows:

***

(1) The firm’s future activities: 

“There would be no change in our activities.”

(2) The U.S. market as a whole:

“I do not expect any change in the U.S. market in the next 2-3 years.”

***

(1) The firm’s future activities:

No response was given.

(2) The U.S. market as a whole:

No response was given.
D-15

***

(1) The firm’s future activities:

“It will decreased domestic pricing, creating an imbalance of supply vs demand. Supply will

surpass demand. It will depress our pricing.”

(2) The U.S. market as a whole:

“Same as above.”

***

(1) The firm’s future activities:

Indicated no anticipated changes.

(2) The U.S. market as a whole:

“Unknown.”

***

(1) The firm’s future activities:

“Unaffected.”

(2) The U.S. market as a whole:

“Do not know.”

***

(1) The firm’s future activities:

“None.”

(2) The U.S. market as a whole:

“None.”
D-16

***

(1) The firm’s future activities:

“Do not know.”

(2) The U.S. market as a whole:

“Do not know.”

***

(1) The firm’s future activities:

“If the countervailing/antidumping duties are revoked, it could provide an opportunity for

increased supply from foreign sources. If that happens, our company will curtail our purchases since we

would expect prices to fall. Our focus would be to reduce inventory of those products and increase

inventory turns. We would expect the price effect domestically 6-12 months after revocation.”

(2) The U.S. market as a whole:

“The increasing foreign supply would have a depressing effect on CTL prices depending on the

size of the increased import tonnage. We would expect this downward effect on price within 6-9 months

of the revocation.”

***

(1) The firm’s future activities:

“We believe that Russia and Ukraine would continue to demonstrate responsible pricing in future

offerings as these countries view the U.S. as an important market for them. It is less clear what action

might be taken by China. We would expect to continue to receive offers from Russia and Ukrainian plate

producers.”

(2) The U.S. market as a whole:

“We believe that Russia and Ukraine would continue to demonstrate responsible pricing in future

offerings as these countries view the U.S. as an important market for them. It is less clear what action

might be taken by China. We would expect that more offerings of plate could be in the offing for U.S. 

plate customers.”
D-17

***

(1) The firm’s future activities:

“For ***, especially in the heavy plate market, this would leave us with only one carbon/alloy

heavy plate supplier, with no room for price negotiations.”

(2) The U.S. market as a whole:

“Customers would only have one heavy plate supplier and the U.S. mills could raise prices at

will.”

***

(1) The firm’s future activities:

“We are not a significant participant in these markets and on a local level we would see very little

effect.”

(2) The U.S. market as a whole:

“This would depend on the extent of allowable tonnage. The U.S. producers are currently

running at a reduced capacity and increased import competition will have a negative effect. If the U.S.

mills were running at a high capacity and availability became an issue, the industry as a whole might

benefit.”

***

(1) The firm’s future activities:

“If these suspension agreements would be repealed, it could open up some opportunities that

might not have been there in the past. Instead of prices being inflated, like they were in 2008, it may have

allowed prices to remain somewhat more stable.”

(2) The U.S. market as a whole:

“The revocation should also allow the opportunity for the prices to remain "Global" vs North

American which are usually slightly inflated over the world market numbers. More and more

consolidation of mills is leading to foreign ownership in the mills, and they will not look to have price

significantly in one part of the world vs the other. With more mergers and acquisitions in the steel

market, price may just work themselves out to be more competitive globally.”
D-18

***

(1) The firm’s future activities:

“Since we are a distributor I do not believe we will be directly affected.”

(2) The U.S. market as a whole:

“I would speculate that if imports are totally unregulated and allowed to come into the U.S. with

no limits, it could have the effect of depressing pricing. It is all linked to supply and demand.”

***

(1) The firm’s future activities:

“Do not know - Not knowledgeable on this subject.”

(2) The U.S. market as a whole:

“Do not know - Not knowledgeable on this subject.”

***

(1) The firm’s future activities:

“This will result in more imports, which will put pressure on the prices, however the consumer

will pay more.”

(2) The U.S. market as a whole:

No response was given.

***

(1) The firm’s future activities:

“This will result in more imports, which will put pressure on the prices, however the consumer

will pay more.”

(2) The U.S. market as a whole:

No response was given.
D-19

***

(1) The firm’s future activities:

Indicated no anticipated changes.

(2) The U.S. market as a whole:

“Concern of lower prices from subject countries unless global pricing is better. If U.S. is lower

than global little or no issue.”

***

(1) The firm’s future activities:

“Revocation could assist in relieving shortages of CTL plate in the U.S. market during periods of

strong market demand. Thick steel plate (>3") can be difficult to obtain, because it is made from an ingot

casting process and has only one U.S. producer. However, it is unlikely to affect us because of the

lengthy process required to set a supply agreement.”

(2) The U.S. market as a whole:

“Revocation could assist in relieving shortages of CTL plate in the U.S. market during periods of

strong market demand. Thick steel plate (>3") can be difficult to obtain, because it is made from an ingot

casting process and has only one U.S. producer.”

***

(1) The firm’s future activities:

“We will act opportunistically and if there is a good reason to buy from these countries we will. 

However, I am not aware of an over supply situation in any of these countries that would dramatically

affect markets (this is not to say it won’t happen).”

(2) The U.S. market as a whole:

“Basically about the same as above.”
D-20

***

(1) The firm’s future activities:

“We would probably buy some CTL if the foreign prices fall $60- $80 per ton below domestic. I

don't see the domestic suppliers allowing this scenario to happen, unless in the future they are unable to

satisfy demand. We would continue to buy the majority of our inventory from domestic sources because

of relationships and ability to turn inventory quickly.”

(2) The U.S. market as a whole:

“Do not know.”

***

(1) The firm’s future activities:

“None, no effect.”

(2) The U.S. market as a whole:

“None, no effect.”

***

(1) The firm’s future activities:

“Any revocation of the current suspension agreement from Russia or the Ukraine would not have

any impact on our company. Typically, we do not receive offers for product from these countries as the

West Coast is too costly a destination for these countries. As for the anti-dumping duty order from China,

it is our view that the removal of this action would negatively affect our company indirectly. While we

do not purchase product from China, the West Coast market would be negatively affected as Chinese

producers have exhibited very poor trading practices in the past, offering product at prices well below

domestic prices in an irresponsible manner, with product that proves out to be well below industry

standards. As Chinese producers sell aggressively on price, without regard to prevailing market

conditions or to a long term commitment as an established supplier with consistent quality product

offerings, their actions are very destructive.”

(2) The U.S. market as a whole:

“It is our view that the aforementioned outcome for the West Coast markets would hold true for

the entire U.S. market.”
D-21

***

(1) The firm’s future activities:

“Very little effect on our purchasing pattern.”

(2) The U.S. market as a whole:

“Revocation would create downward pressure on pricing for the long term. The length of time

would be until new agreements are put in place.”

***

(1) The firm’s future activities:

“Does not apply.”

(2) The U.S. market as a whole:

“Does not apply.”

***

(1) The firm’s future activities:

“Probably won’t impact our firm - we sell what is available and what our customers want.”

(2) The U.S. market as a whole:

“Do not know.”

***

(1) The firm’s future activities:

“N/A”

(2) The U.S. market as a whole:

“N/A”
D-22

***

(1) The firm’s future activities:

“For *** the lifting of the anti-dumping duty will not change our current buying pattern. Many

of the projects we are working on require us to use plate that is 100% produced in the United States. We

do not have the option to use foreign steel, even if the duty is lifted.”

(2) The U.S. market as a whole:

“The current U.S. Steel market is working through having too much inventory. Unless demand

suddenly skyrockets, there isn't enough demand to even keep domestic producers of steel busy. Long

term the lifting of the duty may have an effect on the steel market, but things have changed quite a bit

since the initial placing of the duty.”

***

(1) The firm’s future activities:

Indicated no anticipated changes.

(2) The U.S. market as a whole:

“Its impact may mean more economic opportunities for domestic mills and the American

worker.”

***

(1) The firm’s future activities:

“As suspension agreements are revoked, it will impact the total supply of imports. However, our

company is located far enough inland that imported material seems to have a minimal impact on our

general market.”

(2) The U.S. market as a whole:

“During the past few years, the economy has evolved into a true global market. The U.S. market

can certainly be impacted price-wise as the total market availability and supply changes. Excess material

will negatively impact the market price.”

***

(1) The firm’s future activities:

Indicated no anticipated changes.

(2) The U.S. market as a whole:

“Not qualified to answer.”
D-23

***

(1) The firm’s future activities:

“I anticipate that we will be forced to consider an increase in supply from the aforementioned

countries at lower prices, which will further depress an already weak market.”

(2) The U.S. market as a whole:

“I would anticipate that revocation would have an immediate impact in increasing supply and

depressing prices. Specific concerns would be Chinese CTL plate in consideration of their rapid increase

of new production.”

***

(1) The firm’s future activities:

No response was given.

(2) The U.S. market as a whole:

No response was given.

***

(1) The firm’s future activities:

Indicated no anticipated changes.

(2) The U.S. market as a whole:

“Drive price somewhat upward.”

***

(1) The firm’s future activities:

“Very little effect.”

(2) The U.S. market as a whole:

“China plate would be the largest concern on the West Coast. There are always companies that

look for the lowest price and do not support domestic producers. Possibility certainly exists to have an

impact on the market. Strength of the U.S. dollar plays a role as well.”
D-24

***

(1) The firm’s future activities:

“For our industry, it will keep sub standard plate from making it into the U.S. Pipeline

infrastructure. We are not interested in purchasing plate from any of these countries.”

(2) The U.S. market as a whole:

“Same as above.”

***

(1) The firm’s future activities:

“More availability of steel plate resulting in pricing pressures downwards on competing domestic

mills. Impact would be immediate.”

(2) The U.S. market as a whole:

No response was given.

***

(1) The firm’s future activities:

No response was given.

(2) The U.S. market as a whole:

No response was given.
D-25

FOREIGN PRODUCERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE EFFECTS OF THE SUSPENSION

AGREEMENTS AND THE ORDER AND THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

Significance of Suspension Agreements and Order In Terms of Trade and Related Data 

The Commission requested foreign producers to describe the significance of the existing

suspension agreements covering imports of CTL plate from Russia, and Ukraine, and the antidumping

duty order covering imports of CTL plate from China in terms of their effect on the firms’ production

capacity, production, home market shipments, exports to the United States and other markets, and

inventories. Their responses are as follows:

* * * * * * *

Anticipated Operational and Organizational Changes

 If The Suspension Agreements and the Order Were To Be Revoked

The Commission requested foreign producers to describe any anticipated changes in the character

of their operations or organization relating to the production of CTL plate in the future if the suspension

agreements on CTL plate from Russia and Ukraine and the antidumping duty order on CTL plate from

China were to be revoked. Their responses are as follows:

* * * * * * *

Anticipated Changes in Trade and Related Data 

If The Suspension Agreements and the Order Were To Be Revoked 

The Commission requested foreign producers to describe any anticipated changes in their

production capacity, production, home market shipments, exports to the United States and other markets,

or inventories relating to the production of CTL plate in the future if the suspension agreements on CTL

plate from Russia, and Ukraine, and the antidumping duty order on CTL plate from China were to be

revoked. Their responses are as follows:

* * * * * * *
 
E-1

APPENDIX E

OVERVIEW OF VARIANCE CALCULATION

E-3

Table E-1

Variance analysis on results of operations of U.S. producers in the production of CTL plate, calendar and fiscal years 2003-08,

January-June 2008, and January-June 2009

Calendar and fiscal year Jan.-June

2003-08 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

Total net sales:

 Price variance 5,005,907 1,609,182 718,206 167,158 254,601 1,711,987 (334,994)

 Volume variance 723,411 177,915 122,324 794,172 8,289 165,484 (2,132,887)

 Total net sales variance 5,729,318 1,787,097 840,530 961,330 262,890 1,877,471 (2,467,881)

Cost of goods sold:

Raw material:

 Cost variance (2,712,148) (703,642) (237,817) (38,450) (237,066) (1,269,926) 155,363

 Volume variance (358,337) (88,129) (57,643) (357,297) (3,676) (76,839) 1,127,644

 Net raw material variance (3,070,485) (791,771) (295,460) (395,747) (240,742) (1,346,765) 1,283,007

Direct labor:

 Cost variance (10,301) 40,622 1,333 11,188 (18,935) (54,354) (22,601)

 Volume variance (87,394) (21,494) (7,361) (40,288) (392) (8,014) 95,518

 Net direct labor variance (97,695) 19,128 (6,028) (29,100) (19,327) (62,368) 72,917

Other factory costs:

 Cost variance (548,592) (47,368) (145,672) 10,142 (7,780) (317,073) (265,800)

 Volume variance (260,919) (64,170) (27,298) (174,771) (1,756) (33,765) 403,970

 Net other factory cost variance (809,511) (111,538) (172,970) (164,629) (9,536) (350,838) 138,170

Net cost of goods sold:

 Cost variance (3,271,040) (710,388) (382,156) (17,119) (263,782) (1,641,354) (133,038)

 Volume variance (706,651) (173,793) (92,302) (572,357) (5,823) (118,617) 1,627,132

 Total net cost of goods sold variance (3,977,691) (884,181) (474,458) (589,476) (269,605) (1,759,971) 1,494,094

Gross profit variance 1,751,627 902,916 366,072 371,854 (6,715) 117,500 (973,787)

SG&A expenses:

 Expense variance 59,549 45,811 (3,329) 29,397 (13,704) (9,455) (13,565)

 Volume variance (52,190) (12,836) (3,716) (21,010) (170) (3,629) 40,444

 Total SG&A variance 7,359 32,975 (7,045) 8,387 (13,874) (13,084) 26,879

Operating income variance 1,758,986 935,891 359,027 380,241 (20,589) 104,416 (946,908)

Summarized as:

 Price variance 5,005,907 1,609,182 718,206 167,158 254,601 1,711,987 (334,994)

 Net cost/expense variance (3,211,491) (664,577) (385,485) 12,278 (277,486) (1,650,809) (146,603)

 Net volume variance (35,429) (8,713) 26,306 200,805 2,296 43,238 (465,311)

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 1

 The variance analysis in this report presents separate variances for raw material, direct labor, and other factory

costs. While the underlying mechanics are the same, a standard variance analysis presents a single variance analysis

for cost of goods sold. 

 2

 If the average sales value in year 2 is higher than the average sales value in year 1, the value of the price

variance shown in the table is positive in terms of explaining the total change in revenue. Similarly, if the total sales

volume in year 2 is greater than the total sales volume in year 1, the sales volume variance is also positive. If the

reverse is true, the price variance and the volume variance would both be negative. 

E-4

Overview of Variance Analysis Calculation

The variance analysis is a useful tool for estimating the extent to which changes in overall

revenue, costs/expenses, and profitability were due to changes in average values (sales, cost of goods

sold, SG&A expenses) and/or changes in sales volume. It is divided into three primary sections: net

sales variance, cost of goods sold variance, and SG&A expense variance. Two additional sections, the

gross profit variance and the operating income variance, represent the sum of the two preceding variance

sections, respectively; i.e., the gross profit variance equals the sum of the net sales variance and the net

cost of goods sold variances, while the operating income variance equals the sum of the gross profit

variance and the SG&A expense variance. The relevant calculations used in the Commission’s standard

variance analysis1

 are outlined as follows:

Total Net Sales Variance

Equals the sum of the price variance and the volume variance. 

Price variance equals the change in unit price (i.e., the average sales value in year 2 minus the

average sales value in year 1) multiplied by the total sales volume in year 2.

 

Volume variance equals the change in sales volume (i.e., total sales volume in year 2 minus the

total sales volume in year 1) multiplied by the average sales value in year 1.2

 

Total Cost of Goods Sold Variance

Equals the sum of the cost variance and the volume variance.

Cost variance equals the change in average unit cost of sales (i.e., the average cost of sales in year

1 minus the average sales value in year 2) multiplied by the total sales volume in year 2. Volume
 3

 While the total net sales variances and the total cost of goods sold variance use the same basic methodology, the

total net sales variance uses average sales value, while the cost of goods sold variance uses average cost of goods

sold. The total net sales variances and the total cost of goods sold variance are also different in terms of whether

changes in prices, costs, and/or volume are viewed as positive or negative. Since the objective of the variance

analysis is to quantify the effect of changes in prices, costs, expenses, and volume on changes in operating income,

changes that increase operating income (i.e., increasing average sales value, decreasing average costs, increasing

sales volumes when sales are profitable, and decreasing sales volumes when sales are unprofitable) are positive. In

contrast, changes which decrease operating income (i.e., decreasing average sales values, increasing average costs,

decreasing sales volumes when sales are profitable, and increasing sales volumes when sales are unprofitable) are

negative. 

 4

 Some care should be given when considering the cost of goods sold variance and the corresponding volume

variance. The variance analysis does not distinguish between changes in average cost of goods sold due to

increases/decreases in variable costs and/or changes in average cost due to increases/decreases in fixed cost

absorption related to variations in production/sales volume. While the expanded variance analysis presented in this

report separately presents raw materials, direct labor, and other factory costs, the impact of changes in fixed cost

absorption, which would generally be reflected most noticeably in other factory costs, is not separately isolated. 

 5

 The gross profit variance is the net change in gross profit for the two periods considered; i.e., a negative gross

profit variance indicates that total gross profit was lower in year 2 compared to year 1, while a positive gross profit

variance indicates that total gross profit was higher in year 2 compared to year 1. 

 6

 Similar to the cost of goods sold variance, the SG&A expense variance has the same limitation noted above in

terms of explaining changes in average cost due to increases/decreases in variable costs versus changes in average

cost due to increased/decreased fixed cost absorption. A positive SG&A expense variance means that total SG&A

expenses declined in year 2 compared to year 1, while a negative SG&A expense variance indicates that total SG&A

expenses increased.

E-5

variance equals the change in sales volume (i.e., total sales volume in year 1 minus the total sales

volume in year 2) multiplied by the average cost of goods sold in year 1.3 4

Gross Profit Variance

Equals the sum of the total net sales variance and the total cost of goods sold variance.

5

Total SG&A Expense Variance

Equals the sum of the SG&A expense variance and the volume variance.

SG&A expense variance equals the change in average SG&A expenses (i.e., average SG&A

expenses in year 1 minus the average SG&A expense value in year 2) multiplied by the total sales

volume in year 2. 

Volume variance equals the change in sales volume (i.e., total sales volume in year 1 minus the

total sales volume in year 2) multiplied by average SG&A expenses in year 1.6
E-6

Operating Income Variance

Equals the sum of the price variance, the sum the cost of goods sold variance and the SG&A expenses

variance, and the sum of all volume variances. Since the volume variances related to sales and costs of

sales/SG&A expenses generally offset each other (i.e., an increase in sales volume results in a positive

volume variance in the calculation of the net sales variance, while the same increase results in a negative

volume variance in the calculation of the cost of goods sold variance), the primary components of the

operating income variance are usually the price variance and the cost of goods sold/SG&A expense

variance.