U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4248 August 2011

Washington, DC 20436

Stainless Steel Plate from Belgium, Italy, 

Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-379 and 731-TA-788, 790-793 (Second Review)
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS 

 

Deanna Tanner Okun, Chairman 

Irving A. Williamson, Vice Chairman 

Charlotte R. Lane 

Daniel R. Pearson 

Shara L. Aranoff 

Dean A. Pinkert

Robert B. Koopman

Staff assigned

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

Acting Director of Operations

Keysha Martinez, Investigator 

 Karen Taylor, Industry Analyst 

 Amelia Preece, Economist 

Mary Klir, Accountant 

Mark Rees, Attorney 

Mara Alexander, Statistician 

Douglas Corkran, Supervisory Investigator

Special assistance from

Steven Hudgens, Acting Chief, Statistical Services Division 

Cindy Cohen, Economist 

Samantha Warrington, Research Assistant
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4248 August 2011

Stainless Steel Plate from Belgium, Italy, 

Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-379 and 731-TA-788, 790-793 (Second Review)

CONTENTS

Page

Determinations ................................................................. 1

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

Separate views of Commissioner Dean. A. Pinkert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Separate views of Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Dissenting views of Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun and Commissioner Daniel R. Pearson . 55

Additional views of Commissioner Daniel R. Pearson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

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

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

The original investigations and subsequent five-year reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

Summary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

Previous and related investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

Statutory criteria and organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

Statutory criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

Organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-15

Commerce’s reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-16

Administrative reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-16

Five-year reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-18

Distribution of Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-20

The subject merchandise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-21

Commerce’s scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-21

Tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-21

The product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-22

Description and applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-22

Manufacturing processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-24

Domestic like product issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-30

U.S. market participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-30

U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-30

U.S. importers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-32

U.S. purchasers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-34

Apparent U.S. consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-34

U.S. market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-36

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

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

Geographic distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-2

U.S. supply and demand considerations ............................................ II-3

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

U.S. demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-5

Substitutability issues .......................................................... II-9

Knowledge of country sources ................................................ II-9

Purchases by grade ......................................................... II-10

Factors affecting purchasing decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-10

Comparisons of domestic products, subject imports, and nonsubject imports ............ II-14

i
CONTENTS

Page

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

Elasticity estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-19

U.S. supply elasticity ........................................................ II-19

U.S. demand elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-19

Substitution elasticity ....................................................... II-19

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

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

Changes experienced by the industry ........................................... III-2

Anticipated changes in operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-2

U.S. capacity, production, and capacity utilization ................................... III-2

Constraints on capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-3

Alternative and downstream products ........................................... III-3

U.S. producers’ shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-3

U.S. producers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-4

U.S. producers’ imports and purchases ............................................. III-4

U.S. employment, wages, and productivity ......................................... III-4

Financial experience of the U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-5

Introduction ............................................................... III-5

Operations on stainless steel coiled plate ........................................ III-5

Variance analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-6

Capital expenditures and research and development expenses ........................ III-7

Assets and return on investment ............................................... III-7

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

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

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1

Imports from subject and nonsubject countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-2

Leading nonsubject sources of imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-5

U.S. importers’ imports subsequent to December 31, 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-5

U.S. importers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-5

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

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

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

Presence in the market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-8

The industry in Belgium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-8

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-8

Stainless steel coiled plate operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-8

Alternative and downstream products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-9

The industry in Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-9

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

Stainless steel coiled plate operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-10

Alternative and downstream products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-10

ii
CONTENTS

Page

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

The industry in Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-11

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

Stainless steel coiled plate operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-11

Alternative and downstream products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-12

The industry in South Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-12

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-12

Stainless steel coiled plate operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-12

The industry in Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-14

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-14

Stainless steel coiled plate operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-14

The global market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-16

Capacity and shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-16

Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-16

Prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-18

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

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

Raw material costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2

Energy costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-4

Surcharges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-5

U.S. inland transportation costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-6

Transportation costs to the U.S. market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-6

Exchange rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-7

Pricing practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-7

Pricing methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-7

Sales terms and discounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-7

Price leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-8

Regional price differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-8

Price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-8

Price trends and comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-9

Purchaser perceptions of relative price trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-10

Appendixes

A. Federal Register notices and the Commission’s statement on adequacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

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

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

D. Responses of U.S. producers, U.S. importers, U.S. purchasers, and foreign producers 

concerning the significance of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders and 

the likely effects of revocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

E. Exchange rates for subject countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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.

iii
 
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION 

 

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-379 and 731-TA-788, 790-793 (Second Review) 

STAINLESS STEEL PLATE FROM 

BELGIUM, ITALY, KOREA, SOUTH AFRICA, AND TAIWAN 

DETERMINATIONS 

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. ' 1675(c)), that revocation of the countervailing duty order on stainless steel plate from 

South Africa and revocation of the antidumping duty orders on stainless steel plate from Belgium, Korea, 

South Africa, and Taiwan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an 

industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.2

 The Commission further determines 

that revocation of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel plate from Italy 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.3

BACKGROUND 

The Commission instituted these reviews on June 1, 2010 (75 F.R. 30434) and determined on 

September 7, 2010 that it would conduct full reviews (75 F.R. 59744, September 28, 2010). 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 December 27, 2010 (75 F.R. 

81309). The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on May 26, 2011, and all persons who requested the 

opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel. 

 

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

207.2(f)). 

 2

 Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun and Commissioner Daniel R. Pearson dissent with respect to the 

determinations regarding stainless steel plate from Belgium, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan. 

 3

 Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane dissents with respect to the determination regarding stainless steel plate from 

Italy. 

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 countervailing duty order on imports of

certain stainless steel plate (stainless steel plate in coils or “SSPC”) from South Africa and revocation of

the antidumping duty orders on SSPC from Belgium, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan 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

 The Commission further determines under section 751(c) of the Act that

revocation of the antidumping duty order on SSPC from Italy 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.2 3

I. BACKGROUND

A. Original Investigations

On May 3, 1999, having found two domestic like products – hot-rolled SSPC and cold-rolled

SSPC – and two domestic industries, the Commission determined that the domestic industry producing

hot-rolled SSPC was materially injured by reason of cumulated subject imports of hot-rolled SSPC from

Belgium, Canada, Italy, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan.4

 The Commission determined that subject

imports of cold-rolled SSPC from Italy, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan were negligible and terminated

those investigations. The Commission also found that the domestic industry producing cold-rolled SSPC

was not materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of cumulated subject imports of

cold-rolled SSPC from Belgium and Canada.5

The Commission’s original determinations were the subject of two separate appeals. In the first,

respondents challenged the Commission’s affirmative determination as to hot-rolled SSPC on the basis

that the domestic like product definition should have been expanded to include stainless steel sheet and

strip. The United States Court of International Trade (“CIT”) rejected the challenge and affirmed the

determination.6

In the second appeal, domestic producers challenged the Commission’s negative determinations

with respect to imports of cold-rolled SSPC from Belgium and Canada. The CIT affirmed the

 1 Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun and Commissioner Daniel R. Pearson dissenting. Chairman Okun and

Commissioner Pearson join the majority opinion with respect to sections I (Background), II (Domestic Like Product

and Domestic Industry), III (Cumulation), IV.A (Legal Standards for Likely Injury), IV.B (Prior Proceedings), IV.C

(Conditions of Competition), and IV.E (Likely Injury Analysis of SSPC from Italy).

 2

 Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane dissenting with respect to SSPC from Italy. Commissioner Lane joins the

majority opinion with respect to sections I (Background), II (Domestic Like Product and Domestic Industry), III.A

(Legal Standards for Cumulation), III.B (Likelihood of No Discernible Adverse Impact), III.C (Likelihood of a

Reasonable Overlap of Competition), IV.A (Legal Standards for Likely Injury), IV.B (Prior Proceedings), IV.C

(Conditions of Competition), and IV.D.1-2 (Likely Volume of Imports and Likely Price Effects of Imports).

 3

 Commissioner Dean A. Pinkert does not join sections III.B (Likelihood of No Discernible Adverse Impact), 

III.D ( Likely Conditions of Competition), IV.D.3 (Belgium, Korea, South Africa and Taiwan--Impact), and IV.E

(Italy). See notes infra and Separate Views of Commissioner Dean A. Pinkert.

 4

 Certain Stainless Steel Plate from Belgium, Canada, Italy, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 701-TA376, 377, and 379 (Final) and 731-TA-788-793 (Final), USITC Pub. 3188 (May 1999) (“USITC Pub. 3188”) at 3-7,

13-22.

 5

 USITC Pub. 3188 at 8-9, 23-27.

 6

 Acciai Speciali Terni v. United States, 118 F. Supp. 2d 1298 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2000).

3
Commission’s negative determinations. On further appeal, however, the United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) vacated the CIT’s ruling, finding error in the Commission’s

injury analysis.7

 On June 18, 2002, the CIT remanded the Commission’s negative determinations

regarding cold-rolled SSPC to the Commission pursuant to the Federal Circuit judgment.

On September 27, 2002, the Commission on remand found a single domestic like product – all

SSPC that was coextensive with Commerce’s original scope – and determined that an industry in the

United States was materially injured by reason of dumped and/or subsidized imports of subject

merchandise from Belgium, Canada, Italy, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan.8

 The affirmative injury

determinations were upheld on appeal to the CIT and no further appeals were taken.9

 On March 11, 2003,

pursuant to the Commission’s affirmed remand determinations, Commerce amended the scope of the

antidumping duty orders for Belgium, Canada, Italy, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan and countervailing

duty orders for Belgium, Italy, and South Africa, to cover both hot-rolled and cold-rolled SSPC (the

orders had originally excluded cold-rolled SSPC based on the Commission’s original determinations).10

B. First Five-Year Reviews

The Commission instituted the first reviews of the subject orders on SSPC from Belgium,

Canada, Italy, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan on April 1, 2004,11 and received responses to the notice

of institution from domestic interested parties and from respondent interested parties concerning subject

imports from Belgium and Korea. The Commission conducted full reviews with respect to all six reviews

and issued its determinations in June 2005.12

The Commission defined a single domestic like product that was co-extensive with the scope of

investigation, finding no basis to revisit the original remand determination.13 The Commission cumulated

subject imports from five of the six subject countries, declining to cumulate subject imports from Canada

with other subject imports because they were likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic

industry if the antidumping duty order on SSPC from Canada were revoked.14

An evenly divided Commission determined that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on

SSPC from Belgium, Italy, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan, and of the countervailing duty orders on

SSPC from Belgium, Italy, and South Africa, would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of

 7 Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States, 287 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

 8

 The Commission majority on remand, which included Chairman Okun and Commissioners Bragg and Koplan,

adopted the original affirmative determinations of then-Chairman Bragg and Commissioner Koplan. USITC Pub.

3541 at 1-2 (Sept. 2002). Vice Chairman Hillman and Commissioner Miller, who had been part of the four

Commissioner majority in the original determinations, dissented on remand, again making negative determinations

with respect to imports of cold-rolled SSPC. USITC Pub. 3541 at 3-4 (Dissenting Views).

 9

 See 68 Fed. Reg. 8925 (Feb. 26, 2003) (Commission’s notice of final Court order affirming injury

determinations).

 10 See Confidential Staff Report (“CR”), Public Report (“PR”) at I-2 (the CR was issued on June 30, 2011

(Memorandum INV-JJ-068) and amended on July 8 and 11, 2011 (Memoranda INV-JJ-070 and 071)). See also 68

Fed. Reg. 11520 (Mar. 11, 2003) (antidumping duty orders); 68 Fed. Reg. 11524 (Mar. 11, 2003) (countervailing

duty orders). 

 11 69 Fed. Reg. 17235 (Apr. 1, 2004).

 12 Certain Stainless Steel Plate from Belgium, Canada, Italy, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 701-TA376, 377, & 379 and 731-TA-788-793 (Review), USITC Pub. 3784 (June 2005) (“USITC Pub. 3784”).

 13 USITC Pub. 3784 at 6.

 14 USITC Pub. 3784 at 7-19.

4
material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.15 The

Commission also determined, by a four-to-two vote, that revocation of the antidumping duty order on

SSPC from Canada would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the

domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.16

C. Second Five-Year Reviews

The Commission instituted its second five-year reviews of the remaining orders on June 

1, 2010.17 On September 7, 2010, the Commission determined to conduct full reviews of the orders.18

Two domestic producers of SSPC that accounted for the majority of U.S. production during the period of

review, Allegheny Ludlum Corp. (“Allegheny Ludlum”) and North American Stainless (“NAS”), and a

labor union representing workers in the domestic industry, the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber,

Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (“USW”) (collectively

“domestic interested parties”), participated in these reviews, filing pre- and post-hearing briefs and

testifying at the hearing. An Italian producer of subject merchandise – the dominant producer of stainless

steel plate in Italy, ThyssenKrupp Acciai Speciali Terni S.p.A. (“TKAST”), and its U.S. importer,

ThyssenKrupp Acciai Speciali Terni USA, Inc. (“TKAST USA”) (collectively “respondent interested

parties”), also participated in these reviews, filing pre- and post-hearing briefs and testifying at the

hearing.

U.S. industry data in these reviews are based on the questionnaire responses of Allegheny

Ludlum and NAS, as well as a third producer of SSPC in the United States, AK Steel Corporation (“AK

Steel”), which combined accounted for all domestic production of SSPC in 2010. U.S. import data with

respect to subject imports from Belgium, Italy, Korea, and nonsubject sources are based on the

questionnaire responses of seven U.S. importers of SSPC, with importers’ questionnaire responses

accounting for virtually all imports of SSPC from Belgium, Italy, and Korea during the period examined. 

U.S. import data with respect to subject imports from South Africa and Taiwan are based on Commerce

official statistics.19

Foreign industry data are based on the questionnaire responses of three foreign producers of

SSPC from Belgium, Italy, and Korea, which accounted for virtually all of the production of subject

merchandise in those three subject countries. No subject producer from South Africa or Taiwan

responded to the Commission’s questionnaire.20

The Commission also received 10 useable questionnaire responses from U.S.

distributors/processors/service centers and tubular products producers that purchased SSPC during the

review period. These firms reported purchases totaling 102,434 short tons in 2010.21

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

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

 15 USITC Pub. 3784 at 19-30 (Views of the Commission (Chairman Koplan and Commissioners Miller and

Lane)); cf. USITC Pub. 3784 at 49-56 (Separate and Dissenting Views of Vice Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun and

Commissioners Jennifer A. Hillman and Daniel R. Pearson).

 16 USITC Pub. 3784 at 31 (Commission Views); cf. id. at 33-34 (Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Lane

dissenting).

 17 75 Fed. Reg. 30434 (June 1, 2010).

 18 75 Fed. Reg. 59744 (Sept. 28, 2010); see CR/PR at App. A (Explanation of Commission Determination on

Adequacy).

 19 CR/PR at I-15.

 20 CR/PR at I-15.

 21 CR at I-38, PR at I-34.

5
reviews, including information the parties provided in their briefs and hearing testimony, questionnaire

responses, and information available from published sources.22 23

II. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT AND INDUSTRY

A. Domestic Like Product

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

“domestic like product” and the “industry.”24 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 under this subtitle.”25 The Commission’s practice in five-year reviews is to examine the

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

the record indicates any reason to revisit the prior findings.26

 22 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.”).

 23 Chairman 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.

 24 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 25 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.

Dep’t 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).

 26 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
In these five-year reviews, Commerce has identified the imported merchandise within the scope

of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders (SSPC) as follows:

Stainless steel is an alloy steel containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and

10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. The subject plate

products are flat-rolled products, 254 mm or over in width and 4.75 mm or more in

thickness, in coils, and annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise

descaled. The subject plate may also be further processed (e.g., cold-rolled, polished,

etc.) provided that it maintains the specified dimensions of plate following such

processing. Excluded from the scope of the orders are the following: (1) Plate not in

coils, (2) plate that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise

descaled, (3) sheet and strip, and (4) flat bars.27

Key physical attributes of SSPC include corrosion resistance, heat resistance, and ease of

maintenance. SSPC is used in the fabrication of storage tanks, process vessels, and other equipment used

in the chemical, dairy, restaurant, pulp and paper, and pharmaceutical industries (among others) when one

or more of these physical characteristics is required. The same industries also use SSPC in the fabrication

of tubing when corrosion resistance, heat resistance, or ease of maintenance is needed in the particular

tubing application.28

In the original investigations, as noted above, the Commission found two separate like products

consisting of hot- and cold-rolled SSPC. Following the remand proceeding, the Commission found a

single domestic like product that was coextensive with Commerce’s scope. The Commission explained:

[B]ecause hot-rolled and cold-rolled SS coiled plate share similar physical characteristics,

chemical composition, and dimensions; can be used in most of the same corrosion

resistant applications; share the same channels of distribution; share the same production

process through production of the hot-rolled product; and because cold-rolled SS coiled

plate is substitutable for the hot-rolled product while hot-rolled SS coiled plate may be

substitutable for the cold-rolled product with further grinding and polishing, we find that

there is no clear dividing line between hot-rolled and cold-rolled SS coiled plate.29

In the first five-year reviews, the Commission continued to find a single domestic like product

that was coextensive with Commerce’s scope. The Commission found no reason to revisit the single

domestic like product definition adopted in the remand determinations based on the record developed in

the first reviews and the lack of any argument to the contrary.30

The domestic interested parties indicated in their response to the notice of institution of the

second reviews that they agreed with the domestic like product definition adopted by the Commission in

the remand determinations and first reviews, while respondent interested parties took no position on the

 27 E.g., 75 Fed. Reg. 61699 (Oct. 6, 2010) (final results of expedited reviews of subject antidumping duty orders).

 28 CR at I-25, PR at I-24.

 29 USITC Pub. 3541 at 1 n.4 (Commissioners Bragg and Koplan adopting their original determination); USITC

Pub. 3188 at 31 (original determination of Commissioners Bragg and Koplan, dissenting); USITC Pub. 3541 at 1 n.7

(Commissioner Okun adopting the original determination of Commissioners Bragg and Koplan). We note that

because the Commission majority on remand adopted the dissenting analysis from the original determinations and

provided no additional analysis, when relevant we cite to the original dissenting views (in USITC Pub. 3188) in

discussing the Commission’s remand determination.

 30 USITC Pub. 3784 at 6 (June 2005).

7
issue.31 Based on the record in these reviews, which indicates no changes with respect to the product that

would justify revisiting the domestic like product definition,32 and absent any request or argument for a

different definition, we again define a single domestic like product of SSPC corresponding to the scope of

the subject orders.

B. Domestic Industry and Related Parties

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

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

constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”33 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. Section 771(4)(B) of the Act 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. 

The Commission defined the domestic industry to include all domestic producers of SSPC in the

remand determinations and first five-year reviews.34 Based upon our domestic like product definition, we

define the domestic industry in these reviews as all domestic producers of SSPC: AK Steel, Allegheny

Ludlum, and NAS.35

III. CUMULATION

A. Legal Standard

With respect to five-year reviews, section 752(a) of the 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.36

 31 CR at I-33, PR at I-30. See also Domestic Interested Parties' Prehearing Brief at 4.

 32 See CR at I-22-I-33, PR at I-22-I-30.

 33 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.

 34 USITC Pub. 3188 at 31; USITC Pub. 3784 at 7.

 35 CR at I-33-I-34, PR at I-30-I-31. The record indicates that domestic producer NAS is affiliated with Columbus

Stainless, a South African producer of SSPC. NAS is affiliated with Columbus Stainless through common

ownership by Acerinox, S.A (“Acerinox”). Acerinox, is a Spanish specialty steel producer that holds a 76 percent

share in Columbus Stainless. CR at I-34, PR at I-32. However, the record demonstrates that neither Columbus

Stainless nor NAS, through their common parent, ***. NAS and Columbus Stainless ***. CR at I-34-I-35, PR at I32. In addition, “***.” CR at I-35, PR at I-32. Accordingly, we find that NAS is not a related party within the

meaning of 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B)(ii).

 36 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7).

8
Cumulation therefore is discretionary in five-year reviews, unlike original investigations, which

are governed by section 771(7)(G)(I) of the Act.37 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.

In the original investigations, the Commission found a reasonable overlap of competition between

and among the domestic like product and imports from each subject country, and therefore considered

subject imports from all sources on a cumulated basis.38 In the first five-year reviews, the Commission

cumulated subject imports from Belgium, Italy, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan, but determined that

subject imports from Canada were likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry

and therefore considered subject imports from Canada on an individual basis.39 

In these second five-year reviews, the threshold criterion for cumulation is satisfied because all

reviews were instituted on the same day, June 1, 2010.40 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 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.41

 37 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(G)(i); see also, e.g., Nucor Corp. v. United States, 601 F.3d 1291, 1293, App. No. 2009-

1234, Slip Op. at 7-8 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 7, 2010) (Commission may reasonably consider likely differing conditions of

competition in deciding whether to cumulate subject imports in five-year reviews); 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 Corp. v. United States, 569 F. Supp. 2d 1328, 1337-38 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2008).

 38 USITC Pub. 3188 at 10-12.

 39 USITC Pub. 3784 at 8-19 (Views of the Commission (Chairman Koplan and Commissioners Miller and Lane)),

40-43 (Separate and Dissenting Views of Vice Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun and Commissioners Jennifer A.

Hillman and Daniel R. Pearson). But see USITC Pub. 3784 at 33-34 (Dissenting Views With Respect to Canada of

Chairman Stephen Koplan and Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane), 57-59 (Additional Views of Commissioner Daniel

R. Pearson Regarding Cumulation). 

 40 CR/PR at I-2.

 41 Chairman Okun and Commissioner Pearson 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

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, 605 F. Supp.2d 1361, 1372 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2009); Nucor Corp. v. United States, 594 F. Supp.2d

1320, 1345-47 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2008), aff’d, Slip Op. 2009-1234 (Fed.Cir. Apr. 7, 2010).

9
Based on the record, we find that subject imports from each of the five countries would not be

likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry were the antidumping and

countervailing duty orders revoked.42 We also find a likely reasonable overlap of competition among the

subject imports and between the subject imports and the domestic like product were the orders revoked. 

We further find, however, that conditions of competition likely to apply to subject imports from Italy in

the U.S. market are distinct from the conditions of competition likely to apply to subject imports from the

other four subject countries: Belgium, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan.43 44 We therefore exercise our

discretion to cumulate subject imports from Belgium, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan for our likely

injury analysis with respect to those subject imports and perform a separate likely injury analysis with

respect to subject imports from Italy, as discussed further below.45 46 47

B. Likelihood of No Discernible Adverse Impact48

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.49 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.50 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 imports from any of the five subject countries are likely

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

Prior to the imposition of the orders, the volume of subject imports from each of the five countries in

question increased sharply.51 The volume of subject imports from each country generally declined after

 42 Commissioner Pinkert finds that subject imports from Italy are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on

the domestic industry after revocation. He therefore does not cumulate them. See Separate Views of Commissioner

Dean A. Pinkert.

 43 Commissioners Lane and Pinkert do not join this finding.

 44 Commissioner Pearson finds that the conditions of competition likely to confront Belgium are also distinct from

those likely to confront Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan.

 45 Commissioner Lane exercises her discretion to cumulate subject imports from Belgium, Italy, Korea, South

Africa, and Taiwan. 

 46 Commissioner Pinkert exercises his discretion to cumulate subject imports from Belgium, Korea, South Africa,

and Taiwan. He joins section III.C (Likelihood of a Reasonable Overlap of Competition) only with respect to those

countries.

 47 Commissioner Pearson exercises his discretion to cumulate subject imports from Korea, South Africa, and

Taiwan.

 48 Commissioner Pinkert sets forth in his separate views his analysis of whether imports of the subject

merchandise are likely to have no discernible adverse impact in the event of revocation. See Separate Views of

Commissioner Dean A. Pinkert.

 49 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7).

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

 51 In the years examined in the original investigation, U.S. shipments of subject imports from Belgium increased

from *** short tons in 1995 to *** short tons in 1996, then decreased to *** short tons in 1997. U.S. shipments of

subject imports from Italy increased sharply from *** short tons in 1995 to *** short tons in 1997. In the case of

subject imports from Korea, U.S. shipments increased from *** short tons in 1995 to *** short tons in 1997. U.S.

shipments of subject imports from South Africa increased from *** short tons in 1995 to *** short tons in 1996, and

decreased to *** short tons in 1997. U.S. shipments of subject imports from Taiwan increased dramatically from

*** short tons in 1995 to *** short tons in 1996, and then to *** short tons in 1997. CR/PR at Table I-1. 

10
the original investigations and was lower in 2010 compared with 1997.52 As in the original

investigations, foreign producers in each of the five countries continue to export outside their respective

home markets.53 54 Additionally, foreign producers in each of the five countries produced substantial

quantities of the SSPC55 and had substantial capacity or excess capacity.56 

 52 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 53 In the case of the sole Belgian producer (Aperam Stainless Belgium (“Aperam”)), *** percent of its shipments

were to the home market in 2010, while *** percent of its shipments were to export markets. CR/PR at Table IV-4. 

The European Union market accounted for *** percent of shipments by the Belgian producer in 2010. Asian

markets constituted the next largest export destination, accounting for *** percent of shipments in 2010. Id. 

For the dominant stainless steel plate producer in Italy, TKAST, home market shipments as a share of total

shipments of the Italian industry increased overall during the period of review, from *** percent in 2005 to ***

percent in 2010. Internal consumption has also increased overall, from *** percent in 2005 to *** percent in 2010. 

Combined, home market shipments and internal consumption therefore accounted for more than *** percent of total

shipments in 2010. Export shipments show the opposite trend in the period of review. In 2005, exports accounted

for *** percent of the Italian industry’s shipments. Exports accounted for *** of total shipments as of 2006 (***

percent) and have declined steadily to *** percent of total shipments in 2010. In 2010, exports were shipped to the

European Union (*** percent) and other non-Asian markets (*** percent). CR/PR at Table IV-6. 

The Korean industry’s shipments to its home market fluctuated during the period. They constituted ***

percent of shipments in 2010, up from *** percent in 2005 but down from the period high of *** percent in 2007. 

Export shipments fluctuated as well, from a high of *** percent of total shipments in 2005 to a low of *** percent in

2007. In 2010, exports constituted *** percent of the industry’s total shipments and were primarily directed to Asian

markets. CR/PR at Table IV-8. 

The sole foreign producer in South Africa, Columbus Stainless, indicated that ***. The record therefore

contains limited information respecting the South African industry. CR at IV-29 & n.30, PR at IV-12 & n.30. 

According to Columbus Stainless’ website, however, home market shipments comprise 25 percent of the company’s

total sales. In addition, the company has a “well-developed” sales network for its exports in Europe, the Americas,

the Middle East, and the Far East. CR at IV-29, PR at IV-12.

There are four Taiwan companies with hot-rolled annealing and pickling capacity: Chien Shing Stainless

Steel Co., Ltd.; Tang Eng Iron Works Co., Ltd. (“Tang Eng”); Tung Mung Development Co., Ltd. (“Tung Mung”);

and YUSCO, none of which provided data in these reviews. As a result, the information in these reviews on the

Taiwan industry is limited. The record includes *** regarding the Taiwan industry’s global shipments of hot-rolled

stainless steel. While figures provided by that information source ***, they indicate that shipment volumes have

fluctuated during the review period, from a high of *** short tons in 2006 to a low of *** short tons in 2008. 

Shipment volumes were *** short tons in 2010, an increase overall of *** percent from 2005 (*** short tons). 

CR/PR at Table IV-12. According to Global Trade Atlas data (which may include nonsubject product), Taiwan

exports of SSPC have declined irregularly during the period of review. These data show that the Taiwan industry’s

exports in 2010 were 34,007 short tons, a figure representing a decline of 53.1 percent from 2005, though it is

modestly higher than the period low of 31,287 short tons in 2008. CR/PR at Table IV-13.

 54 Commissioner Shara L. Aranoff notes additionally that the foreign producers in Belgium and Italy export nontrivial volumes to markets outside the European Union. CR/PR at Tables IV-4 and IV-6.

 55 Production of SSPC by Aperam (Belgium), fluctuated during the period of review from a high of *** short tons

in *** to a low of *** short tons in ***. Its production was *** short tons in 2010, *** percent lower than in 2005. 

CR/PR at Table IV-4. Production of SSPC by the dominant producer in Italy (TKAST) fluctuated throughout the

period, from a high of *** in 2006 to a low of *** in 2008. Production was *** short tons in 2010, *** percent

lower than in 2005 (*** short tons). CR at IV-18, PR at IV-10; CR/PR at Table IV-6. The Korean producer’s

production increased between 2005 and 2006, then decreased, ending *** percent lower in 2010 (***) than in 2005

(***). CR/PR at Table IV-8. The domestic interested parties reported that Columbus Stainless produced a total of

705,472 short tons of hot-rolled stainless steel coil (which includes nonsubject products such as stainless steel sheet

and strip) in 2007. CR at IV-29, PR at IV-13. The record does not contain information for production of SSPC in

Taiwan, but we conclude that it is substantial, given that there are four producers of SSPC in that country, and that

one of them, YUSCO, is reportedly the largest integrated stainless steel mill in Southeast Asia, with melting capacity

(continued...)

11
 55(...continued)

of 1 million metric tons, hot-rolling capacity of 900,000 metric tons, and cold-rolling capacity of 650,000 metric

tons. CR at IV-31, PR at IV-14.

 56 In the case of Aperam (Belgium), assessment of that producer’s SSPC capacity and excess capacity is

complicated by that firm’s failure to provide ***. CR/PR at Table IV-4 n.1. Instead, we turn to information

available to estimate excess capacity in Belgium, including Aperam’s hot-rolled stainless steel capacity and coldrolled stainless steel capacity. CR/PR at Table IV-5. We are cognizant that both sets of capacity data include flatrolled products outside the scope of the subject order. In addition to subject SSPC, products covered by the data

include non-subject stainless steel sheet and strip (“SSSS”) in various forms and cut-to-length plate (“CTL plate”),

among others. Id. The reported data identify production quantities for each of these flat-rolled stainless products

and, based on combined production totals, a total capacity utilization rate for the industry’s hot-rolled and cold-rolled

stainless operations, respectively, for each year of the period of review. CR/PR at Table IV-5. (We note that the

hot-rolled stainless production data do not include coils that are rerolled in Aperam’s cold-rolling operations. CR at

IV-17, PR at IV-9; CR/PR at Table IV-5 n.1.) The data show that the Belgian industry produced *** with its hotrolled stainless capacity than any other hot-rolled stainless products, with *** accounting for the second highest

quantity. CR/PR at Table IV-5. The data show that *** accounted for *** quantities and relative allocation of coldrolled stainless capacity, with the vast majority of cold-rolled stainless capacity used for ***. CR/PR at Table IV-5. 

The information available thus shows that the Belgian industry’s hot-rolled stainless operations had excess capacity

throughout the period of review, with capacity utilization rates fluctuating from a high of *** percent in *** to a low

of *** percent in 2009. Capacity utilization was *** percent in 2010, up from *** percent in 2005. CR/PR at Table

IV-5. Capacity utilization for the Belgian industry’s cold-rolled stainless operations fluctuated during the period

from a high of *** percent in 2006 to a low of *** percent in 2009, and was *** percent in 2010. CR/PR at Table

IV-5. The information available thus shows excess capacity in the reported hot-rolled and cold-rolled stainless

operations of the Belgian industry that, constrained only by allocation levels, may be directed to the production of

subject SSPC. Excess capacity in 2010 with respect to Belgian hot-rolled stainless production, for example, was ***

short tons, the equivalent of *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption of SSPC in 2010. See CR/PR at Tables IV-5

& I-1. At a minimum, some portion of this idle capacity could be directed to increased production of subject SSPC. 

A separate tabulation combining the Belgian industry’s reported hot-rolled and cold-rolled stainless capacity and

production data further illustrates the point, showing idle capacity throughout the period of review, for hot-rolled and

cold-rolled stainless production combined, with capacity utilization rates most recently of *** percent and ***

percent in 2009 and 2010, respectively. CR at IV-17, PR at IV-9.

In assessing capacity for TKAST of Italy, we note that the capacity and production data in Table IV-6 of

the staff report differ from the data reported in Table IV-7. In addition to the SSPC-specific data in Table IV-6,

TKAST provided raw stainless steel (melt) capacity and production figures, as well as, more specifically, hot-rolled

and cold-rolled stainless capacity and production figures, as identified in Table IV-7. The figures in Table IV-7 thus

cover substantial percentages of non-subject product and, insofar as they include subject SSPC, reportedly capture

volumes that are internally consumed in the production of higher-value, downstream flat-rolled products such as

SSSS. CR/PR at Table IV-7. The lower production figures in Table IV-6 represent TKAST’s production that is sold

as SSPC. Reported capacity was *** short tons in 2005-2007 and *** in 2008, its present level. CR at IV-18, PR at

IV-10; CR/PR at Table IV-6. The decrease in capacity was a result of the closure of a plant in Turin in 2008 as well

as a change in the firm’s product mix. CR at IV-18, PR at IV-10. The closure of the plant in Turin ***. The hot

annealing and pickling line is presently “in the custody of Italian authorities and its future is uncertain.” CR at IV-18

n.21, PR at IV-10 n.21. The Turin plant ***. CR/PR at Table IV-14. TKAST also emphasized that it has made

substantial investments in finishing capacity in its Terni facility, and is more focused on the downstream, valueadded products such as CTL plate and other cold-rolled products. CR at IV-18 n.21, PR at IV-10 n.21. The

industry’s capacity utilization rate fluctuated in the first part of the period and ranged *** percent in 2008-2010. 

CR/PR at Table IV-6.

In the case of the Korean industry, capacity decreased from *** short tons in 2005 to *** short tons in

2010, a decline of *** percent. Capacity utilization was *** percent in 2010, which was higher than in 2007-2009,

but lower than during the first two years of the period. CR/PR at Table IV-8. 

*** data indicate that the South African industry’s hot-rolled annealing and pickling capacity, which covers

(continued...)

12
Given the pre-order increases in the volume of subject imports from Belgium, Italy, Korea, South Africa,

and Taiwan, the fact that producers continued to export, continue to produce SSPC in substantial

quantities, and have excess capacity, we determine that subject imports from none of the five countries in

question are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry upon revocation. 

C. Likelihood of a Reasonable Overlap of Competition

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

determining whether subject imports compete with each other and with the domestic like product.57 Only

a “reasonable overlap” of competition is required.58 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.59

Fungibility. As in the original investigations and the first five-year reviews, the record in these

second five-year reviews continues to show a moderate to high degree of substitutability between U.S.-

produced SSPC and SSPC imported from subject countries.60 All responding purchasers indicated that

the SSPC they purchase must meet standards set by ASTM or by a similar body (all identified ASTM and

five others identified other certifications including ASME, MILS, and AMS). In addition, four

purchasers reported other supplier qualifications including ISO certification, PED, quality, delivery, and

performance. All purchasers reported that during the period of review (2005-2010), no domestic or

foreign supplier had failed in its attempt to qualify product, or had lost its approved status.61

Purchasers, domestic producers, and importers reported on the interchangeability of imports from

each subject country both among each other and with the domestic like product. The majority of

purchasers reported that SSPC for each country comparison was “always” interchangeable, as did all

 56(...continued)

subject product (though not coils for rerolling) and certain non-subject product, was *** short tons in 2010. CR/PR

at Table IV-10 & n.1 and Note.

While we lack data for the foreign producers of SSPC in Taiwan, YUSCO is reportedly the largest

integrated stainless steel mill in Southeast Asia, with melting capacity of 1 million metric tons, hot-rolling capacity

of 900,000 metric tons, and cold-rolling capacity of 650,000 metric tons. CR at IV-31, PR at IV-14. According to

***, the Taiwan industry’s hot-rolled annealing and pickling capacity was *** short tons in 2010. CR/PR at Table

IV-14.

 57 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 subject imports from

different countries and between subject 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 subject imports from different countries and the domestic like product; and (4)

whether subject imports are simultaneously present in the market with one another and the domestic like product. 

See, e.g., Wieland Werke, AG v. United States, 718 F. Supp. 50 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1989).

 58 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.”); U.S. 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, Invs. 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 Found. 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, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-761 to 762 (Final), USITC Pub. 3098 at 13-15 (Apr. 1998).

 59 See generally Chefline Corp. v. United States, 219 F. Supp. 2d 1303, 1314 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002).

 60 CR at II-11, PR at II-9.

 61 CR at II-14, PR at II-11.

13
responding U.S. producers. All responding importers reported that product for all country comparisons

was either “frequently” or “sometimes” interchangeable, except as noted below.62 While the responses

reveal differences in the perceptions of each group, they collectively demonstrate a reasonable

competitive overlap between the domestically produced SSPC and subject imports and among the subject

imports. 

Purchasers reported factors they considered when making their purchasing decisions. They cited

price most frequently as the most important factor in purchasing decisions, followed by quality and

delivery.63 The majority of purchasers reported that they “always” or “usually” purchase the lowestpriced product for their spot purchases (seven of ten) and contract purchases (six of ten).64

In our evaluation of the likely overlap in competition, we have taken into account the availability

of the Belgian product in certain dimensions. Four purchasers reported that Belgian product was superior

to U.S. product in the availability of SSPC in extra wide or long rolls and metric widths.65 When

evaluating the same issue in the first reviews, the Commission noted that the proper focus was the likely

overlap of competition if the orders were revoked.66 The Commission also found that the composition of

subject imports from Belgium while under the discipline of the order was not necessarily indicative of

likely composition of subject imports upon revocation.67 In that respect, the Commission observed that

while subject imports from Belgium were concentrated in wide widths following the imposition of the

orders, they competed across a greater range prior to the orders, including in narrower widths made by

domestic producers.68 The Commission noted that it had found a reasonable overlap of competition in the

original investigation, and it found in the first reviews a likely reasonable overlap upon revocation,

notwithstanding the greater availability of subject imports from Belgium in certain dimensions.69 Having

reviewed the record here and that compiled in the original investigations and first five-year reviews, we

find no contrary evidence. Extra-wide SSPC constitutes approximately five percent of the U.S. market,

and Aperam continues to produce SSPC in more common widths of 60 inches or less, as do the domestic

producers.70 Unlike in the first five-year reviews, no party argues that there is no reasonable overlap of

competition between subject imports from Belgium and the domestic like product. Moreover, NAS has

reported that it has the capacity to produce “wide-width” plate, but stated that it cannot compete with the

lower-priced imports.71 ***.72 And TKAST has reported that it will shortly have the capacity to produce

plate up to 72 inches wide at its new Alabama facility.73

 62 CR/PR at Table II-10. In comparing the Belgian and U.S. product, one importer reported that they were

“frequently” interchangeable while a second reported that they were “never” interchangeable. CR/PR at Table II-10.

 63 CR/PR at Table II-6.

 64 CR at II-13, PR at II-10.

 65 CR/PR at Table II-9.

 66 USITC Pub. 3784 at 18 (Views of Commission (Chairman Koplan and Commissioners Miller and Lane)). 

 67 USITC Pub. 3784 at 18 (Views of Commission (Chairman Koplan and Commissioners Miller and Lane)) & 42

(Separate and Dissenting Views of Vice Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun and Commissioners Jennifer A. Hillman

and Daniel R. Pearson).

 68 USITC Pub. 3784 at 18 (Views of Commission (Chairman Koplan and Commissioners Miller and Lane)) & 42

(Separate and Dissenting Views of Vice Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun and Commissioners Jennifer A. Hillman

and Daniel R. Pearson).

 69 USITC Pub. 3784 at 18 (Views of Commission (Chairman Koplan and Commissioners Miller and Lane)) & 42

(Separate and Dissenting Views of Vice Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun and Commissioners Jennifer A. Hillman

and Daniel R. Pearson).

 70 CR at IV-10, PR at IV-7.

 71 Hearing Transcript, May 26, 2011 (“Tr.”) at 24-25 (Feeley).

 72 CR at IV-10 n.10, PR at IV-7 n.10.

 73 See, e.g., Tr. at 117-18, 161 (Salas).

14
Fungibility considerations therefore evidence the likelihood of a reasonable overlap of

competition between subject imports and the domestic like product and among the subject imports in the

event of revocation.

Geographic Overlap and Simultaneous Presence in Market. The domestic producers reported

selling SSPC nationwide in these five-year reviews.74 The sole importer of product from Belgium

reported selling to ***.75 TKAST reported that its Alabama mill will replace imports, particularly on the

West Coast, with product to be shipped by rail.76 The new data is therefore limited but demonstrates

existing geographic overlap in the sales that take place.

In respect to simultaneous market presence, subject imports from Belgium were present in every

month of the period for which data were collected except February 2009. Subject imports from South

Africa were more sporadic, with the exception of their presence in the second half of 2005 and calendar

years 2006 and 2007. Imports from Taiwan were present in less than half of the months in each year

between 2005 and 2010.77 Although not all subject imports have been present in the U.S. market during

the period of review, no evidence indicates – and no argument has been advanced – that subject imports

would not have a simultaneous market presence sufficient to establish the likelihood of a reasonable

overlap of competition in the event of revocation. 

Channels of Distribution. Although some SSPC is sold to end users, most is sold to distributors,

processors, and/or service centers.78 During the period of review, more than two-thirds of U.S. producers’

sales were to distributors/processors/service centers and almost one-third were to end-users.79 With the

exception of sales of imports from Belgium, which were *** to distributors, only limited data were

available from other subject countries. Available data respecting nonsubject countries is consistent with

the longstanding trends in distribution channels in the U.S. market, the large majority of such sales going

to distributors.80 Based on the evidence of overlapping channels of distribution by subject imports from

the first reviews, and the limited data in these reviews that show continued overlap in distribution

channels, we find a likely continued overlap in competition in sales to the same channels of distribution in

the event of revocation. 

Conclusion. The record of these reviews indicates that there would likely be a reasonable overlap

of competition were the orders to be revoked with respect to fungibility, geographic overlap,

simultaneous presence in the U.S. market, and channels of distribution. Based on these considerations,

and the absence of any argument to the contrary, we find that there would likely be a reasonable overlap

of competition between and among imports from each subject country and the domestic like product if the

orders were to be revoked.

 74 CR/PR at Table II-2. 

 75 CR/PR at II-2.

 76 CR/PR at II-2.

 77 CR at IV-10, PR at IV-8.

 78 CR/PR at II-1.

 79 CR/PR at Table II-1.

 80 CR/PR at II-1.

15
D. Likely Conditions of Competition81

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

whether the subject imports from Belgium, Italy, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan are likely to compete

under similar or different conditions in the U.S. market after revocation of the orders.82

Italy. In the event of revocation, the record shows that subject imports from Italy will likely

compete under different conditions of competition in the U.S. market than subject imports from Belgium,

Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan. The sole responding Italian producer TKAST is a division of and

controlled by ThyssenKrupp and therefore is subject to ThyssenKrupp’s local supply strategy, which

ThyssenKrupp has taken very clear and concrete steps to implement in the U.S. market. Motivated by

U.S. customer demands for shorter lead times, and in response to increased logistical costs and the weak

U.S. dollar, ThyssenKrupp is in the process of localizing its production of SSPC for the North American

market so that the U.S. market will be served almost exclusively by ThyssenKrupp Stainless USA LLC

(“SL-USA”), while ThyssenKrupp’s Italian operations (TKAST) focus on serving the European market.83

As a central element of this strategy, ThyssenKrupp is constructing a $1.4 billion greenfield

integrated production facility in Calvert, Alabama (SL-USA), which will commence operations in three

phases.84 During the first phase of construction, which is already completed, ThyssenKrupp put in place

its first cold-rolling line (the 64-inch mill) and a cold annealing and pickling line that is used at the end of

the cold-rolling process.85 SL-USA currently produces cold-rolled products from hot-rolled pickled and

 81 Commissioners Lane and Pinkert do not join in this section. Where, in a five-year review, they do not find that

imports of the subject merchandise would be likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry in

the event of revocation 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 them 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. Commissioner Lane applies this analysis to all subject countries in these reviews. 

Commissioner Pinkert applies it only to Belgium, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan, as he has found that imports of

the subject merchandise from Italy are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry in the

event of revocation.

Commissioner Lane finds no evidence of such a condition or propensity with respect to imports of the

subject merchandise from the subject countries. These imports have a moderate to high level of substitutability. 

Moreover, the limited data available suggest that, if the orders were revoked, these imports would compete in similar

channels of distribution and in overlapping geographical markets.

Similarly, Commissioner Pinkert finds no evidence of such a condition or propensity with respect to

imports of the subject merchandise from Belgium, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan. These imports have a moderate

to high level of substitutability. Moreover, the limited data available suggest that, if the orders in question were

revoked, these imports would compete in similar channels of distribution and in overlapping geographical markets. 

Therefore, in making determinations regarding likelihood of material injury in the event of revocation,

Commissioner Lane finds it appropriate to cumulate imports of the subject merchandise from all subject countries,

and Commissioner Pinkert finds it appropriate to cumulate imports of the subject merchandise from Belgium, Korea,

South Africa, and Taiwan.

 82 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; U.S. Steel, Slip Op. 08-82.

 83 Hearing Transcript, May 25, 2011 (“SSSS Tr.”), at 143-46 (Iler); Respondent Interested Parties’ Posthearing

Br. at 8-9; Respondent Interested Parties’ Posthearing Br. App. at 20-25. Lead times for SSPC in the U.S. market

have declined to just 4 to 6 weeks. CR at II-16, PR at II-13; Respondent Interested Parties’ Prehearing Br. Exh 1.

 84 Tr. at 116-19 (Salas).

 85 Respondent Interested Parties’ Posthearing Br. at 10; Respondent Interested Parties’ Final Comments at 2.

16
annealed feedstock, known as white band, imported from Germany, a nonsubject country.86 The second

phase involves the completion of a 74-inch stainless cold rolling mill and a hot annealing and pickling

line which is scheduled to be fully operational in the third quarter of 2011.87 At this point, SL-USA will

utilize its hot-rolling mill to produce hot-rolled SSPC from nonsubject black band, and white band from

Germany will be phased out as feedstock.88 The third and final phase of construction involves

commissioning of the third cold-rolling mill (the 54-inch mill) and a melt shop, with production of

stainless steel slabs scheduled for the end of 2013.89 ThyssenKrupp projects that SL-USA’s capacity to

produce SSPC will be *** short tons in 2011, *** short tons in 2012, *** short tons in 2013, and ***

short tons in 2014, with projected production of *** short tons in 2011, *** short tons in 2012, *** short

tons in 2013, and *** short tons in 2014.90 ThyssenKrupp indicates that all of SL-USA’s SSPC

production in 2011 and 2012 will be internally processed into downstream products; starting in 2013 it

intends to begin commercial sales of SSPC made by SL-USA.91

Another key element of ThyssenKrupp’s local supply strategy is the consolidation of

ThyssenKrupp’s North American administration and marketing in SL-USA and the coordination of

ThyssenKrupp’s sales of SSPC in the United States, Canada, and Mexico by its vice president of sales

and marketing for SL-USA.92 As ThyssenKrupp’s marketing executive for the entire North American

region, its vice president has the authority to “veto” imports from affiliates that could potentially harm

SL-USA’s sales, and has been instructed to wield such authority to safeguard ThyssenKrupp’s substantial

investment in SL-USA.93

We find that ThyssenKrupp’s local supply strategy is a logical approach to dealing with U.S.

customer demands for shorter lead times, which are much more difficult to satisfy from Italy,94 increased

logistical costs for ocean transport and raw materials,95 and the weakness of the dollar relative to the

euro.96 ThyssenKrupp’s investment of $1.4 billion in SL-USA, of which a considerable amount has

already been spent, is compelling evidence of the company’s commitment to this strategy. We find it

credible that ThyssenKrupp would consolidate responsibility for the sale and distribution of its SSPC in

the U.S. market in SL-USA under this strategy, and establish the necessary corporate power structure to

which it has testified in order to prevent subject imports from Italy that could harm SL-USA. 

We do not believe that ThyssenKrupp’s plan to separate its global stainless steel operations from

the rest of the company will likely result in the alteration or reversal of the unit’s local supply strategy.97

The stainless steel unit’s rationale for pursuing a local supply strategy will likely remain unchanged after

the unit’s separation from ThyssenKrupp. Given the short lead times demanded by U.S. purchasers,

increased logistical costs, and exchange rate volatility, the stainless steel unit will still have an economic

 86 Id.

 87 Id.

 88 Id.

 89 Respondent Interested Parties’ Final Comments at 2. SL-USA will also fully replace Italy and Germany as the

sources of hot band feedstock to the mill in Mexico sometime during 2014. Id.; Tr. at 118-19 (Salas).

 90 Respondent Interested Parties’ Final Comments at 3.

 91 Respondent Interested Parties’ Final Comments at 1-3.

 92 Respondent Interested Parties’ Posthearing Br. at 7; Tr. at 121-22 (Lacor).

 93 Respondent Interested Parties’ Final Comments at 3; Respondent Interested Parties’ Posthearing Br. at 7-8;

Respondent Interested Parties’ Posthearing Br. App. at Exhibit 11 (Statement on U.S. Sales Strategy by Clemens

Iller, Chairman of the Management Board); Tr. at 125 (Lacor).

 94 CR at II-15-II-16, PR at II-12-II-13; Respondent Interested Parties’ Posthearing Br. at 9-10.

 95 CR/PR at V-1-V-2; CR at V-7, PR at V-6-V-7; Respondent Interested Parties’ Posthearing Br. at 8-9.

 96 CR/PR at V-7; Respondent Interested Parties’ Posthearing Br. at 9.

 97 Respondent Interested Parties’ Posthearing Br. App. at 38; SSSS Tr. at 206-07 (Iller). 

17
incentive to serve the U.S. SSPC market with SSPC produced by SL-USA, while managing any imports

of SSPC from related companies so as to protect its $1.4 billion investment in SL-USA.

Because TKAST, unlike subject producers in any of the other subject countries, will be subject to

and operate under ThyssenKrupp’s local supply strategy in the U.S. market, which is calculated to ensure

the success of ThyssenKrupp’s $1.4 billion investment in domestic producer SL-USA, the conditions

under which subject imports from Italy are likely to compete in the United States in the event of

revocation (i.e., the discipline of a local supply strategy designed to foster domestic SSPC production) are

quite distinct from those under which subject imports from Belgium, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan are

likely to compete and justify declining to cumulate subject imports from Italy with other subject

imports.98

We disagree with domestic interested parties’ assertion that this strategy is not a distinguishing

condition of competition because ThyssenKrupp could decide to focus all of the resources of SL-USA on

the production of SSSS, not produce any SSPC at SL-USA, and import SSPC from TKAST.99 As

discussed above, ThyssenKrupp’s local supply strategy is premised on the competitive disadvantages of

exporting stainless steel products to the U.S. market from long distances. These disadvantages make it

likely that ThyssenKrupp will follow through on its stated plans to produce SSPC in the United States for

commercial sale starting in 2013.

We also reject domestic interested parties’ contention that ThyssenKrupp’s local supply strategy

is not a distinguishing condition of competition because ThyssenKrupp “must still rely on imports from

Italy to supply the U.S. commercial market through 2013 or 2014.”100 TKAST does not supply the U.S.

market – it stopped imports to the United States *** the planning or implementation of ThyssenKrupp’s

local supply strategy.101 Nor is there any indication that during the process of implementation,

ThyssenKrupp’s local supply strategy requires (much less “relies on”) imports of SSPC from its Italian

division. ThyssenKrupp already has, and has had throughout the period of review, access to SSPC

shipments from its German division – as nonsubject imports. ThyssenKrupp’s pattern of SSPC exports

from Germany is revealing of ThyssenKrupp’s motivations precisely because it has always been able to

import SSPC from its nonsubject German production without restriction. The import data show that its

SSPC imports from Germany for third-party sales have *** during the period of review, despite not being

subject to the restraining effects of an order. When apparent U.S. consumption was at its peak in this

period, *** short tons in 2006, ThyssenKrupp’s SSPC imports from Germany were *** short tons; in

2010, with apparent U.S. consumption of *** short tons, only *** short tons were imported from

Germany.102 These data are consistent with the testimony from ThyssenKrupp that it is withdrawing its

imports from the U.S. market.103 If ThyssenKrupp desired greater market share or saw opportunities for

additional sales, it could meet those needs with its nonsubject German production. The fact that German

exports have declined suggests that no such expansion is taking place.

In addition to the local supply strategy to which subject imports from Italy will be subject, other

factors distinguish the competitive conditions under which subject imports from Italy will likely compete. 

Unlike the export orientation of the industries in Belgium, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan, home market

shipments and internal consumption accounted for more than *** percent of total SSPC shipments by the

 98 As noted above, the South African subject producer Columbus Stainless also has a U.S. affiliate producing the

domestic like product, but in contrast to TKAST and SL-USA, the evidence shows that ***. CR at I-34-I-35, PR at

I-32.

 99 Domestic Interested Parties’ Posthearing Brief at 4; Domestic Interested Parties’ Final Comments at 6.

 100 Domestic Interested Parties’ Final Comments at 6.

 101 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 102 CR/PR at Tables I-1, IV-2. ThyssenKrupp also reported exporting *** short tons of SSPC in 2010 to SL-USA

for internal consumption, which it described as a ***. Respondents’ Posthearing Br. App. at 26.

 103 Id.

18
Italian industry in 2010.104 In addition, unlike subject imports from Belgium, South Africa, and Taiwan,

which have remained in the U.S. market to varying degrees, there have been *** subject imports from

Italy since 2001.105 Also, SSPC capacity and production in Italy declined *** during the period of review

for an SSPC industry that is now smaller than the SSPC industries in any of the other subject countries.106

In this respect, in addition to recognizing the closure of the Turin plant, we credit the SSPC-specific

capacity and production data identified in Table IV-6 of the staff report. Based on the entire record,

including TKAST’s explanations of the data sets that it has submitted in these reviews, there is no basis

for us to discount or second-guess TKAST’s flat-rolled stainless product allocations, which for business

reasons direct production capacity to higher-value flat-rolled stainless products such as CTL plate and

SSSS.

We also find that the combination of the Italian industry’s size relative to the industries in the

other subject countries and its downward trends in capacity and production, differences in the orientation

of its sales, with a greater domestic focus than the industries of the other subject countries, and the lack of

any presence in the U.S. market since 2001, further support our conclusion that subject imports from Italy

are likely to compete under conditions of competition that are distinct from those under which subject

imports from the other subject countries are likely to compete. We therefore decline to exercise our

discretion to cumulate subject imports from Italy.

Belgium,107 Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan. Based on the likely reasonable overlap of

competition between subject imports from Belgium, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan, and the absence of

other factors that would warrant the consideration of subject imports from any one of the countries on an

individual basis, we exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports from Belgium, Korea, South

Africa, and Taiwan. The information available indicates that subject industries in Belgium, Korea, South

Africa, and Taiwan would likely compete under similar conditions of competition in the U.S. market after

revocation. Specifically, in 2010, the SSPC industries in Belgium, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan each

possessed significant excess capacity and were export oriented to a significant degree.108 In addition, to

varying degrees, Belgium, South Africa, and Taiwan have maintained a presence in the U.S. market since

the original investigations, and Korea competes with all three in their current major SSPC markets.109

Finally, there is no evidence that subject producers accounting for a major proportion of SSPC in

Belgium, Korea, South Africa, or Taiwan are controlled by ThyssenKrupp or other interests implementing

a U.S. supply strategy to grow and protect U.S. production of SSPC.

For all of these reasons, we exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports from Belgium,

Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan, and we decline to exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports

from Italy. 

 104 CR/PR at Table IV-6 (*** percent exports in 2010). Cf., e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-4 (Belgium, *** percent

exports in 2010); CR/PR at Table IV-8 (Korea, *** percent exports in 2010); CR/PR at Tables IV-10-IV-11 (South

Africa, *** percent exports in 2010, based on data available, from different sources, that includes nonsubject

product); CR/PR at Tables IV-12-IV-13 (Taiwan, *** percent exports in 2010, based on data available, from

different sources, that includes nonsubject product).

 105 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 106 CR/PR at Table IV-6 (Italy); cf., e.g., CR/PR at Tables IV-5 (Belgian SSPC production), IV-8 (Korean SSPC

capacity and production), IV-10 (South African hot-rolled coiled product shipments), and IV-12 (Taiwan hot-rolled

coiled product shipments). 

 107 Commissioner Pearson does not join in this discussion as it relates to Belgium.

 108 See, e.g., CR at IV-11-IV-17, IV-23-IV-32, PR at IV-8-IV-9, IV-11-IV-14.

 109 See CR/PR at Tables I-1, IV-8.

19
IV. WHETHER REVOCATION OF THE ANTIDUMPING DUTY AND COUNTERVAILING

DUTY ORDERS WOULD LIKELY LEAD TO CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF

MATERIAL INJURY WITHIN A REASONABLY FORESEEABLE TIME

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.”110 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.”111 Thus, the

likelihood standard is prospective in nature.112 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.113 114 115

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.”116 According to

 110 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

 111 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.

 112 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.

 113 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 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’”).

 114 For a complete statement of Chairman 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).

 115 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.

 116 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).

20
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.”117

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.”118 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).119 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.120

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

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

significant either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States.121 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.122

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

and/or the suspended investigation is 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.123

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

revoked and/or the suspended investigation is 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,

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,

 117 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.

 118 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

 119 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). Commerce has not issued any duty absorption findings with respect to SSPC from

the subject countries. See CR/PR at I-16 n.27.

 120 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5). Although the Commission must consider all factors, no one factor is necessarily

dispositive. SAA at 886.

 121 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

 122 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A-D).

 123 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.

21
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.124 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.125 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 and agreement under review and

whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury upon revocation or termination.126

B. Findings in the Prior Proceedings

1. Original Investigations

Subject Import Volume.

127 The Commission found a dramatic increase in the volume of

cumulated subject imports over the period of investigation, and further that cumulated subject imports’

market share more than doubled, significantly outpacing any gains in apparent U.S. consumption during

the period. Based on their large increase in quantity and substantial increase in market share, and

 124 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 125 Section 752(a)(6) of the Act states that “the Commission may consider the magnitude of the margin of

dumping or the magnitude of the 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. 

Commerce conducted expedited five-year reviews of the antidumping duty orders on SSPC from Belgium,

Italy, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan, and found likely antidumping margins for subject imports as follows: 

Belgium, 8.54 percent for AMS Belgium and all others; Italy, 45.09 percent for TKAST and 39.69 percent for all

others; Korea, 6.08 percent for POSCO and all others; South Africa, 41.63 percent for Columbus Stainless and all

others; Taiwan, 8.02 percent for Yieh United Steel Corporation, 10.20 percent for YUSCO/Ta Chen, and 7.39

percent for all others. 75 Fed. Reg. 61699 (Oct. 6, 2010); 75 Fed. Reg. 67346 (Nov. 2, 2010). Commerce also

conducted an expedited five-year review of the countervailing duty order on SSPC from South Africa, determining

that revocation would be likely to lead to subsidization at the weighted average of 3.95 percent for Columbus

Stainless and all other South African producers. 75 Fed. Reg. 62103 (Oct. 7, 2010). (Commerce did not find that

the revocation of the countervailing duty order on SSPC from Belgium would likely lead to continuation or

recurrence of subsidization and therefore revoked this order. 76 Fed. Reg. 25666 (May 5, 2011).)

In addition, the statute provides that “[i]f 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.” 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(6). With respect to countervailable

subsidies, Commerce identified the following government programs potentially present in South Africa: low interest

rate finance for the promotion of exports; export assistance under the Export Marketing Assistance and Export

Marketing and Investment Assistance Programs; benefits (allowances) under section 37E of the Income Tax Act;

import financing through Impofin, Ltd., and through the IDC Competitiveness Fund (loan guarantees provided by

the IDC); and the Regional Industrial Development Program. See CR/PR at I-18 n.29.

 126 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.

 127 In the preliminary determinations, the Commission highlighted in its analysis of conditions of competition

technological advances occurring in stainless steel plate technology and production, characteristics of SSPC demand

in the United States, and an overall increase in apparent U.S. consumption over the period of investigation. Certain

Stainless Steel Plate from Belgium, Canada, Italy, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan, 701-TA-376-379 and 731-TA788-793 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3107 (May 1998).

22
particularly in light of their price effects in the U.S. market, the Commission found the volume of

cumulated subject imports, in absolute and relative terms, to be significant.128

Price Effects. The Commission found that price was an important factor in purchasing decisions

and that SSPC, once certified to required specifications, was a commodity product that sold on the basis

of price regardless of country of origin. The Commission further found that subject imports depressed

domestic SSPC prices to a significant degree based on a number of factors including the substitutability

of the subject imports and domestic like product; parallel declines in domestic and subject import prices

that started as subject import volumes began to displace nonsubject imports and gained market share;

evidence of underselling and lost sales and revenues; the perceived role of subject imports as downward

price leaders; and the price depressive effects of the steady build-up in subject merchandise inventories.129

Impact. The Commission noted that subject imports had significantly increased in market share

during the period examined. It found that despite rising apparent U.S. consumption and increasing

shipments, production, and employment, the domestic producers’ net sales values declined along with

domestic prices and profitability.130 It further found that domestic producers’ deteriorating profitability

negatively affected the domestic industry’s ability to invest in process improvements and expanded

product lines. The Commission thus concluded that cumulated subject imports had had a significant

adverse effect on the domestic industry.131

2. First Five-Year Reviews

Conditions of Competition. The Commission found that domestic demand for SSPC depended on

the level of demand for downstream products, and that the end uses for the product had remained

relatively unchanged since the original investigation. The Commission noted that apparent U.S.

consumption fluctuated -- increasing and decreasing -- during the period of review. The Commission

found record evidence as to future demand was somewhat mixed but that most producers, importers, and

purchasers believed demand for SSPC would remain fairly steady in the foreseeable future.132

The Commission found that there was an expansion in the global capacity and production of

stainless steel. The Commission found that while SSPC consumption had also grown over the period of

review, with much of this growth centered in Asia, China was expected to expand its stainless steel

production and this might inhibit future exports to that market.133

The Commission found that consolidation had changed the composition of the domestic industry

since the original investigations, with NAS becoming the largest domestic producer.134 The Commission

also found that the domestic industry’s market share declined slightly over the period of review as

nonsubject imports gained market share.135

The Commission found that SSPC was a commodity product that was largely sold on the basis of

price. The Commission found that SSPC prices were influenced by a number of factors including

processing, raw materials, and transportation costs.136 Due to the high and volatile cost of raw materials,

 128 USITC Pub. 3188 at 15-16; see USITC Pub. 3541 at 1 nn.4 & 7 (majority remand views adopting dissent from

the original determination).

 129 USITC Pub. 3188 at 17-20.

 130 USITC Pub. 3188 at 20-21.

 131 USITC Pub. 3188 at 22.

 132 USITC Pub. 3784 at 22-23.

 133 USITC Pub. 3784 at 24.

 134 USITC Pub. 3784 at 23.

 135 USITC Pub. 3784 at 22-24.

 136 USITC Pub. 3784 at 23.

23
the Commission noted that many producers reported charging surcharges for certain raw materials over

the period of review.137

Likely Volume. The Commission noted that the volume of subject imports and their market share

decreased dramatically as a result of imposition of the orders. The Commission noted that several factors

hindered the assembly of a consistent set of foreign capacity data, but concluded based on the available

data that while reported capacity utilization rates in the subject countries were relatively high, there

remained unused capacity. The Commission also concluded that the industries in the subject countries

were export-oriented, and had a demonstrated ability to shift exports among destinations with relative

ease.138

The Commission found several reasons why subject producers were likely to shift exports to the

United States upon revocation. First, increased Chinese production was likely to require subject

producers to find other markets for exports that had previously been directed to China. Second, the

Commission noted the impediments to the importation of the subject merchandise into certain thirdcountry markets. Third, the United States was found to be an attractive market because of its large size,

steady demand, and high prices.139

The Commission rejected respondents’ arguments regarding exchange rate movements, and noted

that while the dollar had depreciated, nonsubject imports’ market share had increased.140 The

Commission concluded that the likely volume of cumulated imports of the subject merchandise, both

absolutely and relative to consumption and production in the United States, would be significant absent

the restraining effects of the orders.141

Likely Price Effects. The Commission again found that stainless steel plate remained an

interchangeable commodity product that is sold largely on the basis of price. As in the original

investigations, price was determined to be an important factor in purchasing decisions. Though price

comparison data in the review was limited due to the substantial reduction in the volume of subject

imports after imposition of the orders, the Commission found the level of underselling similar to that

found in the original investigation. Based on the importance of price in the market, the commodity nature

of SSPC, import trends during the original period of investigation, and the incentive to enter the highpriced, large, open, and stable U.S. SSPC market, the Commission found a likelihood of negative price

effects from the subject imports. It therefore determined that if the orders were revoked, significant

volumes of subject imports 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 within a reasonably foreseeable time.142

Likely Impact. The Commission found that following imposition of the orders, the domestic

industry showed signs of improvement with increases in shipments, net sales, employment, and operating

profits. The Commission also found that the industry made significant strides in improving its efficiency

and productivity through consolidation and restructuring during the period of review. Notwithstanding

efficiency and productivity gains, the record demonstrated to the Commission that the domestic industry’s

condition began to deteriorate after 2000.143 The Commission found that while the industry experienced

an upturn in 2004 due to a sharp rise in prices, these profits did not begin to offset the losses sustained in

the previous three years. The Commission therefore found the domestic industry vulnerable to the

continuation or recurrence of material injury. The Commission further found that revocation of the orders

 137 USITC Pub. 3784 at 23-24.

 138 USITC Pub. 3784 at 24-27.

 139 Id. at 26-27.

 140 Id. at 27.

 141 Id.

 142 USITC Pub. 3784 at 27-28.

 143 USITC Pub. 3784 at 28-30.

24
would likely lead to significant increases in the volume of cumulated subject imports at prices that would

undersell the domestic like product and significantly depress or suppress U.S. prices. It concluded that

these declines would have a significant adverse impact on the production, shipments, sales, and revenue

levels of the domestic industry, which in turn would have a direct adverse impact on the industry’s

profitability and ability to raise capital and make and maintain necessary capital investments, and also

result in domestic employment declines. The Commission thus determined that if the orders were

revoked, cumulated subject imports would have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry

within a reasonably foreseeable time.144

C. Conditions of Competition and the Business Cycle

In evaluating the likely impact of the subject imports on the domestic industry if an order is

revoked, 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.”145 The

following conditions of competition inform our determinations.

1. Demand Conditions

Demand for SSPC depends on the demand for U.S.-produced downstream products. Reported

end uses (and users) for SSPC, from which SSPC demand is derived, include pipes and fittings, storage

tanks and pressure vessels, automotive parts, railcar parts, appliance/food service/kitchen equipment

industries, the petrochemical industry, and the construction, agriculture, and energy industries.146

Apparent U.S. consumption of SSPC fluctuated during the period of review, increasing from 122,928

short tons in 2005 to a period high of 188,868 short tons in 2006 and then declined to 143,887 short tons

in 2007.147 Due to the economic downturn, apparent U.S. consumption declined to period lows of 84,758

short tons and 85,046 short tons in 2008 and 2009, respectively.148 Apparent U.S. consumption recovered

to 107,512 short tons in 2010, a level still 12.5 percent lower than in 2005.149 Firms’ perceptions of

demand conditions during 2005-2010 are consistent with the apparent U.S. consumption data, with most

reporting that demand fluctuated or decreased, citing the recession in 2008-2009 as the major reason for

decreased demand.150

Most firms reported that they expect demand for SSPC to increase in 2011 and 2012.151 Domestic

interested parties reported that they expect a “very modest” increase in demand in the reasonably

foreseeable future, while respondent interested parties reported that they expect “strong market

growth.”152 One purchaser remarked that it expected increased demand due to “the increased need for

maintenance that has not been done during the recession and more industrial products being quoted in

2011.”153 Firms indicated that demand for SSPC generally tracks overall economic conditions. Average

forecasts for U.S. real GDP growth are 2.6 percent in 2011 and 3.1 percent in 2012, while real industrial

 144 USITC Pub. 3784 at 28-30.

 145 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 146 CR at II-7, PR at II-5.

 147 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 148 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 149 CR/PR at Table I-1; CR at II-7, PR at II-6.

 150 CR/PR at Table II-4; CR at II-9, PR at II-7.

 151 CR at II-9, PR at II-7.

 152 CR at II-10, PR at II-8.

 153 CR at II-9, PR at II-7.

25
production is projected to increase by 4.5 percent in 2011 and 4.1 percent in 2012.154 Most firms also

expect an increase in SSPC demand outside the United States in 2011 and 2012.155

2. Supply Conditions

The U.S. SSPC market is supplied by the domestic industry, subject imports, and nonsubject

imports. During the period of review, the domestic industry satisfied the bulk of domestic demand for

SSPC. On an annual basis, the domestic industry supplied between *** percent and *** percent of

apparent U.S. consumption during the period of review; its share of apparent U.S. consumption in 2010

was *** percent.156 AK Steel, Allegheny Ludlum, and NAS accounted for all domestic production of

SSPC in 2010.157 Domestic industry capacity increased irregularly from *** short tons in 2005 to ***

short tons in 2010.158 *** accounted for the majority of the capacity increase, ***.159

Domestic producers anticipated changes to their SSPC operations. ***.160 ***.161

In addition, SL-USA, ThyssenKrupp’s $1.4 billion greenfield, integrated production facility in

Alabama, is newly operational as discussed above.162 While it will *** of SSPC in 2011 and 2012, SLUSA’s production will be for feedstock for cold-rolled SSSS production rather than production of SSPC

for external supply. SL-USA is not expected to begin significant, non-captive commercial shipments of

SSPC to third parties until 2013, as previously discussed. SL-USA’s SSPC will therefore not be in

competition with SSPC imports from any source until 2013.163

Subject imports from Belgium, Italy, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan accounted for *** percent

of apparent U.S. consumption in 2005, reached a period high of *** percent in 2007, before declining to a

period low of *** percent in 2009.164 They constituted *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in

2010.165 

Imports from nonsubject countries accounted for between *** percent and *** percent of

apparent U.S. consumption during the period of review. In 2010, they accounted for *** percent of

apparent U.S. consumption.166 The largest sources of nonsubject imports during the period were Germany

and Sweden, which combined accounted for *** percent of nonsubject imports in 2010.167

 154 CR at II-8, PR at II-6; CR/PR at Figs. II-1-II-2.

 155 CR at IV-38, PR at IV-17.

 156 CR/PR at Table I-15.

 157 CR/PR at Table I-12.

 158 CR/PR at Table III-4.

 159 CR at III-4, PR at III-2.

 160 CR/PR at Table III-3.

 161 CR/PR at Table III-3.

 162 ThyssenKrupp projects that SL-USA’s capacity to produce SSPC will be *** short tons in 2011, *** short

tons in 2012, *** short tons in 2013, and *** short tons in 2014, with projected SSPC production of *** short tons

in 2011, *** short tons in 2012, *** short tons in 2013, and *** short tons in 2014. Respondent Interested Parties’

Final Comments at 3.

 163 See, e.g., Respondent Interested Parties’ Final Comments at 3.

 164 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 165 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 166 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 167 CR at II-6, PR at II-5; CR/PR at Table IV-2. 

26
3. Other Likely Conditions of Competition

As discussed in section III.D above, there is a moderate to high degree of substitutability between

subject imports from each source and the domestic like product,168 and price is an important factor in

purchasing decisions in the U.S. SSPC market.169 Responding U.S. purchasers also indicated that quality

and delivery (i.e., timeliness and lead time) are very important factors in their purchasing decisions.170

U.S. purchasers are reportedly demanding shorter lead times in response to the 2008-2009

economic downturn. Domestic producers traditionally sold SSPC produced to order, with distributors

carrying inventories, but the U.S. market now requires that producers hold more inventory to meet

purchaser requirements. The record confirms that lead times for SSPC have declined from 6 to 8 weeks

to 4 to 6 weeks.171 ThyssenKrupp reported that to meet such requirements, importers have to maintain

large inventories in the United States, which creates financial risks given the volatility of raw material

costs and other surcharge drivers (discussed below) that the market has experienced during the review

period.172

Sales of SSPC in the U.S. market are made primarily on a spot basis, with a small percentage of

short-term contracts. Responding domestic producers reported that *** percent of their 2010 sales were

on a spot basis and *** percent were sold pursuant to short term contracts.173 Responding importers

reported that 95.6 percent of their 2010 sales were on a spot basis while the balance, or 4.4 percent, were

sold pursuant to short term contracts.174 No firms reported the use of long-term contracts in the U.S.

SSPC market.175

Many firms add surcharges to the base prices of their SSPC products as a means of passing on to

customers increased raw material, energy, and other costs. The responding U.S. producers reported raw

material surcharges and fuel surcharges; one also reported energy surcharges.176 Five importers reported

the use of one or more types of surcharge, including for raw material (five responding firms), energy (four

firms), fuel (two firms), and transportation (one firm).177 Domestic producers have utilized surcharges

since the 1980s, beginning with a nickel surcharge and later including other raw materials. Energy

surcharges were the most recently added, starting around 2002-2003.178 Purchasers reported that these

surcharges have led to fluctuations in prices, but none reported that the types of surcharges had changed

since the beginning of the period of review.179

 168 See, e.g., CR at II-11, PR at II-9.

 169 See, e.g., CR at II-13, PR at II-10; CR/PR at Table II-6.

 170 CR/PR at Table II-6.

 171 CR at II-15-II-16, PR at II-12-II-13.

 172 CR at II-16, PR at II-13.

 173 CR at V-8, PR at V-7.

 174 CR at V-8, PR at V-7.

 175 CR at V-8, PR at V-7.

 176 CR/PR at V-5.

 177 CR/PR at V-5.

 178 CR/PR at V-5.

 179 CR/PR at V-6.

27
D. Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Orders on Belgium, Korea, South Africa, and

Taiwan and the Countervailing Duty Order on South Africa Is Likely to Lead to the

Continuation or Recurrence of Material Injury to the Domestic Industry within a

Reasonably Foreseeable Time180

1. Likely Volume of Subject Imports

We find that cumulated subject imports from Belgium, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan are

likely to increase significantly from current levels after revocation of the orders. Although we have

considered the questionnaire responses received from POSCO of Korea and Aperam of Belgium in these

reviews, the absence of any information in these reviews from the foreign industries in South Africa or

Taiwan leads us to rely on the information available with respect to South Africa and Taiwan. As

discussed below, we find that subject producers in Belgium, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan have both

the means and the incentive to increase significantly their exports to the U.S. market after revocation.

During the original investigations, cumulated subject imports from Belgium, Korea, South Africa,

and Taiwan increased significantly in absolute terms and as a share of apparent U.S. consumption. 

Cumulated subject imports from Belgium, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan increased from *** short tons

in 1995, equivalent to *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption, to *** short tons in 1996, equivalent to

*** percent of apparent U.S. consumption, and *** short tons in 1997, equivalent to *** percent of

apparent U.S. consumption. Thus, subject producers in Belgium, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan

demonstrated the ability to increase their penetration of the U.S. market rapidly prior to imposition of the

orders.181

Since imposition of the orders, cumulated subject imports from Belgium, Korea, South Africa,

and Taiwan have maintained a continuous presence in the U.S. market, including during the period

examined in these reviews. During the period examined in the first reviews, the volume and market share

of cumulated subject imports from Belgium, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan declined irregularly but

dramatically overall as a result of the imposition of the orders, from *** short tons in 1998 to *** short

tons in 2004. The volume declines during the period examined in the first reviews were equivalent to ***

percentage points in terms of share of apparent U.S. consumption, from *** percent in 1998 to ***

percent in 2004.182

During the period examined in these second reviews, the cumulated subject import volume from

Belgium, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan was *** short tons in 2005 (a level higher than in 2004), and

increased to *** short tons in 2006 and *** short tons in 2007.183 During the economic downturn, the

cumulated subject import volume from Belgium, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan was *** short tons in

2008 and *** short tons in 2009, before increasing to *** short tons in 2010, a one-year increase of ***

percent over the 2009 level but still *** percent lower than in 2005.184 As a share of apparent U.S.

consumption, cumulated subject imports from Belgium, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan followed a

similar trend, increasing in 2005 to *** percent and to *** percent in 2007, before declining to ***

percent in 2008 and to *** percent in 2009.185 U.S. market share of cumulated subject imports from

Belgium, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan increased to *** percent in 2010, a level *** percentage

 180 Chairman Okun and Commissioner Pearson do not join this section, see Dissenting Views, but join section

IV.E regarding Italy.

 181 See CR/PR at Table I-1

 182 See CR/PR at Table I-1.

 183 See CR/PR at Table I-1 (based on U.S. shipments of imports).

 184 CR/PR at Table C-1 (based on U.S. shipments of imports).

 185 CR/PR at Table C-1.

28
points lower than in 2005.186 Thus, despite the overall declines in cumulated subject import volume since

the imposition of the orders, as a group, subject producers in Belgium, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan

have demonstrated an ongoing interest in serving the U.S. market and continue to maintain ongoing

relationships with U.S. customers.

Based on the information available, subject producers in Belgium, Korea, South Africa, and

Taiwan also possessed significant excess capacity in 2010 with which they could significantly increase

exports to the United States. The Belgian industry’s hot-rolled stainless steel capacity, which includes

capacity allocated to SSPC production, was *** short tons in 2010.187 Total Belgian production in the

same year was *** short tons, resulting in a capacity utilization rate of *** percent.188 This industry’s

hot-rolled stainless steel excess capacity, at least some portion of which could be used for the increased

production of SSPC directed to the United States, was *** short tons, equivalent to *** percent of

apparent U.S. consumption of SSPC in 2010.189 The record thus demonstrates that the Belgian industry

had significant SSPC excess capacity to direct to the U.S. market in the event of revocation.190

Korean capacity and production in 2010 were *** short tons and *** short tons, respectively.191

While this resulted in the highest capacity utilization rate since 2006, it still left *** short tons of Korean

SSPC capacity idle, the equivalent of *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2010.192 

Although there is no specific data on the South African industry’s SSPC capacity and production,

its total hot-rolled annealing and pickling capacity, which includes capacity that may be allocated to

SSPC production, was *** short tons in 2010 according to *** data.193 Global shipments of hot-rolled

stainless steel by the South African industry in 2010 were *** short tons.194 According to this same data,

the highest global shipment figure for South Africa during the review period was *** short tons in

2006.195 Relying upon the latter figure as a conservative proxy for allocated capacity to produce SSPC for

South Africa yields a *** percent capacity utilization rate for South African SSPC in 2010.196 This

capacity utilization rate, if applied to actual total hot-rolled coil capacity of *** short tons in 2010, would

indicate that the South African industry had unused hot-rolled coil capacity of *** short tons, at least

some of which could be used for the increased production of SSPC directed to the United States.197 Given

the size of the U.S. market, this and other data available demonstrate that the South African industry, too,

had significant SSPC excess capacity to direct to the U.S. market in the event of revocation.198

The Taiwan industry, which also did not participate in these reviews, includes what is reportedly

the largest integrated stainless steel mill in Southeast Asia, YUSCO, which has a melting capacity of 1

million metric tons, hot-rolling capacity of 900,000 metric tons, and cold-rolling capacity of 650,000

metric tons.199 While there is no specific data on the Taiwan industry’s SSPC capacity and production, its

total hot-rolled coil annealing and pickling capacity, which includes capacity that may be allocated to

 186 CR/PR at Table C-1

 187 CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 188 CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 189 CR/PR at Tables I-1 & IV-5.

 190 CR at IV-11-IV-17, PR at IV-8-IV-9.

 191 CR/PR at Table IV-8.

 192 CR/PR at Tables I-1, IV-8.

 193 CR/PR at Table IV-10.

 194 CR/PR at Table IV-10.

 195 CR/PR at Table IV-10.

 196 CR/PR at Table IV-10.

 197 CR/PR at Table IV-10.

 198 CR at IV-29-IV-30, IV-33-IV-37, PR at IV-12-IV-13, IV-16-IV-17. 

 199 CR at IV-31, PR at IV-14.

29
SSPC production, was *** short tons in 2010 according to *** data.200 Global shipments of hot-rolled

stainless steel by the Taiwan industry in 2010 were *** short tons, according to *** data.201 *** data

show that in 2010 Taiwan producers had a *** percent stainless steel slab capacity utilization rate.202 At

this utilization rate, Taiwan would have unused capacity for hot-rolled stainless production of *** short

tons, at least some of which could be used for the increased production of SSPC directed to the United

States. Given the size of the U.S. market, these and other data available demonstrate that the Taiwan

industry had excess capacity to produce SSPC in quantities that could dominate the U.S. market in the

event of revocation.203

In sum, based on the data provided by Belgian producer Aperam and Korean producer POSCO,

and the information available with respect to subject industries in South Africa and Taiwan, foreign

producers in Belgium, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan possessed significant excess capacity in 2010

with which they could significantly increase exports to the United States. 

The record also indicates that subject producers in Belgium, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan

have the incentive to use their excess capacity to increase exports to the United States after revocation. 

According to the data provided by Aperam (Belgium) and POSCO (Korea), and the information available

with respect to the industries in South Africa and Taiwan, subject foreign producers in Belgium, Korea,

South Africa, and Taiwan have a significant export orientation. Respectively, these industries exported

the following percentages of shipments during the review period (2005-2010) (percentages are

approximate for South Africa and Taiwan): Belgium, between *** percent and *** percent, and ***

percent in 2010;204 Korea, between *** percent and *** percent, and *** in 2010;205 South Africa, 75

percent;206 and Taiwan, between *** percent (2010) and *** percent.207 The declines in export

percentages for Taiwan and Korea primarily reflected *** declines in shipments to a major export market,

China,208 whose domestic production of stainless steel hot-rolled product surged *** percent during the

review period from *** short tons in 2005 to *** in 2010,209 and is forecasted to continue its massive

growth (to *** short tons in 2012 and further to *** short tons through 2015).210 The Taiwan and Korean

industries also faced increased competition from Chinese exports in their home markets with Chinese

exports to Taiwan rising from *** short tons in 2005 to *** short tons in 2010, and those to Korea rising

from *** short tons in 2005 to *** short tons in 2010.211 The South African industry has suffered similar

export constraints because China was *** export destination for South African SSPC during the review

period.212 Moreover, after the EU, Asian markets were the second largest export destination for Belgian

SSPC; Belgian exports were also impacted by the growth in Chinese supply insofar as the two competed

 200 CR/PR at Table IV-12.

 201 CR/PR at Table IV-12.

 202 ***.

 203 CR at IV-31-IV-37, PR at IV-14-IV-17; CR/PR at Table I-1. 

 204 CR/PR at Table IV-4.

 205 CR/PR at Table IV-8.

 206 See CR at IV-29, PR at IV-12 (Columbus Stainless’ website). See also CR/PR at Tables IV-10-IV-11

(showing hot-rolled exports of 33,190 in 2010 out of estimated global shipments of ***, thus indicating that exports

accounted for *** percent of production in 2010, based on data available, from different sources, that includes

nonsubject product). 

 207 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables IV-12-IV-13. This is based on data available, from different sources, that includes

nonsubject product.

 208 Domestic Interested Parties’ Prehearing Br. Exh. 6

 209 CR/PR at Table IV-15.

 210 CR/PR at Table IV-16.

 211 Domestic Interested Parties’ Prehearing Br. Exh. 6.

 212 Domestic Interested Parties’ Prehearing Br. Exh. 6. Between 2009 and 2010 alone, South African exports to

China declined from *** short tons to *** short tons. Id. 

30
in the same Asian markets.213 Given this, as well as the generally higher SSPC prices available in the

U.S. market relative to Korea and Taiwan during the review period, subject producers in Belgium, Korea,

South Africa, and Taiwan would have an incentive to make use of their unused capacity with increased

production for exports to the United States after revocation.214

Third country barriers further support finding that cumulated subject imports from Belgium,

Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan are likely to increase significantly after revocation.215 In 2010, Russia

imposed antidumping duty orders on certain flat-rolled steel, including SSPC, from Brazil, China

(including Taiwan), Korea, and South Africa. The antidumping duty rate is 33.3 percent for South

Africa; 62.8 percent for Korea, with the exception of POSCO, which has an individual rate of 4.8 percent;

and 39.1 percent for Taiwan.216 POSCO also reported that ***.217 These third country barriers will likely

force subject producers in Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan to shift their exports to other markets,

including the United States.

For all of these reasons, and in the absence of any argument to the contrary from a Belgian,

Korean, South African, or Taiwan interested party, we conclude that revocation of the orders on subject

imports from Belgium, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan would likely result in a significant increase in

cumulated subject imports from Belgium, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan within a reasonably

foreseeable time.218

2. Likely Price Effects 

As discussed in sections III.C and IV.C above, we have found that, as in the original

investigations and first reviews, there is a moderate to high degree of substitutability between cumulated

subject imports from each of the subject countries and the domestic like product,219 and that price is an

 213 CR/PR at Table IV-6.

 214 CR/PR at Tables IV-20-IV-21.

 215 Given the economic disincentive to shift production capacity from higher-value flat-rolled products such as

SSSS to lower-value SSPC product in a climate in which demand for the higher value products is steady or

increasing, we are unpersuaded on this record that subject foreign producers have the incentive to engage in

significant production shifting to increase imports of SSPC to the United States.

Inventory data respecting subject imports is limited on this record. U.S. importers’ inventories of subject

imports from Belgium, the only subject country for which any such inventories were held during the review period,

were only *** short tons in 2010. CR/PR at Table IV-3. POSCO reported end-of-period inventories of *** short

tons in 2010, equivalent to *** percent of its total shipments that year. CR/PR at Table-IV-8. There is no

information on the record concerning Taiwan or South African producers’ end-of-period inventories. 

 216 CR at IV-23 n.25, IV-29 n.31, IV-31 n.35, PR at IV-11 n.25, IV-12 n.31, IV-14 n.35.

 217 CR at IV-23 n.25, PR at IV-11 n.25.

 218 Commissioner Lane cumulates the subject imports of Italy with those of Belgium, Korea, South Africa, and

Taiwan. She finds that the dominant Italian producer, TKAST, shares the above detailed reasons to export its

subject merchandise to the United States and, additionally, has significant excess capacity and is likely to direct a

significant amount of volume to the United States in the event of revocation. These conclusions are based on the

attractiveness of the U.S. market and TKAST having excess capacity in a larger amount than reported by its

allocations, and on the basis of there being no planned production of stainless steel plate in Alabama until ***. 

Domestic Interested Parties’ Prehearing Br. at 8-10 & Posthearing Br. Exh.1 at 11-12. According to TKAST’s own

submission, the Alabama mill will not supply commercial shipments of SSPC until late 2013. TKAST Posthearing

Br. Exh. 3 at 9-11. Thus, TKAST must still rely on imports from Italy to supply the U.S. market through 2013 or

2014. Although average unit values for Italy’s home market shipments were higher during the early part of the

review period, by 2010 prices in the U.S. market were generally higher. CR at IV-18, PR at IV-10. 

 219 See, e.g., CR at II-11, PR at II-9.

31
important factor in the U.S. SSPC market.220 When certified to required specifications, SSPC is

essentially a commodity product and it is consistently traded on a spot-pricing basis. The vast majority of

sales in the U.S. SSPC market are made on a spot basis, with only a small percentage of purchases subject

to short-term contracts and no use of long-term contracts.221

The Commission collected pricing data in these reviews on four SSPC products. Two U.S.

producers provided useable pricing data for sales of the four products; one importer of SSPC from

Belgium provided useable pricing data for products 1 and 2, but no data for Belgian SSPC were reported

for products 3 and 4. No useable data were reported for products from the cumulated subject countries,

Korea, South Africa, or Taiwan.222 By quantity, the reported pricing data accounted for *** percent of

subject imports from Belgium, and approximately *** percent of U.S. producers’ shipments of domestic

SSPC.223 

Prices for domestic SSPC declined slightly in 2005, increased sharply until the second quarter of

2007, then declined to below 2005 levels in 2009, before increasing through the end of 2010.224 Overall

domestic price increases during the review period ranged from 13 to 45 percent.225 As noted, however,

the price comparison data are sparse, owing to the substantial reduction in the volume of subject imports

after the imposition of the orders. The data show that subject imports from Belgium were priced lower

than domestic products in 5 of 13 available comparisons, by margins ranging from *** percent to ***

percent, and were priced higher than the domestic products in the remaining 8 available comparisons, by

margins ranging from *** percent to *** percent. Given the low volume of sales covered, these data are

of limited significance.226

In the first reviews, in 40 percent of price comparisons, the imported product was priced below

the domestic product, with margins ranging from 0.2 to 31.8 percent.227 The Commission noted in those

reviews that the level of underselling was similar to the levels of underselling that were found to be

significant in the original investigations.228

Given the substitutability of the products, their commodity nature, the importance of price in their

sales, and that spot-based sales are prevalent in this market, we conclude, as we did in the first reviews,

that if the orders were revoked, cumulated subject imports will enter the U.S. market at highly

competitive prices in order to obtain sales and increase market share.229 In these circumstances, and

particularly when, as here, gradual but modest growth in demand is expected, domestic producers will be

forced to respond to low import prices or lose market share. Similar adverse price effects were evidenced

in the original investigations before the imposition of the orders. Prices for both the domestic like

product and the subject imports ended the original period of investigation lower than they began it, with

price declines beginning just as subject imports made their largest gains in volume and market share.230

The Commission acknowledged mixed overselling and underselling, but found that in a commodity

market characterized by intense price competition, such a pattern was to be expected. The Commission

 220 See, e.g., CR at II-12, PR at II-10; CR/PR at Table II-6.

 221 CR at V-8, PR at V-7.

 222 CR at V-9, PR at V-8.

 223 CR at V-9, PR at V-8.

 224 CR/PR at Tables V-3-V-5, Figs. V-4-V-7

 225 CR/PR at Table V-6.

 226 CR/PR at Table V-6.

 227 USITC Pub. 3784 at 28.

 228 USITC Pub. 3784 at 28. In the original investigations, based on the useable data, subject imports undersold

the domestic like product in 35.4 percent of comparisons. CR at V-17 n.18, PR at V-9 n.18.

 229 USITC Pub. 3784 at 28.

 230 USITC Pub. 3188 at 17.

32
found that this pattern, combined with the increasing volume of subject imports, was having a significant

depressive effect on domestic SSPC prices.231 

In view of our findings that the cumulated volume of subject imports from Belgium, Korea, South

Africa, and Taiwan would likely increase significantly after revocation and that they would enter the

market at highly competitive prices in order to obtain sales and increase market share, and given the

moderate to high degree of substitutability between subject imports and the domestic like product, the

commodity nature of these products, the importance of price and the spot-based nature of sales, the

underselling by subject imports during the original period of investigation and the significant price

depression found in those investigations, we find a likelihood of significant adverse price effects in the

event of revocation of the orders. Subject import underselling would likely intensify after revocation of

the orders, as subject foreign producers in Belgium, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan seek to increase

their penetration of the U.S. market. We also find that the significant underselling of subject imports

from Belgium, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan after revocation would likely result in the depression or

suppression of domestic like product prices to a significant degree. Domestic producers would likely

have to reduce their base prices to defend their market share and maintain an acceptable rate of capacity

utilization in the face of significantly increased quantities of low priced subject imports from Belgium,

Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan. 

Thus, we conclude that, if the orders were revoked, significant volumes of subject imports from

Belgium, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan likely would significantly undersell the domestic like product

to gain market share, thereby depressing or suppressing domestic like product prices to a significant

degree.232

3. Likely Impact233

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

countervailing duty orders under review were revoked, the Commission is directed to consider all relevant

economic factors that are likely to have a bearing on the state of the industry in the United States,

including, but not limited to the following: (1) likely declines in output, sales, market share, profits,

productivity, return on investments, and utilization of capacity; (2) likely negative effects on cash flow,

inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to raise capital, and investment; and (3) likely negative

effects on the existing development and production efforts of the industry, including efforts to develop a

derivative or more advanced version of the domestic like product.234 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.235 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.

We find that the domestic industry is not vulnerable to the continuation or recurrence of material

injury. The domestic industry has undergone significant consolidation since the original investigation,

 231 USITC Pub. 3188 at 19-20.

 232 Commissioner Lane cumulates the subject imports of Italy with those of Belgium, Korea, South Africa, and

Taiwan. The Italian producer has consistently undersold the domestic like product even when the orders were in

place. CR/PR at Table I-1. She finds that the Italian subject imports share the above detailed negative price effects

and notes that the likely significant increase of such subject imports would likely exacerbate the depression or

suppression of domestic prices in the reasonably foreseeable time. 

 233 These are the views of Vice Chairman Williamson and Commissioner Aranoff. Commissioner Pinkert does

not join this section. See Separate Views of Commissioner Dean A. Pinkert.

 234 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 235 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

33
reducing the number of domestic producers to three major producers, making the industry far more

productive and profitable, under normal market conditions, than during any period we have thus

examined. As further discussed below, the domestic industry’s current condition is more a reflection of

the lingering effects of the 2008-2009 economic downturn than any fundamental vulnerability, and the

domestic industry’s positive prospects as demand continues to recover are reflected in the domestic

industry’s substantial investments in new capacity and equipment during the period of review.

The domestic industry’s capacity increased much more than its production during the period of

review, resulting in a reduced capacity utilization. Domestic capacity increased from *** short tons in

2005, to *** short tons in 2010, a *** percent increase over the period of review, with NAS accounting

for ***.236 Domestic industry production increased from *** short tons in 2005 to *** short tons in 2006,

a period high, but then declined to *** short tons in 2008, during the trough of the economic downturn.237

With the economic recovery in 2010, production increased to *** short tons, *** percent higher than

2005 levels.238 The domestic industry’s rate of capacity utilization declined over the period from ***

percent in 2005 to *** percent in 2010 due to the domestic industry’s capacity increases over the

period.239

Domestic industry employment and hours worked fluctuated during the period, while

compensation and productivity increased. Domestic industry employment increased from *** production

and related workers (“PRWs”) in 2005 to *** PRWs in 2006, declined to *** PRWs in 2007, and ***

PRWs in 2008, increased in 2009 to *** PRWs, before dropping to *** PRWs, a level *** percent lower

than in 2005.240 Domestic industry hours increased from *** hours in 2005 to *** hours in 2006,

declined to *** hours in 2007 and *** hours in 2008, increased in 2009 to *** hours, and then fell to ***

hours in 2010, a level *** percent lower than in 2005.241 Domestic industry wages paid increased from

$*** in 2005 to $*** in 2006, declined to $*** in 2007 and $*** in 2008, increased in 2009 to $***, and

then decreased in 2010 to $***, a level *** percent higher than 2005.242

The increase in wages paid over the period of review, even as employment and hours worked

declined, reflects the *** percent increase in hourly wages during the period.243 Additionally, unit labor

costs decreased by *** percent, while domestic industry productivity increased *** percent over the

period, from *** short tons per 1,000 hours in 2005 to *** short tons per 1,000 hours in 2010.244

The domestic industry’s net sales quantity tracked production, increasing from *** short tons in

2005 to *** short tons in 2006, a period high, declining to *** short tons in 2007, and *** short tons in

2008, before increasing to *** short tons in 2009, and *** short tons in 2010 when the economy

 236 CR/PR at Table III-4. The production and capacity data presented in this table is SSPC-specific and we

therefore rely upon it. We are mindful that a different allocation of capacity is reflected in Table III-5, which alters

both the capacity and capacity utilization figures appearing there. Even under the capacity utilization data appearing

in the Table III-5, *** excess capacity was demonstrated in 2009 and 2010. CR/PR at Table III-5 (capacity

utilization rates of *** percent, respectively, for hot-rolled stainless steel production). (We note that Table III-6 – 

U.S. producers’ shipments by type, takes into account both reduced production data as well as the allocation

change.) We have taken into account all of the data presented and note that, while we ultimately rely upon the U.S.

producers’ reported production and capacity figures, consideration of the other data as presented in other tables does

not alter our conclusion regarding the domestic industry’s condition and lack of vulnerability in these reviews. 

 237 Id.

 238 Id.

 239 Id.

 240 CR/PR at Table III-8.

 241 Id.

 242 Id.

 243 Id.

 244 Id.

34
recovered.245 The 2010 quantities are *** percent below those of 2005.246 Similarly, the domestic

industry’s U.S. shipments increased from *** short tons in 2005 to *** short tons in 2006, declined to

*** short tons in 2007, and *** short tons in 2008, and then increased to *** short tons in 2009 and ***

short tons in 2010, a level *** percent lower than in 2005.247 The domestic industry’s exports decreased

when U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments were at their highest, and ended *** percent lower in 2010 than

2005 quantities.248 The domestic industry’s share of apparent U.S. consumption fluctuated within a fairly

narrow band during the period of review, increasing from *** percent in 2005 to *** percent in 2006,

declining to *** percent in 2007, increasing once again to *** percent in 2008 and *** percent in 2009,

and then finally declining to *** percent in 2010, a level *** percent higher than in 2005.249

The domestic industry’s robust financial performance over the 2005-2007 period, when U.S.

SSPC demand was strong, reflects the fundamental competitiveness of the industry’s operations. Over

that period, the domestic industry’s net sales value increased *** percent, from $*** in 2005 to $*** in

2006 and $*** in 2007, its operating income increased *** percent, from $*** in 2005 to $*** in 2006

and $*** in 2007, and its operating income as a share of net sales increased from *** percent in 2005 to

*** percent in 2006 and *** percent in 2007.250

Although the domestic industry’s financial performance worsened considerably due to the

economic downturn during the 2008-2009 period, the domestic industry’s performance rebounded

strongly with the nascent economic recovery in 2010. The domestic industry’s net sales value declined to

$*** in 2008 and $*** in 2009, before increasing *** percent to $*** in 2010, a level *** percent higher

than in 2005.251 The domestic industry’s operating income declined from $*** in 2008, equivalent to ***

percent of net sales, to a loss of $*** in 2009, equivalent to *** percent of net sales, before increasing to

$*** in 2010, equivalent to *** percent of net sales.252 The domestic industry’s return on investment

declined to *** percent in 2008 and *** percent in 2009 before recovering to *** percent in 2010.253

Apparent U.S. consumption remains at just above 2008 levels, and well below the level that

prevailed during the 2005-2007 period.254 Most reporting firms expect demand to grow in 2011 and 2012

in the SSPC market,255 and the domestic industry appears well positioned to be the primary beneficiary of

any such growth given its commanding share of the U.S. market, high productivity, and lead time

advantage over subject and nonsubject imports.256 Domestic like product prices increased during the

period of review,257 and the domestic industry’s extensive use of surcharges should ensure that most of

any increases in raw material and energy costs are passed through to purchasers.258

The domestic industry’s investments in new and improved capacity reflect the domestic

industry’s optimism over its future prospects in a market protected from unfairly traded imports. As

discussed above, NAS ***, AK Steel ***, Allegheny Ludlum ***. In addition, ThyssenKrupp began

construction of a $1.4 billion greenfield, integrated SSPC production facility. Domestic industry capital

 245 CR/PR at Table III-9.

 246 Id.

 247 CR/PR at Table I-14.

 248 CR/PR at Table III-6.

 249 CR/PR at Table I-15.

 250 CR/PR at Table III-9.

 251 CR/PR at Table III-9.

 252 Id.

 253 CR/PR at Table III-13.

 254 CR/PR at Table I-15.

 255 CR at II-9, PR at II-7.

 256 CR/PR at Tables I-15, III-8; CR at II-15-II-16, PR at II-9-II-10.

 257 CR/PR at Tables V-3-V-5.

 258 CR/PR at V-5.

35
expenditures increased irregularly from $*** in 2005 to $*** in 2008, before declining to $*** in 2009

and $*** in 2010.259

We therefore find that the domestic industry is not vulnerable to the continuation or recurrence of

material injury in the reasonably foreseeable future. Nevertheless, we find that cumulated subject imports

from Belgium, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan would likely have a significant adverse impact on the

domestic industry after revocation.

As addressed in our volume and price analyses above, we have determined that revocation of the

orders on subject imports from Belgium, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan would likely result in a

significant increase in subject import volume that would likely undersell the domestic like product,

thereby depressing or suppressing domestic like product prices to a significant degree. We find that the

likely volume and price effects of the subject imports would likely have a significant adverse impact on

the production, shipments, sales, market share, and revenues of the domestic industry. These reductions

would have a direct adverse impact on the industry’s profitability and employment as well as its ability to

raise capital and make and maintain necessary capital investments. We therefore conclude that, if the

orders were revoked, subject imports from Belgium, South Africa, South Korea and Taiwan would be

likely to have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.

In evaluating the likely impact of subject imports, we have considered the role of nonsubject

imports in the U.S. market. Nonsubject imports in the U.S. market declined irregularly during the period

of review from *** short tons in 2005 to *** short tons in 2010. Nonsubject imports from Germany, the

principal source of nonsubject imports to the U.S. market during the period of review, have mirrored

these declines, with import volumes for third-party sales totaling *** short tons in 2005 and declining to

*** short tons in 2010.260 No party has argued that nonsubject imports are likely to significantly increase

their penetration of the U.S. market and weaken the causal nexus between cumulated subject imports and

the continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry after revocation of the orders. 

Nor, as we discuss below with respect to our negative determination on Italy, are imports of what will be

nonsubject imports from Italy likely to increase significantly upon revocation or weaken the causal nexus

between cumulated subject imports and the likely continuation or recurrence of material injury. Based on

the information available, we conclude that nonsubject imports are unlikely to prevent subject imports

from Belgium, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan from increasing the penetration of the U.S. market

significantly after revocation of the orders with significant adverse volume and price effects to the

domestic industry.

In sum, we find that revocation of the orders on subject imports from Belgium, Korea, South

Africa, and Taiwan would likely lead to a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry within a

reasonably foreseeable time. Thus, we conclude that if the orders were revoked, cumulated subject

imports from Belgium, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan would likely lead to the continuation or

recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.

 259 CR/PR at Table III-12.

 260 CR/PR at Table IV-2. As previously noted, ThyssenKrupp also reported exporting *** short tons of SSPC in

2010 to SL-USA for internal consumption, which it described as a ***. Respondents’ Posthearing Br. App. at 26.

36
E. Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Order on Subject Imports from Italy Is Not

Likely to Lead to the Continuation or Recurrence of Material Injury to the

Domestic Industry within a Reasonably Foreseeable Time

1. Likely Volume of Subject Imports

We find that subject imports from Italy are not likely to reach significant levels after revocation

of the orders. As discussed in section III.E above, ThyssenKrupp, motivated by U.S. customer demands

for shorter lead times, savings on significant logistical costs, and exchange rate volatility, is in the process

of localizing its production of SSPC for the North American market so that the U.S. market will come to

be served by SL-USA, while ThyssenKrupp’s Italian operations focus on serving the European market.261

We find that ThyssenKrupp’s local supply strategy coupled with a unified sales network will likely limit

subject imports from Italy to noninjurious levels in the reasonably foreseeable future for all of the reasons

set forth above. Subject imports from Italy, if any, will consist of low volumes of niche products not

produced by SL-USA.262 

The volume of subject imports from Italy is also not likely to be significant after revocation for

several reasons other than ThyssenKrupp’s local supply strategy. Imports of SSPC from ThyssenKrupp’s

German production are not subject to an antidumping duty or countervailing duty order. Thus, SSPC

could currently be imported from Germany if ThyssenKrupp so desired without restriction. While

Germany was one of the largest nonsubject importers of SSPC during the period of review, imports from

Germany have declined steadily over the period and are projected to decline further with SL-USA’s hot

annealing and pickling line scheduled for completion in the third quarter of 2011.263 At that time, imports

from Germany are expected to shift to non-subject black band to be consumed as feedstock by the SLUSA facilities.264

Moreover, although the Italian industry possessed excess capacity of *** short tons in 2010,265

subject imports from Italy were *** throughout this period, as well as in the previous five-year span.266

The Italian industry’s production during this period is also notable in that SSPC capacity has been ***

during the period of review,267 a decrease in capacity resulting from the closure of a plant in Turin in 2008

as well as a change in product mix.268

The Italian industry has also reported an increasing proportion of its shipments being directed to

home and third country markets in the European Union. In 2010, *** percent of Italy’s shipments,

including internal consumption, went to its domestic market, and another *** percent went to the

European Union.269 Prices in the European Union and Italy were comparable to or higher than prices in

the United States towards the end of the period of review, and demand is projected to grow in Western

 261 See, e.g., Respondent Interested Parties’ Posthearing Br. at 8-9 & App. at 20-25. Lead times in the U.S.

market have declined to just 4-6 weeks. CR at II-16, PR at II-13. 

 262 Tr. at 120 (Salas).

 263 CR/PR at IV-5 & Table IV-2; Respondent Interested Parties’ Posthearing Br. at 10-13 & App. at 25-27;

Respondent Interested Parties’ Final Comments at 2.

 264 Respondent Interested Parties’ Posthearing Br. at 11 and App. at 26-27; Respondent Interested Parties’ Final

Comments at 2.

 265 CR/PR at Table IV-6.

 266 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 267 CR/PR at Table IV-6.

 268 Some of the equipment from the Turin plant is currently in the custody of Italian authorities. Also, TKAST

has emphasized that it has made substantial investments in finishing capacity in its Terni facility, and is more

focused on value-added products such as CTL plate and other cold-rolled products. CR at IV-18, PR at IV-10.

 269 CR/PR at Table IV-6.

37
Europe.270 We note that while *** short tons of TKAST’s production went to its Mexican affiliate,271

even this production is expected to decline once the SL-USA plant has the capability to provide

feedstock.272

Thus, in light of the size and declines in capacity of the industry, its *** from the U.S. market at

least ***, its increasing focus on its home market and the European Union, where prices are competitive

and demand is expected to grow, and the likelihood of ThyssenKrupp using nonsubject Germany as its

external source, if any, we find that the Italian industry has little ability or incentive to significantly

increase exports to the United States after revocation for reasons in addition to being restrained by

ThyssenKrupp’s local supply strategy.273

We are unpersuaded by the domestic interested parties’ argument that a significant increase in

subject imports from Italy is likely because such an increase would be necessary for ThyssenKrupp to

meet its goal of a 25 percent share of the U.S. SSPC market. As an initial matter, ThyssenKrupp’s target

market share in the United States appears to be 21 percent, not 25 percent, based on materials prepared by

ThyssenKrupp and submitted by the domestic interested parties.274 In light of *** projections for U.S.

consumption of SSPC, SL-USA’s projected production of SSPC would be sufficient to meet

ThyssenKrupp’s target market share by 2013 with no increase in subject import volume from Italy.275

We are also not convinced that Italian producers would likely shift production from other hotrolled products (CTL plate, CTL SSSS, SSSS in coils and other flat rolled products) to subject SSPC in

order to increase their exports of SSPC to the U.S. market after revocation. Because nonsubject flat rolled

products are value-added products that command a premium over subject SSPC, subject foreign

producers have no economic incentive to shift production to subject SSPC after revocation.276 This

remains especially true since the size of the market of other hot-rolled products is considerably larger than

the SSPC market.277

In sum, in view of ThyssenKrupp’s local supply strategy coupled with a unified sales network, in

addition to numerous corroborative considerations respecting the Italian SSPC industry, its import history

and market orientation, and pertinent competitive conditions, we conclude that revocation of the order on

SSPC from Italy is not likely to lead to a significant volume of subject imports from Italy in the

reasonably foreseeable future.

 270 CR/PR at Tables IV-18, IV-20-IV-21. Exports from Italy to the United States would also incur additional

costs for shipping and brokerage and handling. Respondents’ Posthearing Br. at 8-9.

 271 This amount is just under *** percent of Italian production, and constitutes the remainder of all production

excluding *** short tons that went to ***. Respondent Interested Parties’ Posthearing Br. at 12.

 272 Id. at 12-13.

 273 We note that U.S. importers’ inventories of subject imports, consistent with the industry’s import record, were

*** throughout the review period. CR/PR at Table IV-3. The Italian producer’s end-of-period inventories were also

*** through the review period. CR/PR at Table IV-6. 

Further, we note that India has initiated an antidumping duty investigation against hot-rolled flat products of

stainless steel of ASTM Grade 304 (including 88 PC) from the European Union, including Italy, the final phase of

which is ongoing. Domestic Interested Parties’ Prehearing Br. at 17. 

 274 Domestic Interested Parties’ Posthearing Br. App. at Exh. 8. The domestic interested parties cite a Chinese

internet website of unknown credibility for their assertion that ThyssenKrupp’s target market share in the United

States is 25 percent. See id. We find the materials prepared by ThyssenKrupp itself to be more credible.

 275 CR/PR at Table IV-18; Respondent Interested Parties’ Final Comments at 3. Based on projected merchant

SSPC production of *** in 2013, SL-USA’s projected merchant production would account for *** percent of U.S.

consumption in 2013. See CR/PR at Table IV-18.

 276 See, e.g., Respondent Interested Parties’ Posthearing Br. App. at 30-31.

 277 Id.

38
2. Likely Price Effects

We find that subject imports from Italy are not likely to undersell the domestic like product or

depress or suppress domestic like product prices to a significant degree after revocation of the order. As

noted above, there is a moderate to high degree of interchangeability between subject imports and the

domestic like product, and price is an important factor in the U.S. SSPC market.

In this review, no price data specific to imports from Italy were available to compare to prices of

the domestic product. In the original investigations, imports from Italy oversold the domestic like product

in 40 of 57 comparisons.278 While the percentage of underselling increased in the first reviews,

comparisons were based on a much smaller set of pricing data because the Italian industry ***.279

We do not find that subject imports from Italy likely would significantly undersell the domestic

like product or adversely affect domestic like product prices to a significant degree after revocation in

light of ThyssenKrupp’s local supply strategy, the Italian industry’s capacity reductions, and its focus on

the domestic market. Based on ThyssenKrupp’s adoption of its local supply strategy, we have found that

subject imports from Italy, if any, would likely be limited to low volumes of niche products after

revocation and would likely be too small to have any significant price depressing or price suppressing

effects on prices for domestic like products. 

We are unpersuaded by the domestic interested parties’ argument that Italian imports will target

and undersell the domestic market until SL-USA begins merchant production of SSPC in 2013. As

discussed in section III.E above, ThyssenKrupp’s pattern of SSPC exports from Germany during the

period of review is revealing of this precise point because ThyssenKrupp has always been able to import

SSPC from its nonsubject German production without restriction. As we have found, however, German

imports have been *** during the period of review and demonstrate that ThyssenKrupp not only has no

propensity to gain SSPC market share during SL-USA’s ramp-up through the importation of nonsubject

SSPC from its German division, it has no incentive to shift nonsubject production from Germany to Italy,

much less target the U.S. market at prices that could suppress or depress domestic SSPC pricing for SLUSA. SL-USA’s impending entry into the U.S. merchant market for SSPC in 2013 creates a disincentive

for ThyssenKrupp to depress or suppress U.S. prices for SSPC.

Accordingly, we find that subject imports from Italy are not likely to significantly price undersell

the domestic like product or suppress or depress domestic like product prices to a significant degree after

revocation. 

3. Likely Impact

We find that subject imports from Italy would not likely have a significant adverse impact on the

domestic industry after revocation. As addressed above, we have found that the domestic industry is not

vulnerable to the continuation or recurrence of material injury in the reasonably foreseeable future. We

have also concluded that revocation of the order on SSPC from Italy is not likely to lead to a significant

volume of subject imports from Italy. Under ThyssenKrupp’s local supply strategy, SL-USA is

empowered to manage subject imports from Italy and “veto” them as necessary, to prevent them from

adversely affecting SL-USA’s sales and to protect ThyssenKrupp’s $1.4 billion investment in SL-USA.280

Given this, as well as the price sensitivity of the U.S. SSPC market, and ThyssenKrupp’s current ability to

 278 CR at V-17 n.18, PR at V-9 n.18.

 279 Id.; CR/PR at Table I-1.

 280 See, e.g., Respondent Interested Parties’ Final Comments at 3; Respondent Interested Parties’ Posthearing Br.

at 7-8; Respondent Interested Parties’ Posthearing Br. App. at Exh. 11 (Statement on U.S. Sales Strategy by Clemens

Iller, Chairman of the Management Board); Tr. at 125 (Lacor).

39
supply SSPC from its German sources, we find that subject imports from Italy at most would likely be

limited to small volumes of niche products.

We have also found that subject imports from Italy are not likely to undersell the domestic like

product or suppress or depress domestic like product prices to a significant degree after revocation. 

ThyssenKrupp’s local supply strategy will likely restrain the volume and pricing of subject imports from

Italy to levels that would not adversely affect SL-USA’s prices and, by extension, domestic like product

prices.

In light of our finding that the domestic industry is not vulnerable, and given that we do not find

that the volume of subject imports from Italy likely will be significant or have significant adverse price

effects, we find that revocation of the antidumping duty order on Italy would not likely lead to a

significant adverse impact on the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.

CONCLUSION

For the above-stated reasons, we determine that revocation of the countervailing duty order on

SSPC from South Africa and revocation of the antidumping duty orders on SSPC from Belgium, Korea,

South Africa, and Taiwan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an

industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. We also determine that revocation of

the antidumping duty order on SSPC from Italy 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.

40
SEPARATE VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER DEAN A. PINKERT 

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

of 1930, as amended, that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on imports of stainless steel plate in

coils (“SSPC”) from Belgium, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan and the countervailing duty order on

imports of SSPC from South Africa 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 further determine that

revocation of the antidumping duty order on imports of SSPC from Italy 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.

Because the reasons for my negative determination with respect to Italy differ significantly from

the reasons expressed by other Commissioners, and because my analyses of likelihood of no discernible

adverse impact and the vulnerability of the domestic industry differ from those of my colleagues, I am

providing these separate views. 

I. ITALY

A. Imports Of The Subject Merchandise From Italy Would Be Likely To Have No

Discernible Adverse Impact On The Domestic Industry If The Order Were Revoked

The statute precludes the Commission from cumulating imports of the subject merchandise from

a given country if it finds they are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.1

Based on the record in these reviews, as explained below, I find that, if the antidumping order on SSPC

from Italy were revoked, imports of the subject merchandise from Italy would be likely to have no

discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.

The volume and market share of imports from Italy have always been relatively low. U.S.

shipments of imports from Italy were *** short tons in 1997, the last year of the period of the original

investigation, and accounted for *** percent of U.S. consumption quantity.2 Under the discipline of the

antidumping duty order, U.S. shipments of imports from Italy fell to *** short tons in 2001 and then to

*** for the remainder of the review period.3

 

Against that background, and given that the Italian SSPC industry is not export-oriented, its

capacity has sharply decreased, it is focusing on higher-value products than SSPC, and it has incentives to

continue to export to other markets, there is little or no reason to expect that imports of subject

merchandise from Italy would enter the U.S. market in significant volumes in the reasonably foreseeable

future if the order were revoked. Nor is it likely that such imports would cause adverse price effects in

the U.S. market in the reasonably foreseeable future if the order were revoked. 

The Italian SSPC industry is focused on home market shipments and internal consumption, which

collectively accounted for *** percent of its total shipments in 2010. In contrast, export shipments

accounted for only *** percent of total shipments in that year. Total Italian exports of SSPC were ***

 1 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7). I note that the “no discernible” standard is relatively difficult to satisfy. Certain

Welded Large Diameter Line Pipe from Mexico, Inv. No. 731-TA-920, USITC Pub. 4227 (April 2011), at 19

(Separate Views of Commissioner Dean A. Pinkert), citing Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 494 F.3d 1371,

1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

 2

 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 3

 Id.

41
short tons in 2010, well below the industry’s exports of *** short tons in 2005.4

 Prices for SSPC in Italy

were generally higher than U.S. prices in 2009 and 2011, and were either higher than or competitive with

U.S. prices in 2010.5

Production capacity for TKAST, the dominant Italian SSPC producer, decreased by *** during

the review period, from *** short tons in 2005 to *** short tons in 2010.6

 Capacity decreased due to a

plant closure in 2008 and a change in product mix toward higher value-added products.7

 Production

declined similarly from *** short tons in 2005 to *** short tons in 2010.8

 Although capacity utilization

decreased from 2005 to 2010, this coincided with a sharp drop in capacity, an increase in home market

and internal consumption, and a sharp decrease in exports.9

 

To the extent that TKAST exports SSPC, it will continue to rely to a large extent on EU

customers, primarily because of favorable pricing.10 Prices for SSPC in the European Union were

generally higher than U.S. prices in 2009 and 2011, and were either higher than or competitive with U.S.

prices in 2010.11 

Given these trends, there is little or no reason to expect imports of subject merchandise from

Italy, which have been out of the U.S. market for over a decade, to enter the market at greater than

negligible volumes and have a discernible adverse impact in the reasonably foreseeable future. It is

simply not likely that TKAST would abandon its home market or EU customers to ship SSPC to the

United States at generally lower prices.12

In the original investigations, subject imports from Italy undersold the domestic like product in 17

out of 57 quarterly comparisons (overselling the domestic like product in 40 out of 57 quarterly

comparisons).13 In the first reviews, in contrast, they undersold the domestic like product in 15 of 21

quarterly comparisons. Although the percentage of underselling increased in the first reviews, the

comparisons were based on a much lower quantity of pricing data, because the Italian industry ***.14

Given that the volume of imports of subject merchandise from Italy is likely to remain at or near that

level, and in light of the overselling during the original investigations, a significant level of underselling

and adverse price effects would not be likely if the order were revoked. 

 4 CR/PR at Table IV-6. 

 5

 CR/PR at Table IV-20 at IV-42, Table IV-21 at IV-45.

 6

 CR/PR at Table IV-6. 

 7

 CR at IV-18 & n.21; PR at IV-10 & n.21.

 8

 CR/PR at Table IV-6. I rely on the SSPC-specific data in Table IV-6 of the staff report. I note that the

production data in Table IV-7 includes production dedicated to value-added downstream products.

 9

 CR/PR at Table II-3 and Table IV-6.

 10 In 2010, the highest volume export destinations for Italy were, in descending order, Mexico, Germany, China,

Turkey, Egypt, Switzerland, India, France, the Netherlands, and Poland. Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief, Exhibit 7.

Four of those countries are members of the European Union.

 11 CR/PR at Table IV-20 at IV-42, Table IV-21 at IV-45.

 12 Indeed, ThyssenKrupp appears to be moving away from the U.S. merchant market even with respect to its

German SSPC production, which is not subject to an order. ThyssenKrupp accounted for *** reported imports from

Germany to the United States from 2005 to 2010. Imports from Germany destined for the U.S. merchant market fell

from *** short tons in 2005 to *** short tons in 2010. CR/PR at Table IV-2. ThyssenKrupp exported *** short tons

of SSPC in 2010 from Germany to SL-USA for internal consumption, which it described as a ***. Respondent

Interested Parties’ Posthearing Br. App. at 26.

 13 CR at V-17, n.18; PR at V-9, n. 18. 

 14 Confidential Staff Report for the First Reviews (Memorandum INV-CC-058, April 27, 2005) at V-28. 

42
Based upon the record evidence that imports of subject merchandise from Italy are likely to be

negligible in the reasonably foreseeable future and are unlikely to have significant adverse price effects, I

conclude that such imports would be likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic

industry if the antidumping duty order on such imports were revoked, and I do not cumulate them with

subject imports from other countries. In making this determination, I have taken into account the mixed

record evidence on the vulnerability of the domestic industry, which I discuss in greater detail below. 

B. Revocation Of The Order On Imports Of The Subject Merchandise From Italy

Would Not Likely Lead To Continuation Or Recurrence Of Material Injury Within

A Reasonably Foreseeable Time

In section I.A. above, I find that imports of SSPC from Italy would be likely to have no

discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry if the antidumping duty order on such imports were

revoked. It necessarily follows from this determination that such imports would be unlikely to cause

material injury to the domestic industry under those circumstances. Therefore, I determine that

revocation of the antidumping duty order on SSPC from Italy would not be likely to lead to continuation

or recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time. 

II. BELGIUM, KOREA, SOUTH AFRICA, AND TAIWAN

A. Cumulation

1. Likelihood Of No Discernible Adverse Impact

In contrast to my views with respect to Italy, I do not find that imports of the subject merchandise

from any of the other four subject countries would be likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the

domestic industry in the event of revocation. I write separately from my colleagues because my analyses

differ from theirs.

Belgium. In the original investigations, U.S. shipments of subject imports from Belgium

increased from *** short tons in 1995 to *** short tons in 1996, then decreased to *** short tons in

1997.15 U.S. shipments of subject imports from Belgium were *** short tons in the first year of the

period examined in the first reviews (1998). In 1999, U.S. shipments of subject imports from Belgium

increased to their highest level of the period examined in the first reviews, *** short tons. In 2000, U.S.

shipments of subject imports from Belgium were *** short tons, which declined to *** short tons the

following year but steadily increased through the remainder of the period examined in the first reviews,

reaching *** short tons in 2004.16 During the period examined in these second five-year reviews, U.S.

shipments of subject imports from Belgium increased from *** short tons in 2005 to a period high of ***

short tons in 2007, then declined to a period low in 2009 of *** short tons, and were *** short tons in

2010.17 As a share of apparent U.S. consumption, Belgian SSPC ranged from *** percent to *** percent

in the original investigations, from *** percent to *** percent in the first five-year reviews, and from ***

percent to *** percent in these second five-year reviews.18 

 15 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 16 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 17 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 18 CR/PR at Table I-1.

43
In 2010, *** percent of Belgian industry shipments went to the home market; *** percent of

shipments went to export markets, with the European Union accounting for *** percent of all shipments

in 2010. Asian markets constituted the next most significant export destination, accounting for ***

percent of shipments in 2010. The United States accounted for *** percent of Belgian industry shipments

in 2010.19

The Commission did not receive *** from the sole Belgian producer, Aperam Stainless Belgium

(“Aperam”).20 Aperam reported its production of SSPC, which fluctuated during the period of review

from a high of *** short tons in *** to a low of *** short tons in ***. Production was *** short tons in

2010, *** percent lower than in 2005.21 Production is not a proxy for capacity, however, so I turn to

information available, which includes Aperam’s hot-rolled stainless steel capacity and cold-rolled

stainless steel capacity.22

Both sets of capacity data include flat-rolled products outside the scope of the order. Thus, in

addition to subject SSPC, products covered by the data include non-subject stainless steel sheet and strip

(“SSSS”) in various forms and cut-to-length (“CTL”) plate, among others.23 The reported data indicate 

production quantities for each of these flat-rolled stainless products and, based on combined production

totals, a total capacity utilization rate for the industry’s hot-rolled and cold-rolled stainless operations,

respectively, for each year of the period of review.24 The data show that the Belgian industry produced

*** with its hot-rolled stainless capacity than any other hot-rolled stainless products, with *** accounting

for the second highest quantity.25 The data also show that *** accounted for *** quantities and relative

allocation of cold-rolled stainless capacity, with the vast majority of cold-rolled stainless capacity used

for ***.26

The Belgian industry’s hot-rolled stainless capacity decreased during the period of review from

*** short tons (in 2005-2007) to *** short tons (2008-2010). Production of subject hot-rolled SSPC

fluctuated throughout the period, from a high of *** short tons in 2006 to a low of *** short tons in 2009. 

Production was *** in 2010, an *** percent decline overall from the start of the period when it was ***

short tons.27

Belgian hot-rolled stainless operations showed excess capacity throughout the period of review,

with capacity utilization rates fluctuating from a high of *** percent in *** to a low of *** percent in

2009. Capacity utilization was *** percent in 2010, up from *** percent in 2005.28

Aperam’s cold-rolled stainless capacity during the period of review was *** short tons in 2005

and increased to its current level of *** in 2008. Production of subject cold-rolled SSPC, *** than hotrolled SSPC, fluctuated throughout the period, from a high of *** short tons in 2007 to a low of *** short

 19 CR/PR at Table IV-4.

 20 CR/PR at Table IV-4 n.1. 

 21 CR/PR at Table IV-4.

 22 CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 23 CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 24 CR/PR at Table IV-5. I note that the hot-rolled stainless production data do not include coils that are rerolled

in Aperam’s cold-rolling operations. CR at IV-17, PR at IV-9; CR/PR at Table IV-5 n.1. 

 25 CR/PR at Table IV-5. 

 26 CR/PR at Table IV-5. 

 27 CR/PR at Table IV-5. I note that these data do not include coils that are rerolled in Aperam’s cold-rolling

operations. See CR/PR at Table IV-5 n.1.

 28 CR/PR at Table IV-5.

44
tons in 2009.29 Capacity utilization for the industry’s cold-rolled stainless operations fluctuated during

the period from a high of *** percent in 2006 to a low of *** percent in 2009, and was *** percent in

2010.30

The information available thus shows excess capacity in the reported hot-rolled and cold-rolled

stainless operations of the Belgian industry that, constrained only by allocation levels, may be directed to

the production of subject SSPC. Excess capacity in 2010 for hot-rolled stainless, for example, was ***

short tons, the equivalent of *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption of SSPC in 2010.31 At a

minimum, some portion of this idle capacity could be used to increase production of subject SSPC. A

separate tabulation combining the Belgian industry’s reported hot-rolled and cold-rolled stainless capacity

and production data further illustrates the point, showing idle capacity throughout the period of review for

hot-rolled and cold-rolled stainless production combined, with capacity utilization rates most recently of

*** percent and *** percent in 2009 and 2010, respectively.32

I find that the Belgian industry has significant SSPC capacity and excess capacity to direct to the

U.S. market. Considering also the industry’s high degree of export orientation and the continued

presence of Belgian SSPC in the U.S. market, I conclude that imports of the subject merchandise from

Belgium, upon revocation, would not be likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic

industry.33

Korea. In the original investigations, U.S. shipments of subject imports from Korea increased

from *** short tons in 1995 to *** short tons in 1997. U.S. shipments of subject imports from Korea

have never returned to this pre-order high following imposition of the orders, declining to *** short tons

in 1998 and *** short tons in 1999 before a brief jump to *** short tons in 2000, following which they

have been *** in the U.S. market through the remainder of the first and the entirety of the second fiveyear review periods.34 As a share of apparent U.S. consumption, subject Korean SSPC rose from ***

percent in 1995 to *** percent in 1997. Since the imposition of the orders, subject Korean SSPC’s

highest market share was in 2000, at *** percent, after which there were ***.35

The Korean industry’s shipments to its home market fluctuated during the period. They

constituted *** percent of shipments in 2010, up from *** percent in 2005 but down from the period high

of *** percent in 2007. Export shipments fluctuated as well, from a high of *** percent of total

shipments in 2005 to a low of *** percent in 2007. In 2010, exports constituted *** percent of the

industry’s total shipments and were directed primarily to Asian markets.36 

The Korean industry’s production capacity decreased from *** short tons in 2005 to *** short

tons in 2010, a decline of *** percent.37 Production increased between 2005 and 2006, then decreased,

ending *** percent lower in 2010 (***) than in 2005 (***). In 2010, capacity utilization was ***

percent, which was higher than in 2007-2009, but lower than during the first two years of the period.38

 29 CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 30 CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 31 See CR/PR at Tables IV-5 & I-1. 

 32 CR at IV-17, PR at IV-9.

 33 See CR at IV-11-IV-17, PR at IV-8-IV-9.

 34 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 35 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 36 CR/PR at Table IV-8.

 37 CR/PR at Table IV-8.

 38 CR/PR at Table IV-8.

45
Based on the Korean industry’s significant SSPC production capacity, including its excess

capacity, and the industry’s high degree of export orientation, I find that imports of the subject

merchandise from Korea, upon revocation, would not be likely to have no discernible adverse impact on

the domestic industry.

South Africa. In the original investigations, the quantity of U.S. shipments of subject imports

from South Africa increased from *** short tons in 1995 to *** short tons in 1996, and decreased to ***

short tons in 1997. The share of apparent U.S. consumption of South African SSPC also increased, from

*** percent in 1995 to *** percent in 1997. The volume of subject imports from South Africa was ***

short tons in 1998 or *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption, but fell *** after the orders were

imposed, and was *** and *** short tons in 2003 and 2004, the last years of the period examined in the

first five-year reviews.39

During the period examined in these second five-year reviews, the volume of subject imports

from South Africa increased to period highs of 1,320 short tons in 2006 and 1,176 short tons in 2007,

accounting for 0.7 percent and 0.8 percent of apparent U.S. consumption in each year, respectively. As of

2009, the volume of subject imports from South Africa was 2 short tons, and the volume was 69 short

tons in 2010.40

Columbus Stainless provided questionnaire responses in the original investigations and the first

reviews. Although the Commission issued a foreign producer questionnaire to Columbus Stainless in

these second five-year reviews, the firm replied that ***. The record therefore contains limited

information in regard to the South African industry.41

The domestic interested parties reported that Columbus Stainless produced a total of 705,472

short tons of hot-rolled stainless steel coil (which includes nonsubject products such as SSSS) in 2007.42

*** data indicate that the industry’s hot-rolled annealing and pickling capacity, which covers subject

product (though not coils for rerolling) and certain non-subject product, was *** short tons in 2010.43

Global shipments of hot-rolled stainless steel, according to *** data, increased by *** percent during

2005-2006 before declining *** percent during 2006-2010.44 In 2010, South Africa’s global shipments of

hot-rolled stainless steel plate, ***, amounted to *** short tons.45

According to Columbus Stainless’ website, home market shipments comprise 25 percent of the

company’s total sales. In addition, the company has a “well-developed” sales network for its exports in

Europe, the Americas, the Middle East, and the Far East.46

Given the South African industry’s significant capability to produce SSPC, its high degree of

export orientation, and the continued presence of South African SSPC in the U.S. market, I find that

imports of the subject merchandise from South Africa, upon revocation, would not be likely to have no

discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.

Taiwan. In the original investigations, the quantity of U.S. shipments of subject imports from

Taiwan increased dramatically from *** short tons in 1995 to *** short tons in 1996, and then to ***

short tons in 1997. Official Commerce statistics indicate that subject import volume from Taiwan was

 39 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 40 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 41 CR at IV-29 & n.30, PR at IV-12 & n.30.

 42 CR at IV-29, PR at IV-13.

 43 CR/PR at Table IV-10 & n.1

 44 See CR/PR at Table IV-10.

 45 CR/PR at Table IV-10.

 46 CR at IV-29, PR at IV-12.

46
5,004 short tons in 1998, but fell to 307 short tons in 1999. During the remaining period examined in the

first reviews, 2000-2004, subject import volume from Taiwan remained low, with *** reported imports in

2003 and only *** short tons in 2004.47 Official Commerce statistics for 2005-2010 indicate that subject

import volume from Taiwan has remained low during the period of review in the second reviews, from a

high of 373 short tons in 2005, to 3 short tons in 2010.48

There are four Taiwan companies with hot-rolled annealing and pickling capacity: Chien Shing

Stainless Steel Co., Ltd.; Tang Eng Iron Works Co., Ltd. (“Tang Eng”); Tung Mung Development Co.,

Ltd. (“Tung Mung”); and YUSCO. YUSCO is believed to account for the major portion both of Taiwan

production and exports of the subject merchandise.49 During the original investigations, YUSCO, along

with Tang Eng and Tung Mung, provided data. No producer from Taiwan provided data during the first

reviews, however, nor has any producer from Taiwan provided data in these reviews.50 Therefore, the

information in these reviews on the Taiwan industry is significantly limited.

YUSCO is reportedly the largest integrated stainless steel mill in Southeast Asia, with melting

capacity of 1 million metric tons, hot-rolling capacity of 900,000 metric tons, and cold-rolling capacity of

650,000 metric tons.51 According to ***, the Taiwan industry’s hot-rolled annealing and pickling

capacity was *** short tons in 2010.52 *** regarding the Taiwan industry’s global shipments of hotrolled stainless steel, ***, indicate that shipment volumes have fluctuated during the review period, from

a high of *** short tons in 2006 to a low of *** short tons in 2008. Shipment volumes were *** short

tons in 2010, an increase of *** percent from 2005 (*** short tons).53 According to Global Trade Atlas

data (which may include nonsubject product), Taiwan exports of SSPC have declined irregularly during

the period of review. These data show that the Taiwan industry’s exports in 2010 were 34,007 short tons,

a figure representing a decline of 53.1 percent from 2005, though it is modestly higher than the period

low of 31,287 short tons in 2008.54

Given the Taiwan industry’s significant capacity to produce SSPC, the Taiwan industry’s export

orientation, and the continued presence of Taiwan SSPC in the U.S. market, I find that imports of the

subject merchandise from Taiwan, upon revocation, would not be likely to have no discernible adverse

impact on the domestic industry.

2. Likelihood Of A Reasonable Overlap Of Competition And Likely

Conditions Of Competition

I join my colleagues in their finding in section III.C of the Commission views that there would

likely be a reasonable overlap of competition between and among imports of the subject merchandise

from Belgium, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan and the domestic like product if the orders were revoked. 

I do not join section III.D of the Commission views, as Commissioner Lane and I set forth our analysis of

 47 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 48 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 49 CR at IV-31-IV-32, PR at IV-14.

 50 YUSCO and several other steel producers and exporters in Taiwan, including YUSCO’s ***, received but did

not respond to the Commission’s questionnaire in these reviews. CR at IV-31, PR at IV-14.

 51 CR at IV-31, PR at IV-14.

 52 CR/PR at Table IV-14.

 53 CR/PR at Table IV-12. 

 54 CR/PR at Table IV-13.

47
likely conditions of competition in footnote 136. Based on that analysis, I cumulate imports from

Belgium, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan. 

B. Revocation Of The Orders On Imports Of The Subject Merchandise From Belgium,

Korea, South Africa, And Taiwan Would Likely Lead To Continuation Or

Recurrence Of Material Injury Within A Reasonably Foreseeable Time

1. Likely Impact 

I concur with the determinations of Vice Chairman Williamson and Commissioner Aranoff with

respect to the likelihood that revocation of the orders on Belgium, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan

would lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time and

generally concur with their findings and conclusions with respect to those four countries. I thus join their

discussion of likely volume and price effects in sections IV.D.1 and IV.D.2 of the Commission views, but

I do not join their discussion of likely impact in section IV.D.3. I write separately on likely impact

because my views on vulnerability differ from theirs, namely, I find that the record evidence is mixed as

to whether the domestic industry is vulnerable to continuation or recurrence of material injury in the

reasonably foreseeable future. Because I find that the domestic industry is currently exhibiting certain

weaknesses, as explained below, the findings and conclusions reached by Vice Chairman Williamson and

Commissioner Aranoff with respect to likelihood of material injury due to imports of subject merchandise

from Belgium, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan apply with even greater force in my analysis.

As a result of the downturn in consumption that began in 2007 and intensified in 2008, the

industry’s performance generally slumped in 2008 and 2009. U.S. shipments decreased by quantity by

*** from 2007 to 2008, although they increased by *** from 2008 to 2009. Net sales *** by quantity

and *** by value from 2007 to 2008. Although net sales increased by *** percent by quantity from 2008

to 2009, low unit values caused total net sales values to decrease by *** at that time. This decline in total

net sales values resulted in *** in 2009, which is in contrast to *** in 2007. The domestic industry

registered an operating margin in 2009 of *** percent, which is in contrast to an operating margin of ***

percent in 2007.55 I find that the economic downturn had a significant negative impact on the SSPC

industry and that it weakened the industry. 

As consumption improved in 2010, the domestic industry recovered to some extent. This is most

apparent in the industry’s profitability. The domestic industry’s operating income was *** in 2010, and

its operating margin was *** percent. Nevertheless, I do not find the domestic industry’s health to be

robust. Although operating margins, operating income, net sales values, and unit values were higher in

2010 than in 2005, they remained lower than in 2007. There are other signs of weakness as well. Net

sales by quantity in 2010 were lower than in 2005. Market share was down slightly in 2010.56 Finally,

*** had to rescind a price increase in 2011.57 Accordingly, I find the record evidence mixed on the issue

of vulnerability. 

As addressed in the volume and price analyses in the Commission’s views, I join Vice Chairman

Williamson and Commissioner Aranoff in finding that revocation of the orders on subject imports from

Belgium, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan would likely result in a significant increase in SSPC imports

from the four countries that would likely undersell the domestic like product, thereby depressing or

suppressing domestic like product prices to a significant degree. I concur with them that the likely

 55 CR/PR at Table C-1. 

 56 Id. 

 57 Domestic Interested Parties’ Posthearing Br., Ex. 9. 

48
volume and price effects of the subject imports would likely have a significant adverse impact on the

production, shipments, sales, market share, and revenues of the domestic industry. These reductions

would have a direct adverse impact on the industry’s profitability and employment as well as its ability to

raise capital and make necessary capital investments. I therefore conclude that, if the orders were

revoked, subject imports from Belgium, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan would be likely to have a

significant adverse impact on the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.

In evaluating the likely impact of subject imports, I have considered the role of nonsubject

imports in the U.S. market. Nonsubject imports declined irregularly from *** short tons in 2005 to ***

short tons in 2010.58 Nonsubject imports from Germany (the largest source of nonsubject imports during

the review period) in the merchant market declined as well. Imports of SSPC from Italy, which will be

nonsubject, are likely to be negligible. I conclude that nonsubject imports are unlikely to prevent subject

imports from Belgium, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan from increasing their penetration of the U.S.

market significantly after revocation of the orders and thereby causing significant volume and price

effects that would be adverse to the domestic industry. 

In sum, I find that revocation of the orders on cumulated subject imports from Belgium, Korea,

South Africa, and Taiwan would likely lead to a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry

within a reasonably foreseeable time. 

 58 CR/PR at Table IV-2. 

49
 
SEPARATE VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER 

CHARLOTTE R. LANE

LIKELY IMPACT OF SUBJECT IMPORTS ON THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY

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

of 1930, as amended, that revocation of the countervailing duty order on imports of certain stainless steel

plate in coils (“SSPC”) from South Africa and revocation of the antidumping duty orders on SSPC from

Belgium, Italy, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan 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 join with the majority Commission views with regard to: I (Background); II (Domestic Like

Product and Domestic Industry); III.A (Legal Standards for Cumulation), III.B (Likelihood of No

Discernable Adverse Impact), III.C (Likelihood of a Reasonable Overlap of Competition); IV.A (Legal

Standards For Likely Injury), IV.B (Prior Proceedings), IV.C (Conditions of Competition) and IV.D.1

and 2 (Likely Volume of Imports and Likely Price Effects of Imports). I also join with the views of Vice

Chairman Williamson and Commissioner Aranoff in IV.D.3 in the majority Commission views with

regard to the likely impact of subject imports, except with regard to vulnerability. I also note that my

analysis of the likely impact of subject imports includes the effect of cumulated subject imports which

include imports from Italy. I write these separate views with regard to the vulnerability of the domestic

industry and the likely impact of subject imports on the domestic industry.

IV. WHETHER REVOCATION OF THE ANTIDUMPING DUTY AND COUNTERVAILING

DUTY ORDERS WOULD LIKELY LEAD TO CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF

MATERIAL INJURY WITHIN A REASONABLY FORESEEABLE TIME

D. Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Orders on Belgium, Italy, Korea, South

Africa, and Taiwan and the Countervailing Duty Order on South Africa Would Be

Likely To Lead to Continuation or Recurrence of Material Injury to the Domestic

Industry within a Reasonably Foreseeable Time

3. Likely Impact of Subject Imports

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

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

bearing on the state of the industry in the United States, including but not limited to the following: (1)

likely declines in output, sales, market share, profits, productivity, return on investments, and utilization

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

raise capital, and investment; and (3) likely negative effects on the existing development and production

efforts of the industry. 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, I 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 upon revocation or

termination.

I find the domestic industry to be in a vulnerable state. Although the performance of the domestic

industry improved following the imposition of the orders in the original investigations, the domestic

industry has experienced declines in U.S. shipments, capacity utilization, net sales, number of production

51
workers, wages paid, and hours worked in the more recent period of review from 2005 to 2010.1

Furthermore, the domestic industry’s operating income margin was only slightly better in 2010 than it

was in 2005, and the domestic industry had a negative operating income in 2009.2

 This tenuous recovery

is coupled with the fact that demand for stainless steel plate in the U.S. market, as measured by apparent

consumption, declined in the period between 2005 and 2010.3

 The record indicates that demand for SSPC

generally tracks overall economic conditions and that average forecasts for U.S. real GDP growth are 2.6

percent in 2011 and 3.1 percent in 2012.4

 The first two quarters of 2011 have shown a disappointing

beginning to reaching even half way to the 2011 forecast of 2.6 percent real GDP growth. Worldwide

economic growth, which is favorable to increased demand for SSPC, is under pressure from a variety of

factors including tightening monetary policy in China and debt problems in Europe and the United States. 

I don’t believe that the negative overall economic outlook shows signs of significant improvement in the

foreseeable future. The nascent economic recovery of 2010, which provided an upturn in some of the

financial performance indicators of the domestic industry, has simply not demonstrated sufficient strength

and sustainability to determine that the domestic industry is not vulnerable. 

A further manifestation of a weakened domestic industry is the decline in employment over the

period of review.5

 Domestic industry compensation, productivity, and labor costs fluctuated over the

period, while the number of production related employees and the average number of hours worked

declined from 2005 to 2010.6

 Although the industry has benefitted from increased productivity of the

remaining employees, the work force has lost jobs. I find that the employment data demonstrates that the

domestic work force is in a vulnerable position.

Domestic capacity increased from *** short tons in 2005, to *** short tons in 2010, a *** percent

increase over the period of review. Domestic production increased from *** short tons in 2005 to ***

short tons in 2006. It then decreased irregularly ending at *** short tons in 2010. Although production

was higher in 2010 than in 2005, capacity utilization declined from *** percent in 2005 to *** percent in

2010. 

The domestic industry’s net sales fluctuated over the period with the 2010 quantities being less

than those of 2005.7

 Similarly, the domestic industry’s U.S. shipments were lower in 2010 than in 2005.8

Although the domestic industry was able to increase its exports during portions of the review period,9 I

believe this is merely a reflection of the depressed U.S. market, and not a sign of overall industry health. 

The domestic industry’s financial performance worsened considerably during the earlier part of

the review period, and started to rebound in the last year of the period. The domestic industry’s operating

income margin reached its lowest point in 2009, and was but a *** in 2010 than in 2005.10 The domestic

 1 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 2

 CR/PR at Table III-9.

 3

 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 4

 CR at II-8, PR at II-6; CR/PR at Figs. II-1-II-2.

 5

 CR/PR at Table III-8.

 6

 CR/PR at Table III-8.

 7

 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 8

 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 9

 CR/PR at Table III-6.

 10 CR/PR at Table I-1.

52
industry’s return on investment also reached its lowest point in 2009 but was still *** percentage points

lower in 2010 than in 2005.11

For the reasons summarized herein, and as addressed in more detail in the portions of the majority

views with which I join, I determine that revocation of the orders on subject imports from Belgium,

Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan would likely result in a significant increase in subject import volumes

that would likely undersell the domestic like product, thereby depressing or suppressing domestic prices

to a significant degree and would have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry within a

reasonably foreseeable time. I also cumulate subject imports from Italy in my analysis. I find that the

likely volume and price effects of the cumulated subject imports, including subject imports from Italy,

would likely have a significant adverse impact on the production, shipments, sales, market share, and

revenues of the domestic industry which would have a direct adverse impact on the industry’s

profitability and employment as well as its ability to raise capital and make and maintain necessary capital

investments. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, I determine that revocation of the countervailing duty order on imports

of SSPC from South Africa and revocation of the antidumping duty orders on imports of SSPC from

Belgium, Italy, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of

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

 11 CR/PR at Table III-13.

53
 
DISSENTING VIEWS OF CHAIRMAN DEANNA TANNER OKUN AND

COMMISSIONER DANIEL R. PEARSON REGARDING SUBJECT IMPORTS

FROM BELGIUM, KOREA, SOUTH AFRICA, AND TAIWAN

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”),1

 that revocation of the countervailing duty order on certain stainless

steel plate (“SSPC”) from South Africa, and the antidumping duty orders on SSPC from Belgium, Korea,

South Africa, and Taiwan would not be likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury

within a reasonably foreseeable time.

We join the Commission’s Views with respect to background, the domestic like product, the

domestic industry, cumulation, legal standards, prior proceedings, conditions of competition and the

likely material injury analysis and determination with respect to imports of SSPC from Italy.2

 We write

separately, however, with respect to our analysis and determination that revocation of the countervailing

duty order and the antidumping duty orders on SSPC from Belgium, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan

would not be likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury. 

I. SUMMARY

The Commission’s original determinations focused on the evidence that the domestic SSPC

industry’s profitability deteriorated significantly despite rising demand and falling costs. The

Commission found that the substantially increased volumes of subject imports at declining prices lowered

market prices to such an extent as to contribute materially to the industry’s deteriorating performance.

At the time of the Commission’s original determinations, imports of subject merchandise entered

the United States in increasing levels due in part to capacity expansions in the subject countries. 

Moreover, the end of the period of investigation also saw the initial effects of the Asian financial crisis,

which increased imports from Asia at even lower prices. At the same time, demand for SSPC in the

United States was increasing, and consequently, the U.S. market served as a destination for steel imports

from the subject countries.

Since the original determinations the domestic SSPC industry has undergone a significant

transformation. Consolidation and rationalization with respect to the industry as a whole reduced the

number of producers from six in 1997 to three in 2010. During the first review period the industry

suffered operating losses in several years due both to the effects of the industry’s restructuring (e.g., the

write-offs of underperforming assets and the increased capacity and production of North American

Stainless (“NAS”)), and to a drop in demand caused by a recession in the United States. The industry,

however, emerged from that period stronger and fundamentally changed. One producer, NAS, solidified

its position as the preeminent domestic supplier of SSPC, accounting for *** of every *** short tons

manufactured in the United States in 2010.3

 The industry was profitable and recorded solid operating

income to sales ratios from *** until the drop in demand due to the global economic downturn led to

 1 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c).

 2

 We join sections I (Background), II (Domestic Like Product and Domestic Industry), III.A (Legal Standards for

Cumulation), III.B (Past Proceedings), III.C (Likelihood of No Discernible Adverse Impact), III.D (Likelihood of a

Reasonable Overlap of Competition), IV.A (Legal Standards for Likely Injury), IV.B (Prior Proceedings), IV.C

(Conditions of Competition), and IV.E (Italy). 

 3

 CR/PR at Table I-12. NAS is a globally competitive player and is *** for the United States becoming a *** of

SSPC in 2003 and maintaining that position in 2008, 2009 and 2010. CR/PR at Tables III-6 & C-1, and domestic

producer questionnaire responses of AK Steel, Allegheny Ludlum, and NAS. 

55
temporary losses in 2009.4

 The industry’s quick recovery in 2010 is a testament to its fundamental

strength. ThyssenKrupp’s $1.4 billion investment in North American stainless steel production5

 and

Allegheny Ludlum’s ***6

 will make the domestic industry even more globally competitive. 

The global stainless steel plate market has also changed significantly since the original

investigations. Worldwide steel consumption increased substantially, with much of that growth occurring

in Asia. Most notably, China has risen as a significant consumer of stainless steel.7

 The growth in global

demand has contributed to higher worldwide stainless steel prices; pricing in certain major foreign

markets is approaching parity with the U.S. market.8

 These dynamics of strong demand and strong

pricing outside of the United States have reduced the initial incentive of the Asian financial crisis for

foreign producers to focus their sales on the U.S. market in the original investigations. The restructured

U.S. SSPC industry has benefitted from the changed market conditions and consequently experienced five

straight years of solid performance (2004-08) and rebounded quickly after the recent global economic

downturn. 

The evidence on the record suggests that market conditions in the United States will remain

favorable in the reasonably foreseeable future. Thus, while revocation of the orders may lead to some

increase in subject imports into the United States, such an increase likely will not be significant nor lead

to significant price effects or have a significant impact on the domestic industry. Therefore, based on the

evidence collected in these reviews, we do not find that revocation of the orders on SSPC from Belgium,

Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury

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

II. Revocation of the Countervailing Duty Order on SSPC from South Africa and the

Antidumping Duty Orders on SSPC from Belgium, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan Is Not

Likely to Lead to Continuation or Recurrence of Material Injury to the Domestic Industry

within a Reasonably Foreseeable Time

A. Likely Volume of Cumulated Subject Imports from Belgium, Korea, South Africa,

and Taiwan 

In evaluating the likely volume of imports of subject merchandise if the orders are revoked, the

Commission is directed to consider whether the likely volume of imports would be significant either in

absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States.9

 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)

 4 CR/PR at Table I-1. 

 5

 Respondent Interested Parties’ Final Comments at 3, 7. 

 6

 CR/PR at Table I-1 and CR at III-16-17, PR at III-7. 

 7

 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-17 (***). 

 8

 CR/PR at Tables IV-20 & IV-21. 

 9

 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

56
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.10

We have exercised our discretion to cumulate subject imports from Belgium, Korea, South

Africa, and Taiwan11 but do not cumulate them with subject imports from Italy for the reasons discussed

in Part III of the Commission’s Views.12 We find that cumulated subject imports from Belgium, Korea,

South Africa, and Taiwan are not likely to reach significant levels after revocation of the orders. Subject

import volume increased during the original investigation period.13 But, as we noted in our first five-year

review opinion, the increase in subject import volume from 1995 to 1997 was driven largely by unique

global conditions, wherein the Asian financial crisis significantly disrupted global markets while the U.S.

market for SSPC remained relatively unaffected. The record in these reviews, as in the first five-year

reviews, does not indicate that those particular circumstances are likely to recur. Demand for stainless

steel hot-rolled flat products, a category that includes SSPC, in the Asian market in 2010 was *** short

tons, or about *** the level of demand in the North American market (including the United States), and

growth in the Asian market is expected to outstrip growth in the U.S. market in the near future.14

In the first five-year reviews (1998 to 2004), after imposition of the orders, the cumulated volume

of U.S. shipments of subject imports declined from *** short tons in 1998 to *** short tons in 2004. The

market share of cumulated subject imports declined from *** percent in 1998 to *** percent in 2004.15

During the current review period (2005 to 2010) the volume of cumulated subject imports was

small and decreased overall. Cumulated subject imports fluctuated between years from a low of *** short

tons in 2009 to a high of *** short tons in 2007, and ended the period at *** short tons. The market share

of cumulated subject imports also declined, from *** percent in 2005 to *** percent in 2010.16 The

domestic industry has continued to hold at least *** percent of the U.S. market since the original

investigations and accounted for *** percent of the U.S. market in 2010.17

Almost all of the cumulated volume of subject imports during these five-year reviews have

consisted of subject imports from ***. Subject imports from Belgium accounted for more than ***

 10 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A-D).

 11 Commissioner Pearson joins in the following discussion. He did not cumulate subject imports from Belgium

with other subject imports, as he finds that imports from Belgium are likely to compete under different conditions of

competition. However, he concurs that, even if all subject imports, including those from Belgium, are considered

cumulatively, material injury to the U.S. SSPC industry would not likely continue or recur upon revocation. 

 12 In the first reviews, Commissioner Pearson did not cumulate subject imports from Belgium with other subject

imports, as he found that subject imports from Belgium would likely have no discernible adverse impact upon

revocation. 

 13 Cumulated U.S. shipments of subject imports from Belgium, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan increased from

*** short tons in 1995 to *** short tons in 1997. Cumulated subject imports increased from *** percent in 1995 to a

peak level of *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 1997. CR/PR at Table I-1. 

 14 CR/PR at Table IV-17. Stainless steel hot-rolled flat products apparent consumption totaled *** short tons in

the United States and *** short tons in Asia, in 2010. Apparent consumption is forecast to be *** short tons in the

United States and *** short tons in Asia, in 2011 and 2012. CR/PR at Tables IV-17 & IV-18.

 15 CR/PR at Table I-1. 

 16 CR/PR at Table I-1. Cumulated subject market share was *** percent in 2005, *** percent in 2006, ***

percent in 2007, *** percent in 2008, *** percent in 2009, and *** percent in 2010, a level *** percentage points

lower than in 2005. 

 17 CR/PR at Table I-1. 

57
percent of the cumulated volume of subject imports in each year since 2005.18 Belgian imports have

increasingly been in widths greater than 60 inches,19 a dimension not currently produced by domestic

mills.20 In contrast, subject imports from Korea have been ***,21 and neither subject imports from ***

nor *** accounted for more than *** percent of U.S. market share during this six-year review period.22

We recognize that, based on the information on the record in these reviews, subject producers had

excess capacity to produce SSPC in 2010.23 24 However, capacity to produce SSPC in the subject

countries appears to be stable, or even possibly declining. The Belgian producer Aperam’s capacity

allocated to commercial production of hot-rolled steel, of which SSPC is a subset, decreased by *** short

tons from 2007 to 2008.25 Korean producer POSCO’s allocated production capacity decreased

throughout the period for which data were collected, by *** short tons.26 Neither Aperam nor POSCO

***.27 Based on *** data, cumulated subject country stainless steel hot-rolled annealing and pickling

capacity (a broader measure than SSPC capacity28) *** and will remain *** for every subject source

except *** which is projected to have a small *** percent increase.29

 18 CR/PR at Table I-1. Subject imports from Belgium constituted the largest share of total cumulated subject

imports in each year and were *** percent of cumulated subject imports in 2005, *** percent in 2006, *** percent in

2007, *** percent in 2008, *** percent in 2009, and *** percent in 2010. 

 19 Aperam explained that its “***.” Aperam’s foreign producer questionnaire response, section II-12. In 1997,

*** percent of subject imports from Belgium were sold in widths greater than 60 inches. CR at II-16, PR at II-13. 

In 2010 that portion had increased to *** percent. CR at IV-10, PR at IV-7. 

 20 During the period of review, no U.S. manufacturer produced SSPC in widths more than 60 inches. Domestic

Interested Parties’ Posthearing Brief at Exhibit 1, p. 7. In the first reviews, domestic producers’ shipments of plate

greater than 60 inches in width were extremely limited and were *** short tons in 2004. INV-CC-058, April 27,

2005. CR/PR at Table I-5. 

 21 CR/PR at Table I-1. 

 22 CR/PR at Table I-1. NAS, the largest domestic producer, ***. CR/PR at Table I-12. A major importer of

subject merchandise from South Africa, ***, had imported SSPC from South Africa during the period of review, but

the company has since gone out of business. CR at IV-1 n.2, PR at IV-1 n.2. 

 23 Based on information from foreign producer questionnaires submitted in these reviews, the Belgian SSPC

producer had production of *** short tons. CR/PR at Table IV-4. Aperam’s overall hot-rolled steel capacity, which

includes subject capacity, was *** percent in 2010. CR/PR at Table IV-5. The Korean SSPC producer had: 

capacity of *** short tons, production of *** short tons, and capacity utilization of *** percent in 2010. CR/PR at

Table IV-8. The Commission did not receive questionnaire responses from the producers in South Africa and

Taiwan. 

 24 Based on information from foreign producer questionnaires submitted in the original investigations, the South

African producer had capacity of *** short tons, and capacity utilization of *** percent in 1997. The Taiwan SSPC

producer had capacity of *** short tons, and capacity utilization of *** percent in 1997. INV-W-064, April 9,

1999, CR/PR at Tables VII-11 & VII-12. 

 25 CR/PR at Table IV-5. The company reported that since January 1, 2005 it had “***.” Aperam’s foreign

producer questionnaire response, section II-2. 

 26 CR/PR at Table IV-8. 

 27 CR at IV-11, n.15, PR at IV-8, n.15. POSCO’s foreign producer questionnaire response, section II-3. 

 28 This stainless steel hot-rolled annealing and pickling capacity includes capacity to produce hot-rolled coiled

product outside of the scope of the subject orders, e.g., capacity to produce hot-rolled sheet and strip. CR/PR at

Table IV-14. 

 29 CR/PR at Table IV-14. 

58
We also recognize that the record indicates that the industries in Belgium, Korea, South Africa,

and Taiwan are export-oriented. Nevertheless, exports from the subject countries exhibited a strong

regional focus. While the Belgian producer reported export shipments, ranging from *** percent of its

total shipments, the vast majority of such exports were to the European Union.30 The Korean producer’s

exports as a share of its total shipments decreased overall, from *** percent of shipments in 2005 to ***

percent of shipments in 2010. The Asian region typically absorbed a *** of Korean SSPC exports.31 The

producers in Taiwan also appear to have a regional focus. Based on Global Trade Atlas data, the Asian

markets have been the primary destination for SSPC exports from Taiwan since at least 2005.32 The

South African producer may export the bulk of its production33 but it has established export markets in

Asia (China and Malaysia) and Europe (Belgium, Italy, Turkey and the United Kingdom).34

While subject producers in Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan may face some third-country

barriers to their exports of subject merchandise, the evidence does not suggest a likely significant

diversion of SSPC to the U.S. market. In late 2010, Russia imposed antidumping duties on certain flatrolled steel (including subject merchandise) from Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan.35 Russia was not a

top-ten export market for any of these producers from 2005 through 2010.36 Korean exports are ***;37

however, any prediction of the outcome of the *** proceeding would be speculative. We note also that

there are no known barriers to exports from Belgium.38 

Given that conditions of competition worldwide for stainless steel plate have changed

significantly since the original investigations, we conclude that while imports may increase some upon

revocation, the volume of cumulated subject imports likely would not be significant. The worldwide

demand characteristics for stainless steel are different than they were at the time of the original

investigations. The increase in subject imports during the late 1990s was caused in part by the Asian

financial crisis which led some subject producers to seek alternative export markets and the U.S. market

was attractive for its strong demand and pricing. Since then, Asia, and China in particular, has become a

major stainless steel consumer and global pricing differentials have narrowed, such that the United States

is no longer the more attractive export market. 

These trends, evident in the first five-year reviews, continued in this review period, and global

stainless steel hot-rolled flat product apparent consumption increased globally by *** percent during

2005-10.39 Apparent consumption in Asia increased by *** percent from 2005-10.40 Apparent

consumption is projected to continue to grow annually from 2011 to 2015, with most regions

experiencing increases in consumption. The country with the largest increase from 2011 to 2015 is ***,

 30 CR/PR at Table IV-4.

 31 CR/PR at Table IV-8. We note that a substantial share of Korean shipments were to the Korean home market,

which is, of course, in Asia. 

 32 Domestic Interested Parties’ Posthearing Brief at Exhibit 7. 

 33 According to its website, home market shipments comprise 25 percent of the company’s total sales. CR at IV29, PR at IV-12.

 34 Domestic Interested Parties’ Posthearing Brief at Exhibit 7. 

 35 CR at IV-23 n.25, PR at IV-11 n.25. 

 36 Domestic Interested Parties’ Posthearing Brief, Exhibit 7 (Global Trade Atlas data for exports of stainless steel

coiled plate). 

 37 CR at IV-23 n.25, PR at IV-11 n.25. 

 38 Aperam’s foreign producer questionnaire response, section II-11. 

 39 CR/PR at Table IV-17. 

 40 CR/PR at Table IV-17. 

59
*** percent, but consumption is also projected to grow in North America and Western Europe by ***

percent and *** percent, respectively.41 *** projects strong demand growth in Korea and Taiwan, and

some demand growth in South Africa, through 2015.42

Domestic interested parties contend that China, a large market for subject SSPC producers, has

added significant production capacity and shifted from being a net importer of SSPC to becoming a net

exporter of SSPC, thereby displacing subject exports to China.43 While the stainless steel industry in

China has expanded, and exports have increased, these developments do not mean that it no longer

imports. China remains an importer of significant volumes of SSPC and remains a top export market for

most of the subject countries.44

Relatively high global stainless steel plate prices provide little incentive for subject producers in

Belgium, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan to shift their exports significantly to the United States after

revocation. Global stainless steel plate hot-rolled coil prices reached record high levels during 2007,

pushed upward by high demand and high raw material costs. Prices declined from these levels but remain

higher than at the beginning of the period.45 Moreover, prices in the European Union were comparable to,

or higher than, prices in the United States towards the end of the period of review.46 Exchange rate

volatility may also make shipments to the United States less attractive.47 

Our conclusion that subject imports from Belgium, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan are not

likely to reach significant volumes after revocation is supported by a number of additional considerations. 

Reported inventory levels of subject imports and subject producers are low as stainless steel plate is

generally produced to order.48 Subject stainless steel plate accounts for a relatively small share of total

sales for the subject producers.49 Finally, U.S. customer’s demand for shorter lead times will favor

domestically produced SSPC over imports. Lead times in the U.S. market have reportedly declined from

 41 CR/PR at Table IV-18. 

 42 CR/PR at Table IV-18. 

 43 Domestic Interested Parties’ Prehearing Brief at 50-52. 

 44 Domestic Interested Parties’ Posthearing Brief at Exhibit 7. 

 45 CR/PR at Figure IV-1. 

 46 See CR/PR at Tables IV-20 & IV-21.

 47 From January 2005 through March 2011, the real value of the U.S. dollar versus the Euro fell by 3.9 percent,

and the real value of the U.S. dollar compared to the Korean won fell by 14.2 percent. CR at V-7 and n.14, PR at V7 and n.14.

 48 CR at II-15, PR at II-12-13. The Belgian and Korean producers ***. U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories

of cumulated subject imports from Belgium, Korea, South Africa and Taiwan were *** short tons in 2010. CR/PR

at Table IV-3. The responding subject producer in Belgium reported end-of-period inventories of *** short tons,

equivalent to *** percent of their total shipments in 2010. Aperam’s foreign producer questionnaire response,

section II-10. (The Commission requested importers to indicate whether they had imported or arranged for the

importation of SSPC from subject countries. Only one company, *** responded that it had imported or arranged for

the importation of SSPC from subject countries for delivery after December 31, 2010. *** arranged for the

importation of *** short tons of stainless steel coiled plate from *** in 2011. CR at IV-7, PR at IV-5.) The

responding subject producer in Korea reported end-of-period inventories of *** short tons, equivalent to *** percent

of its total shipments that year. POSCO’s foreign producer questionnaire response, section II-10. CR/PR at Tables

IV-4 & IV-8. 

 49 In the most recent fiscal year, subject merchandise represented *** percent of Aperam’s

total sales and *** percent of POSCO’s total sales. CR at IV-12 n.16, PR at IV-9 n.16. CR at IV-24 n.27, PR at IV11 n.27. During the original investigations, SSPC represented *** percent of the South African producer’s

(Columbus Stainless) overall sales in 1997 *** percent of the Taiwan producer’s (Yieh) overall sales. INV-W-064,

April 9, 1999, at VII-18, VII-20-VII-21. 

60
6 to 8 weeks to 4 to 6 weeks50 and the domestic producers have a geographic advantage over the subject

countries. In addition, a preference among purchasers for domestically produced stainless steel plate will

serve to restrain the likely volume of cumulated subject imports.51

We are unpersuaded by the domestic interested parties’ argument that the subject producers

would likely shift production from other hot-rolled products to subject SSPC in order to increase their

exports of SSPC to the U.S. market after revocation.52 Because nonsubject flat rolled products are valueadded products that command a premium over subject SSPC, subject foreign producers would have no

economic incentive to shift production to subject SSPC after revocation.53 This remains especially true

since the size of the market of other hot-rolled products is considerably larger than the SSPC market.54

Overall, given the worldwide changes in demand and the other factors described above, we find

that the likely volume of cumulated subject imports from Belgium, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan

would not be significant in the reasonably foreseeable future if the orders were revoked. 

B. Likely Price Effects of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely price effects of subject imports if the orders are revoked, the Commission

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

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

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

the domestic like product.55

In performing our analysis, we have taken into account the Commission’s price findings in the

original investigations. The Commission found price to be an important factor in purchasing decisions

and that stainless steel plate, once certified to required specifications, is a commodity product. The

Commission also observed parallel declines in domestic and subject import prices that began as subject

import volumes gained market share at the expense of nonsubject imports. Moreover, based on the mixed

evidence of underselling and lost sales and revenues, the perceived role of subject imports as downward

price leaders, and the price depressive effect of the steady build-up in U.S. inventories of subject

 50 Hearing Transcript, 143-44 (Iller); Respondent Interested Parties’ Posthearing Brief at 4, Exhibit 3; see also CR

at II-18, PR at II-13; Domestic Interested Parties’ Posthearing Brief, Responses to Commissioner Questions at 13

(“U.S. producers are being increasingly required to inventory product for their customers and respond more quickly

to customers in supplying product under shorter lead times.”). CR at II-1, PR at II-1. Domestic producers have a

lead time advantage. Reported lead times for U.S. producers’ sales made to order were *** days, while lead times

for sales from inventories were *** days. Importers reported lead times of 90 days for made-to-order product and 2

to 5 days from importers’ U.S. inventories. CR at II-15, PR at II-12-13. 

 51 Most purchasers (9 of 10) reported that purchasing U.S.-produced product was an important factor in their

purchasing decisions. Six purchasers reported that domestic product was required by law (for 1 to 25 percent of

their purchases), six reported that it was required by their customers (for 5 to 80 percent of their purchases), and

three reported other preferences for domestic product (for 50 to 75 percent of purchases). Reasons cited for

preferring domestic product included: shorter lead times/higher inventory turns, competitive costs/price, stocking

programs, and service. CR at II-17-18, PR at II-14. 

 52 Domestic Interested Parties’ Prehearing Brief at 56-59. 

 53 Aperam noted that “***.” Aperam’s foreign producer questionnaire response, section II-6. 

 54 Respondent Interested Parties’ Posthearing Brief at Appendix pp. 30-31. 

 55 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.

61
merchandise, the Commission determined that subject imports depressed domestic prices for stainless

steel plate.56 In the original investigations, imports from Canada showed the greatest amount of

underselling; the sole Canadian producer is no longer in operation and the antidumping duty order on

imports from Canada was revoked in 2005.57

In the first reviews, we found that domestic producers had been able to pass along raw material

costs through the increasing use of surcharges. The domestic industry was able to continue to raise prices

even with an increase in nonsubject imports in 2003 and 2004. We noted that while subject imports

demonstrated greater amounts of underselling of the U.S. product early in the period of review, there had

been only five instances of underselling out of a possible 41 comparisons since the third quarter of 2000

(i.e., underselling occurred in only 12.2 percent of possible comparisons).58 World-wide demand for

stainless steel plate had grown substantially since 2000. Prices of stainless steel plate from Belgium,

which constituted the bulk of subject imports, generally had been higher than domestic prices.

We find that subject imports from Belgium, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan are not likely to

undersell the domestic like product or depress or suppress domestic like product prices to a significant

degree after revocation of the orders. As an initial matter, we again observe that there is a moderate to

high degree of interchangeability between subject imports from each of these sources and the domestic

like product, and that price is an important factor in the U.S. stainless steel plate market, as discussed in

section III.C of the Commission majority opinion. 

 The limited pricing data on the record of these reviews indicates that subject imports generally

oversold the domestic like product during the period of review. The Commission collected pricing data

on sales of four products and two U.S. producers and one subject product importer provided usable

pricing data, accounting for approximately *** percent of U.S. producers shipments, and *** percent of

subject imports from Belgium.59 These data indicate that subject imports from Belgium oversold the

domestic like product in 8 of 13 quarterly comparisons, or two-thirds of the time, during the period of

review.60 

Sixteen purchasers reported that prices from subject countries increased or were unchanged in

relation to U.S. prices, while none reported that prices had decreased.61 The prices for all four domestic

products increased significantly between the first quarter for which data is available and the last quarter

for which data is available.62 This pricing trend was mirrored by global prices. Average world prices for

stainless steel hot-rolled coil rose from the beginning of 2006 and peaked in mid-2007, they declined in

2008 and 2009 but increased from mid-2009 through the first quarter of 2011 and were higher overall

 56 USITC Pub. 3188 at 25-30. 

 57 CR at I-2, PR at I-2. 

 58 This includes pricing data for imports from Italy. Subject imports from Belgium oversold the domestic like

product in 58 of 74 quarterly comparisons, and subject imports from Korea oversold the domestic like product in 5

of 20 quarterly comparisons, during the first period of review. There were no reported sales of imports of SSPC

from Canada, South Africa, and Taiwan. INV-CC-058, April 27, 2005. CR at V-10, V-28. 

 59 CR at V-9, PR at V-8. As stated above, *** percent of Belgian subject imports were of wide-width products

not covered by the pricing products used in these investigations. 

 60 CR/PR at Table V-7.

 61 CR at V-18, PR at V-10, CR/PR at Table V-8.

 62 CR/PR at Tables V-3, V-4, & V-5.

62
than their levels in January 2005.63 Prices in the European Union for stainless steel hot-rolled coil often

exceeded those in the United States from mid-2010 through the end of 2011.64

The domestic interested parties argue that raw material pricing volatility renders them

vulnerable.65 We recognize that raw material costs (iron scrap and alloying elements) experienced large

fluctuations during the period of review.66 Nevertheless, the domestic industry continues to display

significant ability to pass through raw material prices, and the use of surcharges as hedges against other

input-cost swings showed no signs of diminishing over this second period of review.67

The domestic interested parties claimed that recently announced price increases have been

rescinded. The information that they provided was limited, however, and made clear that all surcharges

remain in effect.68 We would note that this is a highly concentrated industry and the dominant domestic

producer is a recognized price leader.69

As discussed above, we find that the likely volume of subject imports would not be significant in

the event of revocation. We do not expect these imports to place significant downward pressure on U.S.

prices. We therefore find that subject imports are not likely to undersell the domestic like product or to

enter the U.S. market at prices that otherwise would have a depressing or suppressing effect on the price

of the domestic like product after revocation of the orders. 

C. Likely Impact of Subject Imports70

In evaluating the likely impact of imports of subject merchandise if the countervailing duty and

antidumping duty orders under review were revoked, the Commission is directed to consider all relevant

economic factors that are likely to have a bearing on the state of the industry in the United States,

including, but not limited to the following: (1) likely declines in output, sales, market share, profits,

productivity, return on investments, and utilization of capacity; (2) likely negative effects on cash flow,

inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to raise capital, and investment; and (3) likely negative

effects on the existing development and production efforts of the industry, including efforts to develop a

 63 CR/PR at Figure IV-1. 

 64 CR/PR at Tables IV-20 & IV-21. 

 65 Domestic Interested Parties’ Final Comments at 2. 

 66 CR/PR at Figures V-1 and V-2. 

 67 CR at V-5-6, PR at V-5-6. The use of surcharges has been expanded to cover increased energy costs by some

producers. Id. Respondents allege that these surcharges can even be a source of profit in some circumstances. CR

at V-5, PR at V-5, Respondent Interested Parties’ Final Comments at 13. 

 68 Hearing Transcript, at 26 (Feely), 57 (Hartford), and Domestic Interested Parties’ posthearing brief, p. 12,

Exhibit 9. The article cited in the brief does not identify the domestic producer involved and refers only to an April

price increase. We have no further information on price increases that were announced by Allegheny Ludlum in

February and by AK Steel in May. Id.

 69 The largest producer, NAS, accounted for *** percent of 2010 production. CR/PR at Table 1-12. All 10

responding purchasers reported that NAS was a price leader. CR at V-8, PR at V-8. 

 70 Section 752(a)(6) of the Act states that “the Commission may consider the magnitude of the margin of

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

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

or margins determined by the administering authority under section 1675a(c)(3) of this title.” 19 U.S.C.

§ 1677(35)(C)(iv). See also SAA at 887. Commerce calculated likely antidumping duty margins of 8.54 percent for

exporters in Belgium, 6.08 percent for exporters in Korea, 41.63 percent for exporters in South Africa, and 8.02

percent for YUSCO in Taiwan, 10.20 percent for YUSCO/Ta Chen and 7.39 percent for “all others” in Taiwan. 

CR/PR at Table I-7. 

63
derivative or more advanced version of the domestic like product.71 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.72 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.

In the original investigations, the Commission found that the cumulated subject imports

(including Canada and Italy) significantly increased their market share, but primarily at the expense of

non-subject imports.73 The Commission found increasing U.S. producer shipments, production, and

employment, but observed that domestic prices and profitability declined.74 The ratio of operating income

to sales during the original period fell, from 19.0 percent in 1995; to 3.6 percent in 1996; and to negative

0.6 percent in 1997.75 The Commission also found that the domestic industry’s deteriorating financial

performance negatively affected the industry’s ability to make necessary capital improvements.76 

In the first five-year reviews, we found that despite issuance of the orders on the subject countries

and a decline in subject import levels, the industry still posted operating losses in 2001 and 2003.77 These

losses stemmed from the industry’s restructuring efforts (e.g., the write-offs of underperforming assets

and increased intra-industry competition brought on by capacity expansions), and to the U.S. economic

recession. As a result of these consolidations, however, the number of industry firms was cut in half and

the industry emerged stronger and fundamentally changed. The benefits of these changes could first be

seen in 2004 and continued in the following years. 

In the current review we find that the domestic industry is not vulnerable to material injury if the

orders are revoked. The domestic industry has undergone significant consolidation since the original

investigation, reducing the number of domestic producers from six then to three producers now, making

the industry far more productive and profitable, under normal market conditions, than during any period

we have examined. As further discussed below, the domestic industry’s current condition is strong

despite the effects of the 2008-2009 economic downturn, as demonstrated by the continued recovery in

demand and the domestic industry’s substantial investments in new capacity and equipment during the

period of review.

The domestic industry’s capacity increased more than its production during the period of review,

resulting in a reduced rate of capacity utilization. Domestic industry capacity increased by *** percent78

and production increased by *** percent but U.S. shipments declined by *** percent, overall.79 The

domestic industry’s capacity utilization rate began the period at *** percent in 2005 and in 2010, when

the domestic industry’s production exceeded the 2005 level, its rate of capacity utilization was ***

 71 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 72 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 73 USITC Pub. 3188 at 21. 

 74 USITC Pub. 3188 at 22. 

 75 USITC Pub. 3188 at 22. 

 76 USITC Pub. 3188 at 22. 

 77 USITC Pub. 3788 at Table C-1. 

 78 Domestic industry capacity increased irregularly from *** short tons in 2005 to *** short tons in 2010. CR/PR

at Table C-1.

 79 Domestic industry production increased from *** short tons in 2005 to *** short tons in 2006, a period high,

but then declined in 2007 (*** short tons) and 2008 (*** short tons). In 2009 and 2010, production increased to ***

short tons in 2009 and to *** short tons in 2010. CR/PR at Table C-1. 

64
percent, due largely to the domestic industry’s increased capacity.80 81 Domestic hot-rolled steel capacity,

a broader measure, was greater than SSPC capacity in each year and ranged from a high of *** percent in

2006 to a low of *** percent in 2009 and was *** percent in 2010.82 The domestic industry’s U.S.

shipments increased from *** short tons in 2005 to *** short tons in 2006, declined to *** short tons in

2007, *** short tons in 2008, and increased over the next two years from *** short tons in 2009 to ***

short tons in 2010, a level *** percent lower than in 2005.83 We recognize that the domestic industry’s

export shipments followed a divergent trend, initially *** from 2005 to 2006, then *** from 2007 to 2009

and declining in 2010 to a level *** percent lower than in 2005.84 The domestic industry’s share of

apparent U.S. consumption was above *** percent in every year, ranging from the lowest level of ***

percent in 2005 to the highest in *** at *** percent, and was *** percent in 2010.85 

Domestic industry employment, hours worked, and wages paid generally tracked production

during the period of review, while productivity increased. Domestic industry employment began the

period with *** production and related workers (“PRWs”) in 2005, initially increased as production

expanded, but ended the period with *** PRWs, a level *** percent lower than in 2005.86 Domestic

industry hours worked decreased overall from *** hours in 2005 to *** hours in 2010, a level ***

percent lower than in 2005.87 Domestic industry wages paid fluctuated but increased overall from *** in

2005 to *** in 2010, a level *** percent higher than in 2005.88 The increase in wages paid over the

period of review even as employment and hours worked declined reflects the *** percent increase in

hourly wages during the period.89 Unit labor costs decreased by *** percent over the period of review,

however, as domestic industry productivity increased *** percent over the period, from *** short tons per

1,000 hours in 2005 to *** short tons per 1,000 hours in 2010.90

The domestic industry’s robust financial performance over the period of review, when U.S. SSPC

demand was alternatively strong and weak, reflects the fundamental competitiveness of the industry. 

Over the period of review, as levels fluctuated between years, the domestic industry’s net sales value

increased *** percent, from *** in 2005 to *** in 2010, its operating income increased *** percent, from

*** in 2005 to *** in 2010, and its operating income as a share of net sales increased from *** percent in

 80 The domestic industry’s capacity utilization rate increased from *** percent in 2005 to *** percent in 2006

before declining to *** percent in 2007, *** percent in 2008, and *** percent in 2009, a period low, due to both the

economic downturn and the domestic industry’s increased capacity that year. CR/PR at Table C-1.

 81 CR/PR at Table C-1. We note that the domestic industry’s capacity utilization rate declined from *** percent

in 2006 to *** percent in 2007, id. at Table C-1, even as the industry’s operating income as a share of net sales

increased from *** percent to *** percent. Id. at Table C-1. Thus, the domestic industry has demonstrated the

ability to increase its profitability to a high level despite a declining and objectively low rate of capacity utilization. 

 82 CR/PR at Table III-5. 

 83 CR/PR at Table III-9.

 84 CR/PR at Table III-9. 

 85 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 86 There were *** PRWs employed in SSPC production in 2005, *** PRWs in 2006, *** PRWs in 2007, ***

PRWs in 2008, *** PRWs in 2009, and *** PRWs in 2010. CR/PR at Table III-8.

 87 Domestic industry hours worked increased from *** hours in 2005 to *** hours in 2006, declined steadily to

*** hours in 2008, and increased to *** hours in 2010, a level *** percent lower than in 2005. CR/PR at Table 

III-8.

 88 Domestic industry wages paid increased from *** in 2005 to *** in 2006, declined to *** in 2008, increased to

*** in 2009, and then declined to *** in 2010, a level *** percent higher than in 2005. CR/PR at Table III-8.

 89 CR/PR at Table III-8.

 90 CR/PR at Table III-8.

65
2005 to *** percent in 2010 even as the effects of the global economic downturn lingered.91 Although the

domestic industry’s financial performance was *** due to the economic downturn during 2008-2009, the

domestic industry’s performance rebounded strongly with the nascent economic recovery in 2010. The

domestic industry’s net sales value improved by *** percent (between 2009 and 2010), the domestic

industry’s operating income reversed from a *** in 2009 to a *** in 2010.92 The domestic industry’s

operating income recovered from a *** percent of net sales in 2009 to *** percent of net sales in 2010.93

The domestic industry’s return on investment was strong in every year except 2009 (when it was ***

percent), ranging from a low of *** percent in 2010 to a high of *** percent in 2007.94 The domestic

industry’s return on investment improved from *** percent in 2009 to *** percent in 2010.95

We find it likely that the domestic industry’s financial performance will remain healthy in the

reasonably foreseeable future for a number of reasons. The domestic industry’s strong performance in

2010 reflects the health of the domestic industry particularly in light of the fact that apparent U.S.

consumption that year remains below 2005, 2006 and 2007 levels.96 *** projects continued demand

growth in the U.S. market through 2015,97 and the domestic industry is well positioned to be the primary

beneficiary of such growth given its commanding share of the U.S. market, high productivity, and lead

time advantage over subject and nonsubject imports.98 The prices for the domestic like product increased

significantly during the period of review,99 and the domestic industry’s extensive use of surcharges should

ensure that most of any increases in raw material and energy costs are passed through to purchasers.100

The domestic industry should also benefit from the strong demand growth projected for third-country

markets,101 given the demonstrated global competitiveness of its exports.102

 91 CR/PR at Table III-9.

 92 CR/PR at Table III-9.

 93 CR/PR at Table III-9. The domestic interested parties stress that *** in 2010. Domestic Interested Parties’

Prehearing Brief, at 72. There is some evidence that its SSPC business is improving. In its announcement of first

quarter 2011 results, Allegheny Ludlum described a base price increase for standard stainless products and reported

that compared to the fourth quarter 2010, demand increased 20 percent for standard stainless products. Respondent

Interested Parties’ Posthearing Brief, Exhibit 9. Moreover, the statute directs the Commission to base its analysis of

the likely impact of the subject imports on the domestic industry “as a whole.” See WSK Corp. v. United States,

Slip Op. 10-38 at 11, n.13 (CIT April 12, 2010).

 94 The domestic industry’s return on investment increased from *** percent in 2005 to *** percent in 2006 and

was *** percent in 2007, it became *** percent in 2008, *** percent in 2009 and *** percent in 2010. CR/PR at

Table III-13.

 95 CR/PR at Table III-13.

 96 CR/PR at Table I-15.

 97 CR/PR at Table IV-18.

 98 CR at II-15, PR at II-12, CR/PR at Tables I-15 & III-8.

 99 CR/PR at Tables V-3, V-4, &V-5.

 100 CR at V-5-6, PR at V-5-6.

 101 CR/PR at Table IV-18.

 102 CR/PR at Table III-6. We note that the average unit value of the domestic industry’s export shipments

exceeded the average unit value of the domestic industry’s U.S. shipments in *** during the period of review. Id.

66
Indeed, the domestic industry’s substantial investments in new and improved capacity reflect the

domestic industry’s optimism over its future prospects.103 During the period of review, NAS significantly

increased its capacity,104 and Allegheny Ludlum ***.105 Reflecting these investments, domestic industry

capital expenditures increased steadily from *** in 2005 to *** in 2008, before declining to *** in 2009

and *** in 2010.106 Also during the period of review, a new entrant, ThyssenKrupp, began construction

of a $1.4 billion greenfield, integrated stainless steel production facility.107 In sum, we find that the

domestic industry is not vulnerable to material injury if the orders are revoked. 

In light of our finding that the domestic industry is not vulnerable, and given that we do not find

likely cumulated subject imports from Belgium, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan would be significant or

have significant adverse price effects, we find that revocation of the orders would not likely lead to a

significant adverse impact on the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that revocation of the countervailing duty order on SSPC

from South Africa, and revocation of the antidumping duty orders on SSPC from Belgium, Korea, South

Africa, and Taiwan 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.

 103 Domestic producers NAS and Allegheny Ludlum achieved net income gains in the first quarter of 2011 and

expressed optimism about the market in the second quarter. Respondent Interested Parties’ Posthearing Brief,

Exhibit 6-9. 

 104 CR/PR at Table III-1. 

 105 CR at III-17, n.9, PR at III-7, n.9, CR/PR at Tables I-12 & III-1. 

 106 CR/PR at Table III-12. Domestic industry R&D expenditures increased from *** in 2005 to *** in 2006 and

*** in 2007. Such expenditures declined to *** in 2008, *** in 2009 and *** in 2010. Id.

 107 CR at III-17, n.9, PR at III-7, n.9, CR/PR at Tables I-12 & III-1. 

67
 
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER DANIEL R. PEARSON

REGARDING CUMULATION

Section 751(d)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires that the U.S.

Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) revoke a countervailing duty or antidumping duty order in a

five-year review unless Commerce determines that dumping or a countervailable subsidy would be likely

to continue or recur and the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) determines that

material injury to a U.S. industry would be likely to continue or recur within a reasonably foreseeable

time.1

 I concur with Chairman Okun in determining that, based on the record in these five-year reviews,

material injury is not likely to continue or recur within a reasonably foreseeable time if the antidumping

orders on certain stainless steel plate (“SSPC”) from Belgium, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan and the

countervailing duty order on South Africa is revoked. I write separately in regard to cumulation because I

do not exercise my discretion to cumulate subject imports from Belgium with subject imports from Korea,

South Africa, and Taiwan. I conclude that conditions of competition with respect to imports of SSPC

from Belgium are sufficiently different from those that apply to the other countries. 

A. Legal Framework

While I also determined not to cumulate subject imports from Belgium in the first five-year

reviews, the statutory authority on which I am basing my current decision is distinct from that which I

relied upon in 2005.2

 In the first five-year reviews, I based my decision not to cumulate on my finding

that, were the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on subject imports from Belgium to be

revoked, imports from Belgium were likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic

industry producing SSPC. Since those first five-year reviews were completed, my approach to

cumulation has been revised and my analytical framework now begins with whether imports from the

subject countries are likely to face similar conditions of competition.3

 If this initial step shows that

conditions of competition are sufficiently different between the subject country in question and other

subject countries, the cumulation inquiry ends there. Only if the discretion to cumulate subject countries

is exercised are the questions of a likelihood of a reasonable overlap of competition and a likelihood of no

discernible adverse impact reached.

B. Analysis of Conditions of Competition

The following factors indicate significant differences in the conditions of competition facing the

Belgian producer of SSPC relative to producers in the other subject countries.

As I noted in my Additional Views in the first five-year reviews, *** percent of subject imports

from Belgium in 2004 (***) were in widths greater than 60 inches, while only *** percent of domestic

shipments by U.S. producers (***) were in widths greater than 60 inches. I therefore concluded in those

 1 19 U.S.C. § 1675(d)(2).

 2

 See Additional Views of Commissioner Daniel R. Pearson Regarding Cumulation, Certain Stainless Steel Plate

From Belgium, Canada, Italy, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-376, 377, & 379 and 731-TA788-793 (Review), Pub. 3784, June 2005, at 57-59 (“Additional Views”). 

 3

 Majority Views at 12 n.41 (reciting approach of Chairman Okun and Commissioner Pearson to questions of

cumulation, as first formulated in 2007). 

69
reviews that “there would be little, if any, competition between imports from Belgium and the domestic

like product if the orders were revoked.”4

 

I also found that, despite petitioners’ arguments to the contrary, should the orders on Belgium be

revoked, SSPC imports from Belgium in widths of 60 inches or less would not increase substantially

because even during the period of the original investigation, “only roughly *** percent of what was a

small volume of imports” from Belgium were in the narrower range of widths.5

In these second five-year reviews, the data collected show that subject imports from Belgium

have become even more concentrated in the widths greater than 60 inches. The *** importer of subject

imports from Belgium, ***,6

 reported that *** percent of its subject imports from Belgium in 2010 were

of plate in widths over 60 inches.7

 Further, domestic interested parties admit that “no U.S. manufacturer

produced SSPC in widths more than 60 inches.”8

 Based on the new data from these reviews, and on the

trend they reveal showing increasing specialization by Belgian imports in the wider-width coiled plate, I

again conclude that there would be little, if any, competition between imports from Belgium and the

domestic like product if the orders were revoked.

Domestic interested parties argue, however, that ***9

 A second domestic producer of coiled

plate in widths greater than 60 inches is expected in late 2013, which is when TKSL-USA’s Calvert,

Alabama plant will begin selling locally produced SSPC in the merchant market,10 using its capacity to

produce widths of up to 72 inches.11 I am unpersuaded that potential competition between imports from

Belgium and a domestic like product that may arise more than two years in the future is enough to

constitute significant competition within the legal framework of five-year reviews.

For these reasons, I find that the conditions of competition with respect to subject imports from

Belgium are sufficiently different that I do not exercise my discretion to cumulate them with those from

Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, I conclude that, if the antidumping duty order on imports of SSPC from Belgium

were to be revoked, that there would be little, if any, competition between imports of SSPC from Belgium

and the domestic like product. Because I join Chairman Okun in concluding that, even if imports from

Belgium are cumulated with other subject imports, material injury to the U.S. SSPC industry would not

continue or recur if the orders on Belgium, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan are revoked, it is

unnecessary for me to address the issue of whether, when imports from Belgium are viewed in isolation,

material injury to the U.S. SSPC industry would continue or recur if the antidumping duty order on

imports from Belgium were revoked.

 4 Additional Views at 58.

 5

 Additional Views at 59.

 6

 CR/PR at Table I-13 (showing that *** was responsible for *** percent of Belgian imports).

 7

 CR at IV-10; PR at IV-7.

 8

 Domestic Interested Parties’ Posthearing Brief at Exhibit 1, p. 7 (responding to question from Commissioner

Pearson).

 9

 CR at IV-10 n.10; PR at IV-7 n.10; Domestic Interested Parties’ Posthearing Brief at Exhibit 1, p. 7 (responding

to question from Commissioner Pearson).

 10 Posthearing Brief of ThyssenKrupp Acciai Speciali Terni S.p.A. and ThyssenKrupp AST USA, Inc., at 11

(SSPC produced in the Alabama plant prior to this time is intended only for captive consumption).

 11 CR at IV-10 n.10; PR at IV-7 n.10 (citing hearing testimony).

70
PART I: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

BACKGROUND

On June 1, 2010, 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 countervailing duty orders on stainless steel plate from

Belgium2

 and South Africa and the antidumping duty orders on stainless steel plate (“stainless steel coiled

plate”) from Belgium, Italy, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan would likely lead to the continuation or

recurrence of material injury to a domestic industry.3 4

 On September 7, 2010, the Commission

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

 Selected

information relating to the background and scheduling of this proceeding appears in the following

tabulation:6

 1 19 U.S.C. 1675(c).

 2

 In its second five-year review, Commerce determined that revocation of the countervailing duty order would not

likely lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy. Consequently, Commerce revoked the

countervailing duty order with respect to Belgium. Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium: Final Results of

Full Sunset Review and Revocation of the Countervailing Duty Order, 76 FR 25666, May 5, 2011. Subsequently,

the Commission terminated its review of the order. Stainless Steel Plate from Belgium; Termination of Five-Year

Review, 76 FR 28809, May 18, 2011.

 3 Stainless Steel Plate From Belgium, Italy, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan, 75 FR 30434, June 1, 2010. All

interested parties were requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information requested by the

Commission.

 4

 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 and countervailing duty orders. Initiation of

Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review, 75 FR 30777, June 2, 2010. 

 5 Stainless Steel Plate From Belgium, Italy, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan, 75 FR 59744, September 28, 2010. 

The Commission found that the domestic interested party group response to its notice of institution was adequate and

that the respondent interested party group response with respect to Italy was adequate and decided to conduct a full

review with respect to the antidumping duty order concerning stainless steel coiled plate from Italy. The

Commission found that the respondent interested party group responses with respect to Belgium, Korea, South

Africa, and Taiwan were inadequate. However, the Commission determined to conduct full reviews concerning the

antidumping duty orders on stainless steel coiled plate from Belgium, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan to promote

administrative efficiency in light of its decision to conduct a full review with respect to the antidumping duty order

concerning stainless steel coiled plate from Italy.

 6

 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. A list of witnesses appearing at the Commission’s hearing appears in Appendix B.

I-1
Effective date Action

May 11, 1999

Commerce’s countervailing duty orders on stainless steel coiled plate from

Belgium, Italy, and South Africa (64 FR 25288)

May 21, 1999

Commerce’s antidumping duty orders on stainless steel coiled plate from

Belgium, Canada, Italy, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan (64 FR 27756)

February 20, 2003

Commission publishes notice of final court decision affirming remand

determinations.1

 (68 FR 8925, February 26, 2003)

March 11, 2003

Commerce’s notice of amended antidumping and countervailing duty orders

pursuant to court decision affirming remand determinations1

 (68 FR 20114 and

68 FR 20115, April 24, 2003)

April 1, 2004

Commission's institution and Commerce’s initiation of first five-year reviews (69

FR 17235, 17129)

July 18, 2005

Commerce’s continuation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on

stainless steel coiled plate from Belgium, Italy, Korea, South Africa, and

Taiwan and revocation of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel coiled

plate from Canada (70 FR 41202, 41207)

March 28, 2006

Commerce revokes the countervailing duty order on stainless steel coiled plate

from Italy pursuant to a changed circumstances review (71 FR 15380)

June 1, 2010

Commission’s institution of second five-year reviews (75 FR 30434)

Commerce's initiation of second five-year reviews (75 FR 30777, June 2, 2010)

September 7, 2010

Commission’s determination to conduct full five-year reviews (75 FR 59744,

September 28, 2010)

October 6, 2010

Commerce’s final results of expedited five-year reviews of the antidumping

duty orders on stainless steel coiled plate from all subject countries (75 FR

61699)

October 7, 2010

Commerce’s final results of expedited five-year review of the countervailing

duty order on stainless steel coiled plate from South Africa (75 FR 62103)

December 20, 2010 Commission’s scheduling of the reviews (75 FR 81309, December 27, 2010)

May 5, 2011

Commerce’s final results of full five-year review and revocation of the

countervailing duty order on stainless steel coiled plate from Belgium (76 FR

25666).

Commission terminates its review of the countervailing duty order on stainless

steel coiled plate from Belgium (76 FR 28809, May 18, 2011)

May 26, 2011 Commission’s hearing

July 20, 2011 Commission’s vote

August 9, 2011 Commission's determinations transmitted to Commerce

 1 Scope of the orders amended to remove the original language that excluded cold-rolled stainless steel coiled

plate.

I-2
The Original Investigations and Subsequent Five-Year Reviews

On March 31, 1998, petitions were filed with Commerce and the Commission alleging that an

industry in the United States was materially injured and threatened with material injury by reason of lessthan-fair-value (“LTFV”) imports of stainless steel coiled plate from Belgium, Canada, Italy, Korea,

South Africa, and Taiwan and by reason of subsidized imports of such merchandise from Belgium, Italy,

Korea, and South Africa.7

 On March 31, 1999, Commerce published final affirmative dumping

determinations with respect to Belgium, Canada, Italy, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan and affirmative

subsidy determinations for Belgium, Italy, and South Africa.8

 The Commission issued final affirmative

injury determinations on May 3, 1999, for stainless steel coiled plate excluding cold-rolled stainless steel

coiled plate.9

 Accordingly, Commerce published antidumping duty orders for Belgium, Canada, Italy,

 7 The petitions were filed by Armco, Inc. (“Armco”), Pittsburgh, PA; J&L Specialty Steel, Inc. (“J&L”),

Pittsburgh, PA; Lukens, Inc. (“Lukens”), Coatesville, PA; North American Stainless (“NAS”), Ghent, KY; and the

United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC (“USWA”). J&L, however, was not a petitioner in either of the

investigations involving Belgium; NAS was not a petitioner in the antidumping investigation involving Italy or in

any of the subsidy investigations; and the United Steelworkers was not a petitioner in the antidumping investigation

involving Canada. Allegheny Ludlum Corporation (“Allegheny Ludlum”), Brackenridge, PA, and Washington

Steel, Washington, PA, joined as petitioners on August 20, 1998.

 8

 Commerce published a negative final countervailing duty determination with respect to stainless steel coiled

plate from Korea. Final Negative Countervailing Duty Determination: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From the

Republic of Korea, 64 FR 15530, March 31, 1999.

 9

 The Commission, by majority vote, found two domestic like products during its original investigations, i.e., hotrolled stainless steel coiled plate and cold-rolled stainless steel coiled plate. The Commission issued affirmative

determinations with respect to dumped imports of hot-rolled stainless steel coiled plate from Belgium, Canada, Italy,

Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan and with respect to subsidized imports of such merchandise from Belgium, Italy,

and South Africa. It issued negative determinations with respect to dumped imports of cold-rolled stainless steel

coiled plate from Belgium and Canada and with respect to subsidized imports of such merchandise from Belgium. It

further found imports of dumped and subsidized cold-rolled stainless steel coiled plate from Italy, Korea, South

Africa, and Taiwan to be negligible and terminated those investigations. Investigation Nos. 701-TA-376, 377,

and 379 and 731-TA-788-793 (Final); Certain Stainless Steel Plate From Belgium, Canada, Italy, Korea, South

Africa, and Taiwan, 64 FR 25515, May 12, 1999.

Respondents appealed the Commission majority's affirmative determinations as to hot-rolled stainless steel

coiled plate on the basis that the domestic like product definition should have been expanded to include stainless

steel sheet and strip. The U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”) rejected the challenge and affirmed the

Commission’s like product determination. Acciai Speciali Terni v. United States, 118 F. Supp.2d 1298 (Ct. Int’l

Trade 2000).

The domestic industry also appealed the Commission’s negative determinations with respect to imports of

cold-rolled stainless steel coiled plate from Belgium and Canada. (No party challenged the Commission’s

negligibility findings regarding imports of cold-rolled stainless steel coiled plate from Italy, Korea, South Africa, and

Taiwan. The appeal, however, included a challenge to the Commission’s domestic like product definition, upon

which its negligibility findings were based). On August 28, 2000, the CIT affirmed the Commission’s

determinations but, on April 19, 2002, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) vacated

the lower court ruling, finding that the Commission’s volume and impact findings with respect to cold-rolled

stainless steel coiled plate were not in accordance with law and that its pricing finding for cold-rolled stainless steel

coiled plate was unsupported by substantial evidence. On June 18, 2002, in accordance with the Federal Circuit’s

decision, the CIT vacated its earlier decision and remanded to the Commission its final negative determinations with

respect to cold-rolled stainless steel coiled plate. Certain Stainless Steel Plate From Belgium, Canada, Italy, Korea,

South Africa, and Taiwan; Notice and Scheduling of Remand Proceedings, 67 FR 45147, July 8, 2002 and Certain

Stainless Steel Plate from Belgium, Canada, Italy, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan; Amended Notice and

(continued...)

I-3
Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan and countervailing duty orders for Belgium, Italy, and South Africa on

May 21, 1999 and May 11, 1999, respectively, that excluded the cold-rolled product.10 11 On

February 26, 2003, the Commission gave notice of a final court decision affirming its final affirmative

material injury determinations, made pursuant to court remand, in the antidumping and countervailing

duty investigations of stainless steel coiled plate from the subject countries12 and, on March 11, 2003,

Commerce published notices amending the scope of its antidumping and countervailing duty orders to

remove the original language that excluded cold-rolled stainless steel coiled plate.13

In June 2005, the Commission completed full five-year reviews of the subject orders and

determined that revocation of the countervailing duty orders on stainless steel coiled plate from Belgium,

Italy, and South Africa and that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on stainless steel coiled plate

from Belgium, Italy, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan would be likely to lead to continuation or

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

Commission also determined that revocation of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel coiled plate

from Canada 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.14 Following affirmative determinations in the first

five-year reviews by Commerce and the Commission,15 Commerce issued a continuation of the

antidumping duty orders on stainless steel coiled plate from Belgium, Italy, Korea, South Africa, and

Taiwan, and the countervailing duty orders on stainless steel coiled plate from Italy,16 South Africa, and

 9 (...continued)

Scheduling of Remand Proceedings, 67 FR 50897, August 6, 2002.

On September 27, 2002, the Commission filed its remand determination with the CIT in which the

Commission majority defined a single domestic like product, stainless steel coiled plate, and determined that an

industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of imports of dumped and/or subsidized imports of

stainless steel coiled plate from Belgium, Canada, Italy, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan.

 10 The excluded cold-rolled product was defined as merchandise that meets the physical characteristics for

stainless steel coiled plate but that has undergone a cold-reduction process reducing the thickness of the steel by 25

percent or more, and has been annealed and pickled following cold reduction.

 11 See the section of this report entitled Commerce’s Reviews for a listing of the antidumping and countervailing

duty margins, by source and company, calculated by Commerce.

 12 Certain Stainless Steel Plate from Belgium, Canada, Italy, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan; Notice of Final

Court Decision Affirming Remand Determinations, 68 FR 8925, February 26, 2003.

 13 Notice of Amended Antidumping Duty Orders; Certain Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium, Canada,

Italy, the Republic of Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan, 68 FR 11520, March 11, 2003; Notice of Amended

Countervailing Duty Orders; Certain Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium, Italy, and South Africa, 68 FR

11524, March 11, 2003.

 14 Certain Stainless Steel Plate From Belgium, Canada, Italy, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan, Inv. Nos.

701-TA-376, 377, and 379 and 731-TA-788-793 (Review), USITC Publication 3784, June 2005, p. 1.

 15 Certain Stainless Steel Plate From Belgium, Canada, Italy, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan, 70 FR 38710,

July 5, 2005.

 16 In 2006, Commerce revoked the countervailing duty order with respect to Italy pursuant to a changed

circumstances review. Allegheny Ludlum Corporation and AK Steel Corporation requested the changed

circumstances review on the basis that they were no longer interested in maintaining the CVD order or in the

imposition of CVD duties on the subject merchandise. Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Italy: Final Results of

Countervailing Duty Changed Circumstances Review and Revocation of Countervailing Duty Order, in Whole,

71 FR 15380, March 28, 2006.

I-4
Belgium, effective July 18, 2005.17 Following the Commission’s negative determination, Commerce

revoked the antidumping duty order with respect to Canada.18

Summary Data

Table I-1 presents a summary of data from the original investigations, first reviews, and the

current full five-year reviews.19 20 Data for both the original investigations and the reviews are believed to

be generally comparable.

 17 Continuation of Antidumping Duty Orders on Certain Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium, Italy, South

Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan, and the Countervailing Duty Orders on Certain Stainless Steel Plate in Coils

From Belgium, Italy, and South Africa, 70 FR 41202, July 18, 2005.

 18 Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order; Certain Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Canada, 70 FR 41207,

July 18, 2005.

 19 See the section entitled “Organization of the Report” for a discussion of the data collected during these reviews. 

All references to “tons” within this report should be understood to be to “short tons,” unless otherwise noted.

 20 The data series presented in table I-1 includes data before, during, and after the sequence of events known as

the “Asian financial crisis.” The initial crisis spread from Thailand in mid-1997 through Asia, and then more

broadly by 1998. According to Commerce, reduced Asian steel demand, declining Asian currency values, and

increased U.S. steel demand contributed to an increase in U.S. steel imports. See Global Steel Trade: Structural

Problems and Future Solutions, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, July 2000, pp.

17-30. See also “Stainless Steel - A Global View,” presented by Peter Kaumanns, ISSF, at the May 2004

International Industry Outlook Meeting in Basle, Switzerland; “Global Stainless Steel Demand Index” by ISSF

(October 2010 update); and “Steel, Alloys and Stainless” by Marcel Genet (Laplace Conseil) and Cedric Orban

(COMC), Stainless Steel World, Beaune, October 2010.

I-5
Table I-1

Stainless steel coiled plate: Comparative data from the original investigations and the first and

second reviews, 1995-2010

(Quantity in short tons, value in 1,000 dollars, shares/ratios in percent)

Item 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

U.S. consumption quantity:

Amount 127,569 119,654 142,405 123,209 120,328 109,457 101,037

U.S. producers’ share1 81.2 74.8 80.8 80.5 89.0 88.9 93.3

U.S. importers’ share:1

Belgium *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Italy *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Korea *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

South Africa *** *** *** *** 0.3 0.0 0.0

Taiwan *** *** *** 4.1 0.3 0.1 0.2

Subtotal *** *** *** 15.7 7.7 6.1 3.0

Canada *** *** *** 1.7 0.3 0.5 ***

All other sources *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total imports 18.8 25.2 19.2 19.5 11.0 11.1 6.7

U.S. shipments of imports from:2

Belgium:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

Italy:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

Korea:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** ***

South Africa:

Quantity *** *** *** *** 341 22 46

Value *** *** *** *** 354 32 84

Unit value $*** $*** $*** $*** $1,038 $1,484 $1,816

I-6
Table I-1--Continued

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

118,633 *** *** 122,928 188,868 143,887 84,758 85,046 107,512

89.3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

0.0 *** *** 0.3 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.1

0.1 *** *** 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** (3

) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3)

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3)

10.7 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

$*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

31 *** *** 341 1,320 1,176 34 2 69

30 *** *** 922 2,357 2,783 102 14 125

$976 *** $*** $2,707 $1,786 $2,367 $2,986 $6,544 $1,812

I-7
Table I-1--Continued 

Stainless steel coiled plate: Comparative data from the original investigations and the first and

second reviews, 1995-2010

(Quantity in short tons, value in 1,000 dollars, shares/ratios in percent)

Item 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Taiwan:

Quantity *** *** *** 5,004 307 84 210

Value *** *** *** 6,292 413 135 274

Unit value $*** $*** $*** $1,257 $1,345 $1,597 $1,304

Subtotal:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

Canada:

Quantity *** *** *** 2,123 374 595 ***

Value *** *** *** 3,049 522 1,271 ***

Unit value $*** $*** $*** $1,437 $1,397 $2,137 $***

All other sources:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

Subtotal:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

Total:

Quantity 24,041 30,121 27,402 24,035 13,268 12,134 6,818

Value 53,142 63,442 47,196 35,628 18,142 24,145 10,987

Unit value $2,210 $2,106 $1,722 $1,482 $1,367 $1,990 $1,611

I-8
Table I-1--Continued 

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

103 *** *** 373 96 101 18 0 3

152 *** *** 967 269 454 87 0 11

$1,471 *** $*** $2,595 $2,804 $4,520 $4,756 (3) $4,015

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

$*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

*** *** *** (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3)

*** *** *** (3

) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3)

$*** $*** $*** (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3)

*** *** *** (3

) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3)

*** *** *** (3

) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3)

$*** $*** $*** (3

) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3)

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

$*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

12,686 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

20,301 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

$1,600 $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

I-9
Table I-1--Continued 

Stainless steel coiled plate: Comparative data from the original investigations and the first and second reviews,

1995-2010

(Quantity in short tons, value in 1,000 dollars, shares/ratios in percent)

Item 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

U.S. producers’:

Capacity quantity 183,637 204,851 237,704 223,917 213,000 213,222 277,609

Production quantity 107,922 91,879 129,526 83,208 110,406 98,229 96,316

Capacity utilization1 58.8 44.9 54.5 37.2 51.8 46.1 34.7

U.S. shipments:

Quantity 103,528 89,533 115,003 99,174 107,060 97,323 94,219

Value 246,543 176,449 199,474 149,244 152,867 185,409 131,828

Unit value $2,383 $1,971 $1,735 $1,505 $1,428 $1,905 $1,399

Export shipments:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value $2,269 $1,840 $1,694 $*** $*** $*** $***

Ending inventory quantity 25,813 30,082 38,411 *** *** *** ***

Inventory/total shipments1 *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Production workers 218 198 236 211 227 258 229

Hours worked (1,000) 450 406 490 417 490 541 470

Wages paid 8,986 8,260 10,142 10,219 12,835 14,390 12,777

Hourly wages $19.97 $20.34 $20.70 $24.53 $26.19 $26.59 $27.20

Productivity (tons per 1,000 hours) 239.8 226.3 264.3 199.7 225.3 181.5 205.0

Net sales:

Quantity 104,831 94,591 117,509 89,954 110,083 99,247 96,289

Value 249,726 185,684 203,203 133,149 156,868 188,749 134,518

Unit Value $2,382 $1,963 $1,729 $1,480 $1,425 $1,902 $1,397

Cost of goods sold 193,460 171,087 194,843 127,291 141,825 158,585 ***

Gross profit or (loss) 56,266 14,597 8,360 5,858 15,043 30,164 (2,367)

Operating income or (loss) 47,383 6,633 (1,114) (1,417) 6,054 21,464 (10,664)

Unit cost of goods sold $1,845 $1,809 $1,658 $1,415 $1,288 $1,598 $***

Unit operating income or (loss) $452 $70 $(10) $(16) $55 $216 $(111)

Cost of goods sold/sales (%)1 77.5 92.1 95.9 95.6 90.4 84.0 ***

Operating income or(loss)/sales1 19.0 3.6 (0.6) (1.1) 3.9 11.4 (7.9)

 1 Reported data are in percent.

 2

 Official Commerce statistics used for South Africa and Taiwan 2005-10.

 3

 Not applicable.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official import statistics from Commerce

(South Africa and Taiwan, 2005-10). Data for 1995-2004 are compiled from Staff Report on Certain Stainless Steel Plate from Belgium,

Canada, Italy, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan, Investigations Nos. 701-TA-376, 377 & 379 and 731-TA-788-793 (Review), Memorandum

INV-CC-058, April 27, 2005, Appendix C, table C-1.

I-10
Table I-1--Continued

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

270,404 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

115,707 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

42.8 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

105,947 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

145,979 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

$1,378 $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

$*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

221 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

463 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

12,876 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

$27.82 $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

250.0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

113,050 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

154,313 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

$1,365 $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

(28,205) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

(34,955) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

$*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

$(309) $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

(22.7) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

I-11
PREVIOUS AND RELATED INVESTIGATIONS

In May 1973, the Commission determined that an industry in the United States was being injured

by reason of imports of stainless steel plate (including but not limited to hot-rolled and cold-rolled plate in

coils) from Sweden sold at less than fair value. On June 8, 1973, the U.S. Department of the Treasury

issued an antidumping finding on stainless steel plate from Sweden. Following several requests for a

changed circumstance review,21 in August 1998, the Commission instituted a five-year review concerning

the antidumping duty finding on stainless steel plate from Sweden. Following a full review, in July 1999

the Commission determined that revocation of the order would not be likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.22

In June 1983, the Commission determined that an industry in the United States was being

materially injured by reason of imports of stainless steel plate (including but not limited to stainless steel

coiled plate) from the United Kingdom found by Commerce to be subsidized by the Government of the

United Kingdom.23 On June 23, 1983, Commerce issued a countervailing duty order on stainless steel

plate from the United Kingdom. On August 14, 1986, however, Commerce revoked the countervailing

duty order, having determined that domestic interested parties were no longer interested in continuation of

the order.24

The Commission has also conducted two safeguard investigations with respect to stainless steel

and alloy tool steel, as follows: Inv. No. TA-201-5 in 1976 (USITC Publication 756) and Inv. No. TA201-48 in 1983 (USITC Publication 1377).25

 21 The Commission denied two requests, then instituted, but subsequently suspended, a changed circumstance

review. 50 FR 43613, October 28, 1995; 52 FR 24541, July 1, 1987; and 58 FR 35044, June 30, 1993.

 22 Stainless Steel Plate from Sweden, Inv. No. AA1921-114 (Review), USITC Publication 3204, July 1999.

 23 Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from the Federal Republic of Germany and France and Stainless Steel Sheet and

Strip and Plate from the United Kingdom, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-195-196 and 731-TA-92 and 95,

USITC Publication 1391, June 1983.

 24 48 FR 28690, June 23, 1983; and 51 FR 29144, August 14, 1986.

 25 The 1976 investigation resulted in a 3-year voluntary restraint agreement (6/14/76-6/13/79) and the 1983

investigation resulted in a 4-year relief period of quotas and tariffs. In addition, the Commission conducted a

probable economic effects study in 1977 with respect to stainless steel and alloy tool steel (Inv. No. TA-203-3;

USITC Publication 838).

I-12
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--

(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.

I-13
(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.”

I-14
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 stainless steel coiled plate as

collected in the reviews is presented in appendix C. U.S. industry data are based on the questionnaire

responses of three U.S. producers of stainless steel coiled plate (AK Steel, Allegheny Ludlum, and NAS)

that are believed to have accounted for all of domestic production of stainless steel coiled plate in 2010. 

U.S. import data and related information are based on the questionnaire responses of seven U.S. importers

of stainless steel coiled plate (for Belgium, Italy, Korea, and nonsubject sources)26 and Commerce's

official import statistics (for South Africa and Taiwan). Foreign industry data and related information are

based on the questionnaire responses of three producers of stainless steel coiled plate. Producers from

Belgium, Italy, and Korea accounted for virtually all of subject production in their respective countries. 

Producers from South Africa and Taiwan did not respond to the Commission’s questionnaire. Responses

by U.S. producers, importers, purchasers, and foreign producers of stainless steel coiled plate to a series

of questions concerning the significance of the existing antidumping and countervailing duty orders and

the likely effects of revocation of such orders are presented in appendix D. Appendix E presents

information regarding the exchange rates between the U.S. dollar and the currencies of the countries

subject to these reviews.

 26 Importers’ questionnaire responses accounted for virtually all imports of stainless steel coiled plate from

Belgium, Italy, and Korea during the period for which data were collected (i.e., 2005-10).

I-15
COMMERCE’S REVIEWS

Administrative Reviews27

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

orders.28

Belgium

Commerce has completed six antidumping duty administrative reviews with regard to subject

imports of stainless steel coiled plate from Belgium. The results of the administrative reviews are shown

in table I-2.

Table I-2

Stainless steel coiled plate: Administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order for Belgium

Date results published Period of review Producer or exporter Margin (percent)

November 7, 2001

(66 FR 56272) 11/04/1998-04/30/2000

ALZ Belgium 24.43

All others 9.86

October 18, 2002

(67 FR 64352) 05/01/2000-04/30/2001

ALZ Belgium 3.84

All others 9.86

January 19, 2005

(70 FR 2999)1 05/01/2002-04/30/2003

U&A Belgium2 2.71

All others 9.86

December 7, 2005

(70 FR 72789) 05/01/2003-04/30/2004

U&A Belgium 2.96

All others 9.86

December 11, 2008

(73 FR 75398) 05/01/2006-04/30/2007

U&A Belgium 7.53

All others 9.86

October 19, 2009

(74 FR 53468) 05/01/2007-04/30/2008

AMS Belgium3 6.57

All others4 8.54

 1 Amended.

 2

 ALZ Belgium's parent company, Arbed, was acquired by Arcelor. As a result of the merger, the Arcelor Group

created a new unit that combined Ugine S.A., N.V., a French stainless steel producer, and ALZ Belgium. The

former company ALZ Belgium changed its name to U&A Belgium on December 31, 2001. Furthermore, effective

February 2002, Arcelor also merged with Usinor S.A. and Aceralia Corporacion Siderurgica S.A.

 3

 ArcelorMittal Stainless Belgium N.V.

 4

 Corrected. Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium: Correction to Notice of Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 45605, August 3, 2010. The “all others” rate should have been listed as 8.54

percent pursuant to the implementation of the findings of the World Trade Organization (“WTO”) Panel in

US--Zeroing (EC).

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

 27 Commerce has not issued any duty absorption findings with respect to stainless steel coiled plate from the

subject countries.

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

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

I-16
Italy

Commerce has completed one antidumping duty administrative review with regard to subject

imports of stainless steel coiled plate from Italy. The results of the administrative review are shown in

table I-3.

Table I-3

Stainless steel coiled plate: Administrative review of the antidumping duty order for Italy

Date results published Period of review Producer or exporter Margin (percent)

October 15, 2002

(67 FR 63618) 05/01/2000-04/30/2001

TKAST 0.00

All others 39.691

 1 Corrected. Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils

from Italy, 67 FR 76381, December 12, 2002.

Source: Cited Federal Register notice.

Korea

Commerce has completed one antidumping duty administrative review with regard to subject

imports of stainless steel coiled plate from Korea. The results of the administrative review are shown in

table I-4.

Table I-4

Stainless steel coiled plate: Administrative review of the antidumping duty order for Korea

Date results published Period of review Producer or exporter Margin (percent)

December 11, 2001

(66 FR 64017) 11/04/1998-04/30/2000

POSCO 1.19

All others 6.081

 1 Corrected. Notice of Amended Final Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils

from the Republic of Korea, 67 FR 19734, April 23, 2002.

Source: Cited Federal Register notice.

South Africa

Commerce has not conducted any administrative reviews with regard to subject imports of

stainless steel coiled plate from South Africa.

Taiwan

Commerce has completed one administrative review with regard to subject imports of stainless

steel coiled plate from Taiwan. The results of the administrative review are shown in table I-5.

Table I-5

Stainless steel coiled plate: Administrative review of the antidumping duty order for Taiwan

Date results published Period of review Producer or exporter Margin (percent)

June 14, 2002

(67 FR 40914) 05/01/2000-04/30/2001

YUSCO 8.02

All others 7.39

Source: Cited Federal Register notice.

I-17
Five-Year Reviews

Commerce has issued the final results of its expedited reviews of the countervailing duty order

with respect to South Africa and of the antidumping duty orders with respect to all subject countries. In

addition, as noted previously, Commerce has published the final results of its full review of the

countervailing duty order with respect to Belgium, and determined that revocation of the countervailing

duty order would not likely lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy. 

Consequently, Commerce has revoked the countervailing duty order with respect to Belgium. Table I-6

presents the countervailable subsidy margins and table I-7 presents the dumping margins calculated by

Commerce in its original investigations, first reviews, and second reviews.29

Table I-6

Stainless steel coiled plate: Commerce’s original, first, and second five-year countervailable subsidy

margins for producers/exporters, by subject country

Producer/exporter

Original margin

(percent)

First five-year review

margin (percent)

Second five-year review

margin (percent)

South Africa1

Columbus Stainless 3.95 3.95 3.95

All others 3.95 3.95 3.95

 1 Amended countervailing duty order, 68 FR 11524, March 11, 2003; final results of Commerce’s first review, 69 FR 47418,

August 5, 2004; final results of Commerce’s second review, 75 FR 62103, October 7, 2010.

Note.–The countervailing duty orders were amended to remove the original scope language which excluded cold-rolled stainless

steel coiled plate.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

 29 With respect to countervailable subsidies, Commerce identified the following government programs potentially

present in South Africa (Commerce’s Issues and Decision Memorandum, September 30, 2010):

C Low Interest Rate Finance for the Promotion of Exports

C Export Assistance Under the Export Marketing Assistance and the Export Marketing and Investment

Assistance Programs

C Benefits Under Section 37E of the Income Tax Act (Section 37E Tax Allowance)

C Import Financing Through Impofin, Ltd,. and the IDC (Loan Guarantees Provided by the IDC)

C Competitiveness Fund

C Regional Industrial Development Program (RIDP).

I-18
Table I-7

Stainless steel coiled plate: Commerce’s original, first, and second five-year dumping margins for

producers/exporters, by subject country

Producer/exporter

Original margins1

(percent)

First five-year

review margin

(percent)

Second five-year

review margin

(percent)

Belgium2

AMS Belgium 9.86 9.86 8.54

All others 9.86 9.86 8.54

Italy2

TKAST 45.09 45.09 45.09

All others 39.69 39.69 39.69

Korea3

POSCO 6.08 6.08 6.08

All others 6.08 6.08 6.08

South Africa4

Columbus Stainless 37.77 41.63 41.63

All others 37.77 41.63 41.63

Taiwan4

YUSCO 8.02 8.02 8.02

YUSCO/Ta Chen5 10.20 10.20 10.20

All others 7.39 7.39 7.39

 1 Scope of antidumping duty orders amended to remove the original language that excluded cold-rolled

stainless steel coiled plate. Commerce assigned producers the rate established in the original final determination

or the most recently completed final results of an administrative review to reflect the margins in effect at the time. 

Company-specific rates which differed from the original margins are as follows (in percent): AMS Belgium (3.84);

TKAST (0.00 de minimis); and POSCO (1.19). 68 FR 11520, April 24, 2003.

 2

 Original antidumping duty order, 64 FR 27756, May 21, 1999; Amended antidumping duty order, 68 FR

11520, March 11, 2003; final results of Commerce’s first review, 69 FR 61798, October 21, 2004; final results of

Commerce’s second review, 75 FR 61699, October 6, 2010.

 3

 Amended final determination, 66 FR 45279, August 28, 2001 (Margins with respect to Korea were amended to

comply with WTO panel findings); Amended antidumping duty order, 68 FR 11520, March 11, 2003; final results of

Commerce's first review, 69 FR 61798, October 21, 2004; amended final results of Commerce's second review, 75

FR 67346, November 2, 2010.

 4

 Original antidumping duty order, 64 FR 27756, May 21, 1999; Amended antidumping duty order, 68 FR

11520, March 11, 2003; final results of Commerce's first review, 69 FR 47416, August 5, 2004; final results of

Commerce's second review, 75 FR 61699, October 6, 2010.

 5

 This reflects YUSCO's margin on U.S. sales to Ta Chen as well as the middleman dumping by Ta Chen.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

I-19
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.30 During the review period, qualified U.S. producers of

stainless steel coiled plate were eligible to receive disbursements from the U.S. Customs and Border

Protection (“Customs”) under CDSOA relating to the orders covering the subject merchandise beginning

in Federal fiscal year 2005.31 Table I-8 presents CDSOA disbursements for Federal fiscal years 2005-10,

by source.32

Table I-8

Stainless steel coiled plate: CDSOA disbursements, by source, Federal fiscal years 2005-10

Item

Federal fiscal year

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Disbursements (dollars)

Belgium $323,132 $1,012,729 $284,792 (1

) $7,340 $1,992

Italy (

1

) $792 $143,597 $19,958 $797 $1,017

Korea (

1

) $18 $705 $3,715 (1) (1)

South Africa (1

) $46,899 $72,656 (1) $264,581 (1)

Taiwan (1

) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)

 Total $323,132 $1,060,439 $501,750 $23,673 $272,719 $3,009

 1 No disbursement for this period.

Note.--Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s CDSOA Annual Reports. Retrieved from 

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

 30 Section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)). The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005

repealed the CDSOA with respect to duties on entries of goods made and filed on or after October 1, 2007. See Pub.

L. No. 109-171, 120 Stat. 4, 154 (2006).

 31 19 CFR 159.64 (g).

 32 The Federal fiscal year begins on October 1 and ends on September 30 of the next calendar year.

I-20
THE SUBJECT MERCHANDISE

Commerce’s Scope

The imported product subject to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders under review, as

defined by Commerce, is as follows: 

Stainless steel is an alloy steel containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and

10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. The subject plate

products are flat-rolled products, 254 mm or over in width and 4.75 mm or more in

thickness, in coils, and annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise

descaled. The subject plate may also be further processed (e.g., cold-rolled, polished,

etc.) provided that it maintains the specified dimensions of plate following such

processing. Excluded from the scope of the orders are the following: (1) Plate not in

coils, (2) plate that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise

descaled, (3) sheet and strip, and (4) flat bars.33

Tariff Treatment

Stainless steel coiled plate is classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States

(“HTS”) under subheadings 7219.11.00, 7219.12.00, 7219.31.00, 7219.90.00, 7220.11.00, 7220.20.10,

7220.20.60, and 7220.90.00.34 U.S. normal trade relations tariffs on stainless steel coiled plate ranged as

high as 11.6 percent ad valorem in 1994. Tariffs were eliminated in annual stages following the Uruguay

Round of multilateral tariff negotiations, beginning in 1995, and general duty rates ranged between 4.0

percent and 8.1 percent in 1997, the last year for which data were collected during the original

investigations. The general duty rates on these provisions have been free since 2004.

 33 Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium, Italy, South Africa, South Korea, and Taiwan: Final Results of

the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders, 75 FR 61699, October 6, 2010. This scope language

reflects the March 11, 2003, amendment of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders and suspension of

liquidation which Commerce implemented in accordance with the Court of International Trade decision in

Allegheny Ludlum v. United States, Slip Op. 02–147 (Dec. 12, 2002). See also Notice of Amended Antidumping

Duty Orders; Certain Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium, Canada, Italy, the Republic of Korea, South

Africa, and Taiwan, 68 FR 11520, March 11, 2003; and Notice of Amended Countervailing Duty Orders; Certain

Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium, Italy, and South Africa, 68 FR 11524, March 11, 2003.

 34 Stainless steel coiled plate is imported under the following statistical reporting numbers of the HTSUS: 

7219.11.00.30, 7219.11.00.60, 7219.12.00.06, 7219.12.00.21, 7219.12.00.26, 7219.12.00.51, 7219.12.00.56,

7219.12.00.66, 7219.12.00.71, 7219.12.00.81, 7219.31.00.10, 7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25,

7219.90.00.60, 7219.90.00.80, 7220.11.00.00, 7220.20.10.10, 7220.20.10.15, 7220.20.10.60, 7220.20.10.80,

7220.20.60.05, 7220.20.60.10, 7220.20.60.15, 7220.20.60.60, 7220.20.60.80, 7220.90.00.10, 7220.90.00.15,

7220.90.00.60, and 7220.90.00.80. Although the HTSUS statistical reporting numbers are provided for convenience

and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under order is dispositive.

I-21
THE PRODUCT

Description and Applications

Description

The stainless steel plate subject to these reviews is a flat-rolled stainless steel product, 254 mm

(10 inches) or greater in width, 4.75 mm (0.1875 inch) or greater in thickness, that is annealed or

otherwise heat-treated and pickled (subjected to an acid rinse to remove surface scale) or otherwise

descaled, and rolled into a coil. The subject plate may also be further processed (e.g., cold-rolled,

polished, etc.) provided that it maintains the specified dimensions of plate following such processing. 

Excluded from the scope of the reviews are the following: (1) plate not in coils, (2) plate that is not

annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled,35 (3) sheet and strip,36 and (4) flat

bars.37

Plate normally is sold either in coil form or as flat, rectangular shapes. While the capabilities of

each producing mill are unique, plate can be manufactured in coils as wide as 96 inches and as thick as

0.5 inch, and is also sold in rectangular shapes flattened and cut-to-length from coils in the same range of

thicknesses and widths as in coils. Flat plate is also available wider than 96 inches and/or thicker than

0.5 inch as product produced on a plate mill and never coiled. Neither the product cut from coils

(sometimes called cut-to-length (“CTL”) plate) nor the product of plate mills (sometimes called plate mill

plate (“PMP”) or discrete plate) is subject to these reviews.

Stainless steel is a low carbon steel which contains 10.5 percent or more chromium by weight. 

The addition of chromium gives the steel its corrosion resisting properties. Other alloying elements can

be added to impart various characteristics, but all stainless steels contain chromium at a minimum.38

There are over 100 different stainless steel alloys, each with its own characteristics. Moreover, 

there are several stainless steel classification systems. These include broad groupings by metallurgical

structure, more specific alloy numbering systems such as the American Iron and Steel Institute (“AISI”)

classification system using the 200, 300, and 400 series numbers which correspond to metallurgical

structure, as well as the Universal Numbering System used for all commercial metals and alloys. The

broad metallurgical groupings are austenitic, ferritic, martensitic, precipitation-hardening, and duplex

(table I-9).39 The precipitation-hardening and duplex types are less widely used than the others. Each

alloying element imparts certain characteristics to the steel (table I-10). 

 35 Hot-rolled black band (“HRB”), the intermediate stainless flat-rolled product produced after stainless steel slab

is rolled but before the rolled material is annealed and pickled, is not within the product scope. See “Hot rolling the

slabs” section later in this report. 

 36 Sheet and strip are flat-rolled products that are produced by similar methods as plate and share many of the

characteristics of plate. Sheet is product that is under 4.75 mm in thickness and 600 mm (24 inches) and greater in

width. Strip is product that is under 4.75 mm in thickness and under 600 mm in width.

 37 Flat bars are 4.75 mm (0.1875 inch) or greater in thickness and may equal or exceed 254 mm (10 inches) in

width. Flat bars are rolled with grooved rolls on a bar mill with, accordingly, edges that do not need trimming.

 38 Other alloying elements can include nickel, molybdenum, manganese, among others.

 39 The terms austenitic, ferritic, martensitic, and duplex refer to the crystallographic structure of the alloy while

precipitation-hardenable refers to a particular type of annealing. ASM International, ASM Specialty Handbook: 

Stainless Steels, pp. 5-8, 1994.

I-22
Table I-9

Stainless steel coiled plate: Characteristics by type of steel

Type Qualities Typical applications

AISI grade 200 series ! Austenitic metallurgical structure

! Primary alloying elements are chromium,

nickel, and manganese

! Non-magnetic

! Cannot be heat treated

! Excellent formability 

AISI grades 201, 202, 203, 204, and 205 

- Structural applications

AISI grade 300 series ! Austenitic metallurgical structure

! Primary alloying elements are chromium

(15-30 percent) and nickel (6-20 percent)

! Excellent corrosion resistance 

! Cannot be heat treated but can be

hardened by “cold working” 

! Non-magnetic 

! Good high and low temperature

mechanical properties 

! Can be polished to a bright mirror finish

AISI grades 304 and 316 are the major grades 

- Chemical processing 

equipment

- Food processing equipment

- Oil refining equipment

- Paper industry digesters,

evaporators & handling

equipment

AISI grade 400 series

(“Non-hardenable”)

! Ferritic metallurgical structure

! Primary alloying element is chromium 

! Does not contain nickel

! Good corrosion resistance 

! Magnetic 

! Limited temperature use 

! Can be polished

AISI grades 409 and 430 are the most common 

- Bank vaults

- Combustion chambers

- Tanks

AISI grade 400 series

(“Hardenable”)

! Martensitic metallurgical structure

! Chromium as the principal alloying

element

! Carbon content of about 0.15 percent

! Adequate corrosion resistance 

! Hardenable by heat treatment 

! Magnetic 

! Somewhat limited temperature use 

AISI grades 410, 420, and 440 are the most

common

- Press plates

- Coal chutes

- Oil burner parts

Precipitation-hardening

metallurgical structure

! Primary alloying elements are chromium

and nickel

! Hardened by special heat treatment to

great strength

-Petro-chemical equipment

Duplex metallurgical

structure

! When heat-treated, metallurgical

structure is about half austenitic and half

ferritic

! Superior to the austenitic steels in

resistance to chloride stress corrosion

cracking, excellent pitting and crevice

corrosion resistance

-Pipelines

-Pressure shafting

Source: Specialty Steel Industry of North America, “Stainless Steel Overview: Applications,”

http://www.ssina.com/overview/learn.html, retrieved June 15, 2011, and “Stainless Steel Overview: Alloy Classifications,”

http://www.ssina.com/overview/alloy.html, retrieved June 15, 2011.

I-23
Table I-10

Stainless steel coiled plate: Properties imparted by common alloying elements

Alloying element Properties imparted

Chromium - Resists rust

Nickel

- Increases ductility

- Increases toughness

- Increases corrosion resistance to acids

- Creates non-magnetic structure

Molybdenum - Increases pitting and crevice corrosion resistance 

 - Increase resistance to chlorides

Manganese - Substitutes for nickel in the AISI 200 grade series

Source: Specialty Steel Industry of North America, “Stainless Steel Overview: Alloying Elements Summary,”

http://www.ssina.com/overview/alloyelements_summary.html, retrieved April 19, 2011.

Applications

Stainless steel plate is used for the fabrication of storage tanks, process vessels, and equipment in

the chemical, dairy, restaurant, pulp and paper, pharmaceutical, and other industries where the corrosion

resistance, heat resistance, or ease of maintenance of stainless steel is needed. Another major market for

the product is for the production of stainless steel tubing for use in the same industries mentioned above. 

Tubing manufacturers would normally have the ability to feed the material directly into a tube-making

machine where it would be formed into a round tube, welded, and cut to length as a tube. For smaller

diameter tubes, the subject product would first be slit into a number of individual coils of the required

width. This slitting might be done by the tubing manufacturer or by a warehouse or service center.40

Manufacturing Process41

The basic steps in stainless steel plate production are: (1) stainless steel production; (2) the

casting of slabs, a semifinished flat-rolled product; (3) hot-rolling the slabs; and, if specified, (4) coldrolling the hot-rolled products; and, if specified, (5) finishing (figure I-1).

 40 Specialty Steel Industry of North America, “Stainless Steel Overview: Applications, Mill Forms>Plate,”

http://www.ssina.com/overview/plate.html, retrieved June 15, 2011, and “Stainless Steel Overview: Applications,

Mill Forms>Tubing,” http://www.ssina.com/overview/tubing.html, retrieved June 15, 2011. 

 41 The information in this section of the report is derived from the original investigations. See Certain Stainless

Steel Plate from Belgium, Canada, Italy, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-376, 377, and 379

(Final) and 731-TA-788-793 (Final), USITC Publication 3188, May 1999, pp. I-5 and I-6.

I-24
Figure I-1

Stainless steel coiled plate: Production process

1 Stainless steel coil at this point is not yet annealed and pickled. The coil at this point is hot-rolled black band and 

is not within the product scope. 

2 After the stainless steel is hot-rolled annealed and pickled it is within the product scope. The product at this stage

is also known as white band. Stainless steel coiled plate can be sold at this point, be moved to finishing operations

such as slitting, cut to length, or continue in the process to cold rolling. The production process, up to this point, is

similar for stainless steel coiled plate and stainless steel sheet and strip in coil form. The only difference between the

two products is the thickness of the steel on the coil. Typically, processing for stainless steel coiled plate ends here. 

3 If bright annealing is required, it takes place at this stage instead of the usual pickling and annealing. With bright

annealing the pickling step is eliminated. 

4 If desired, the coil can undergo finishing operations. Note that if the coil is cut to length, it is no longer within the

product scope.

Source: NAS, Flat Products Brochure, p. 14, 

http://www.northamericanstainless.com/wp-content/themes/northamericanstainless/pdf/NAS_Flat_Products_

Brochure.pdf, retrieved June 15, 2011, used by permission and modified by Commission staff. 

I-25
Stainless Steel Production

Mills produce stainless steel by melting raw material—usually selected stainless (or other types

of) steel scrap and various ferroalloys (of chromium, nickel, and molybdenum) in an electric arc furnace. 

The resultant liquid steel is tapped into a furnace ladle and transferred to an argon-oxygen decarburization

(“AOD”) vessel for further refinement (also known as secondary steelmaking) in which oxygen, gradually

replaced by argon, is blown through the molten steel, to eliminate impurities.42 An alternate method of

removing impurities from molten stainless steel is to use vacuum oxygen decarburization (“VOD”), in

which the molten metal is placed in a vacuum while oxygen is bubbled through it. The molten metal’s

chemistry is tested frequently at this stage with the results used to calculate the exact amount of

ferroalloys to be added in order to produce steel with specific properties according to end-use

applications. Care is taken at this stage to assure that only the least costly raw materials are used, and in

the minimum quantity necessary to meet the specification. This is particularly important in the

production of stainless steel because the alloying elements nickel, molybdenum, and chromium, as well as

the steel scrap, account for most of the total cost.43 Once the desired chemical composition is achieved,

the molten stainless steel is transferred in a preheated transfer ladle to the continuous slab caster for

solidification into slabs, the wide semifinished products from which flat-rolled products are rolled.

Slab Casting

The molten stainless steel is poured into a tundish (reservoir dam) which controls the flow into

the top of the mold of the continuous casting machine. Solid surfaces form as the molten stainless steel

passes through and out the bottom of the mold, and the slab solidifies as it slowly descends through the

caster. The resulting slabs are 5 to 8 inches thick and up to 100 inches wide, depending on mill capability

and the flat-rolled product that will be produced from the slab. The continuous slab is cut into lengths of

up to about 35 feet for further processing. The length is limited by the mill’s reheating and/or rolling

capability. The slab is then inspected and conditioned by grinding the surface to remove scale and

defects, in preparation for rolling in coil form on the hot-strip mill. Before it enters the rolling mill, the

slab is charged in a gas-fired reheating furnace to a rolling temperature of 2,250-2,300 degrees

Fahrenheit. After reaching the appropriate temperature, the slab exits the furnace and enters the hot-strip

mill.

Hot Rolling the Slabs

For a mill designed primarily to produce stainless steel, the roughing mill is generally a reversing

mill in which the slabs are rolled to a thickness of about one inch in a succession of rolling passes. The

finishing mill is either a reversing mill of the Steckel type, which is equipped to coil the stainless steel

bands after each pass in order to conserve space and temperature, or a continuous mill made up of a series

of individual rolling stands that may be hundreds of yards long and with the bands passing continuously

through the stands in one direction only. Finally, the bands continue on to a coiler, where they are

 42 AK Steel claims to have the largest AOD unit in the world, with a capacity of 175 tons, at its Butler, PA

facility. AK Steel, “Facilities, Butler Works,” http://www.aksteel.com/production_facilities/butler.aspx, retrieved

June 15, 2011. 

 43 ***.

I-26
wrapped into coils.44 At this point the product is called hot-rolled black (HRB) band due to the layer of

dark-colored oxide that forms on the steel’s surface when it is exposed to oxygen at high temperatures. 

Annealing

Rolling the steel creates internal stresses and makes the steel harder. Annealing, a form of heat

treatment, relieves the stresses and softens the steel. After cooling down from the hot-rolling process, the

black band passes through a continuous furnace in which it is heated to annealing temperatures, about

2,000 degrees Fahrenheit depending on the stainless steel grade, and then quickly cooled. The heat

treatment creates a dark colored oxide scale on the surface of the steel. The band next passes through a

grit-blasting machine in which the scale from the hot mill and the annealing furnace is broken up by using

small particles of steel grit thrown at high speed by centrifugal wheels. 

Pickling

The next process the band undergoes is pickling, an acid wash which removes the dark oxide

scale and surface defects, and imparts corrosion resistance. The band passes through pickling tanks

which contain acid to descale the steel, followed by a water rinse. Annealing and pickling are usually

performed on a continuous process line, although they can be performed in separate units. The product at

this point is considered white coil or white band, or hot-rolled annealed and pickled (“HRAP”) coil or

HRAP band. Most stainless steel coiled plate is sold at this stage.45

Cold Rolling

A small proportion of stainless steel plate is produced and sold as cold-rolled.46 Cold-rolled

stainless steel coiled plate is manufactured by transferring HRAP coil to a cold-rolling mill to reduce the

product’s thickness. Cold rolling involves a further reduction in thickness. Depending on the desired

thickness of the end product, various numbers of cold-rolling passes through the mill may be required to

achieve the necessary reduction. As in hot-rolling, the material hardens after a certain amount of

cold-rolling. Further cold-rolling becomes difficult at this point so annealing (to soften the material) and

pickling, several times may be necessary to achieve the desired final thickness. The final product is

considered cold-rolled, annealed, and pickled coil.47 If specified, after cold rolling the coil can be bright

 44 Because the slabs are fed into the mill at an elevated temperature, the mill is known as a “hot-strip mill.”

 45 The production process for stainless steel plate is the same as that of stainless steel sheet and strip through the

hot rolling process. Stainless steel plate is typically not cold rolled.

 46 No U.S. producer reported production of cold-rolled stainless steel coiled plate during 2005-10. Of reporting

foreign producers, cold-rolled plate accounted for *** percent of annual production of stainless steel coiled plate in

Belgium; *** percent of annual stainless steel plate production in Italy; and *** percent of annual production in

Korea. U.S. and foreign producers’ questionnaire responses, section II-8b for U.S. producers and II-8 for foreign

producers.

 47 Either HRAP plate or cold-rolled annealed and pickled plate may be further finished in a temper mill or coldrolling mill with a very light cold-rolling pass, known as a temper pass or skin pass. The purpose of the temper or

skin pass is to provide a required surface finish and/or to improve the flatness of the coiled product. Such a temper

or skin pass does not create the need for another annealing step and does not change the classification of hot-rolled

plate to cold-rolled plate. 

I-27
annealed.48 In bright annealing, the coil is placed in a special furnace that heats the coil in an oxygen-free

reducing atmosphere. Bright annealing does not create the dark oxide scale on the coil and so the

pickling step is unnecessary. This type of annealing produces a mirror-like appearance and is often used

when a highly reflective surface is desired.49 Cold-rolled stainless steel plate has a smoother finish with

greater freedom from surface imperfections than hot-rolled plate and is used for a limited number of

specialized applications such as containers and tanks for food processing, beer brewing, and dairies where

smooth surfaces that can be easily cleaned are essential. 

Finishing

Stainless steel coiled plate may undergo additional finishing operations. For example, once the

hot-rolled anneal and pickle (and, if required, cold-rolled anneal and pickle) step is complete, the steel

may undergo a temper roll (skin pass) to improve surface condition. However, this step does not involve

any further thickness reduction in the material. A finish may also be applied to the product. As shown in

table I-11, stainless steel coiled plate is available in a number of standard finishes. Special finishes,

including “rolled-on” embossing, etching, special surface mechanical treatment to provide, for example,

perforations, electromechanical coloring and plating can also be performed.50 Although not a “standard

industry finish,” some producers offer a bright annealed finish; see discussion of bright annealing in the

previous cold rolling section. 

 48 Bright annealing is performed by U.S. producers (domestic interested parties' posthearing brief, p.7 note 2) 

such as AK Steel and Allegheny Ludlum. AK Steel, Stainless Steel Comparator,

http://www.aksteel.com/pdf/markets_products/stainless/Stainless_Steel_Comparator.pdf, and Allegheny Ludlum,

“Process and Plant Capabilities,”

http://www.alleghenytechnologies.com/ludlum/pages/facilities/Louisville.asp?qdirections=, retrieved June 15, 2011. 

 49 Specialty Steel Industry of North America, “Standard Finishes: Which products are you planning to use?”

http://www.ssina.com/finishes/whichproducts.html, retrieved June 15, 2011. 

 50 Specialty Steel Industry of North America, Designer Handbook: Stainless Steel Primer, p. 2,

http://www.ssina.com/download_a_file/primerupdatebroc.pdf, retrieved June 15, 2011.

I-28
Table I-11

Stainless steel coiled plate: Production stages/finishes

Production stage and finish Description

Hot rolled (HRB) Scale not removed. Not heat treated. Plates not

recommended for final use in this condition.

Hot rolled and annealed Scale not removed. Use of plates in this condition is

generally confined to heat resisting applications. Scale

impairs corrosion resistance.

Hot rolled, annealed, pickled (HRAP) Condition and finish commonly preferred for corrosion

resisting and most heat resisting applications.

Hot rolled, annealed, pickled and temper passed Smoother finish for specialized applications.

Hot rolled annealed, pickled, cold rolled, annealed

pickled, optionally temper passed

Smooth finish with greater freedom from surface

imperfections than the above.

Hot rolled, annealed, pickled, polished Polished finishes such as:

Polished bright surface with 

reasonable reflectivity, although it 

contains visible “grit lines” which 

prevent mirror reflection

Dull satin finish with less 

reflectivity than the above-mentioned

finish

Highly reflective surface finish

but still maintains some light “grit” lines.

Reflective finish with a mirror-like

reflectivity.

Source: Specialty Steel Industry of North America, “Why Stainless Steel,” http://www.ssina.com/download_a_file/why.pdf, 

retrieved June 15, 2011.

Stainless steel coiled plate may also be cut-to-length. Cut-to-length plate produced from coiled

plate is made by putting the coil into a cut-to-length line which unrolls the coil, levels and then cuts it to

desired length. Cut-to-length plate is not within the product scope of these reviews. The primary

purchasers of stainless steel coiled plate are the major distributors, pipe producers, and tank

manufacturers. The major distributors reportedly prefer to inventory coiled plate because they have the

equipment to cut the coil into any desired length by the end user. Pipe and tank manufacturers reportedly

prefer coiled plate that they can cut to length and weld.51

 51 Hearing transcript, May 26, p. 31 (Blot).

I-29
DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT ISSUES

In its original determinations after remand and its full first five-year review determinations, the

Commission ultimately defined a single domestic like product consisting of hot-rolled and cold-rolled

stainless steel coiled plate, coextensive with Commerce’s scope,52 and a single domestic industry

comprised of U.S. producers of the domestic like product.53 While the Commission majority in the

original determinations defined two separate domestic like products (i.e., hot-rolled stainless steel coiled

plate and cold-rolled stainless steel coiled plate) and two separate domestic industries comprised of U.S.

producers of the corresponding domestic like products, two Commissioners dissented, finding instead one

domestic like product and one domestic industry.54 On remand, after a change in the Commission’s

composition, the Commission majority found a single domestic like product containing both hot- and

cold-rolled stainless steel coiled plate and a single domestic industry comprised of U.S. producers of the

domestic like product.

In its notice of institution in these current five-year reviews, the Commission solicited comments

from interested parties regarding the appropriate domestic like product and domestic industry.55 The

domestic producers indicated in their response to the Commission’s notice of institution that they agree

with the Commission’s like product definition in its remand determinations and assert that there has been

no material change in the market that would alter the Commission’s analysis.56 The respondent interested

parties took no position on the Commission’s like product definition. No party requested that the

Commission collect data concerning other possible domestic like products in their comments on the

Commission’s draft questionnaires. No other interested party provided further comment on the domestic

like product. In their prehearing brief, domestic interested parties reiterated their support for the

Commission’s like product definition.57

U.S. MARKET PARTICIPANTS

U.S. Producers

At the time of the original investigations, there were six domestic producers in the United States: 

Allegheny Ludlum; Armco (now AK Steel); Avesta Sheffield NAD, Inc. (later known as Avesta Polarit)

(“Avesta”); J&L; NAS; and Washington Steel. All but one of the six firms (i.e., Avesta) were petitioners. 

The five petitioning firms accounted for *** percent of U.S. stainless steel coiled plate production in

1997.

The industry was in the midst of restructuring and consolidation during the original investigations

and first reviews. At the time of the Commission’s determinations in the first reviews of the orders in

 52 The subject stainless steel coiled plate are flat-rolled products, 254 mm or over in width and 4.75 mm or more

in thickness.

 53 Certain Stainless Steel Plate From Belgium, Canada, Italy, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan, Invs. Nos.

701-TA-376, 377 and 379 (Final) and 731-TA-788-793 (Final) (Remand), USITC Publication 3541, September

2002; and Certain Stainless Steel Plate From Belgium, Canada, Italy, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan, Inv. Nos.

701-TA-376, 377 and 379 and 731-TA-788-793 (Review), USITC Publication 3784, June 2005, pp. 4-6.

 54 Certain Stainless Steel Plate From Belgium, Canada, Italy, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan, Invs. Nos.

701-TA-376, 377 and 379 (Final) and 731-TA-788-793 (Final), USITC Publication 3188, May 1999, p. 7.

 55 Stainless Steel Plate From Belgium, Italy, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan, 75 FR 30434, June 1, 2010.

 56 Substantive Response of domestic interested parties, pp. 16-18.

 57 Prehearing brief of domestic interested parties, p. 4.

I-30
June 2005, three domestic producers of stainless steel coiled plate were in operation – AK Steel,

Allegheny Ludlum, and NAS. The interested parties participating in these second reviews of the orders

identified the same three currently operating domestic producers in their responses to the Commission’s

notice of institution.58 The Commission received questionnaire data from the three companies, which are

believed to represent all active stainless steel coiled plate production in the United States. Presented in

table I-12 is a list of current domestic producers of stainless steel coiled plate and each company’s

position on continuation of the orders, production location(s), related and/or affiliated firms, and share of

reported production of stainless steel coiled plate in 2010.

Table I-12

Stainless steel coiled plate: U.S. producers, positions on the orders, U.S. production locations,

related and/or affiliated firms, and shares of 2010 reported U.S. production

Firm Mill location(s) Parent company Position on orders

Share of

production

(percent)

AK Steel

West Chester, OH

Butler, PA

Middletown, OH AK Steel (U.S.) *** ***

Allegheny Ludlum Brackenridge, PA

Allegheny

Technologies

Incorporated1 *** ***

NAS Ghent, KY

Acerinox, S.A.

(Spain)2 *** ***

 1 Allegheny Technologies Incorporated is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol

“ATI.”

 2

 Acerinox, S.A. holds a 76 percent share in Columbus Stainless (Pty) Inc. (“Columbus Stainless”) (South

Africa), a foreign producer of the subject merchandise.

Note.–ThyssenKrupp Stainless USA plans to begin production of stainless steel coiled plate from an intermediate

product (black band) in late 2011 for captive consumption, and will sell the product in the merchant market in late

2013. ThyssenKrupp Stainless USA is related to foreign producer ThyssenKrupp Acciai Speciali Terni S.p.A.

(“TKAST”) and U.S. importer ThyssenKrupp Acciai Speciali Terni USA, Inc. (“TKAST USA”).

Note.–Because of rounding, shares may not total to 100.0 percent.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

 58 In addition, ThyssenKrupp Stainless USA plans to begin production of stainless steel coiled plate from an

intermediate product (black band) in late 2011. The company currently imports stainless steel coiled plate from

Germany (white band) for feedstock in its cold-rolling operations. Once its hot-rolling annealing and pickling line is

operational in the third quarter of 2011, ThyssenKrupp Stainless USA will stop importing white band and begin

importing nonsubject black band. The company will produce stainless steel coiled plate to be captively consumed in

the third quarter of 2011, and will be sold in the merchant market in late 2013. ThyssenKrupp Stainless USA

expects to produce over *** short tons of stainless steel coiled plate in 2011, *** short tons in 2012, approximately

*** short tons in 2013, and increasing to more than *** shorts tons in 2014. ThyssenKrupp Respondent Interested

Parties’ posthearing brief, pp. 10-11.

I-31
As indicated in the table above, U.S. producer NAS is related to foreign producers of stainless

steel coiled plate. NAS is owned by Acerinox, S.A., a Spanish specialty steel producer, which holds a 76

percent share in Columbus Stainless, a South African producer of the subject merchandise.59 Although

NAS and Columbus Stainless have common ownership, ***. Moreover, “***.”60 61 In addition, as

discussed in greater detail in Part III, no U.S. producers directly import or purchase the subject

merchandise from U.S. importers.

U.S. Importers

During the original investigations, 14 firms reported that they imported the subject merchandise

and provided usable data to the Commission. In addition, two domestic producers also imported subject

stainless steel coiled plate. These 16 firms were believed to have accounted for the vast majority of U.S.

imports from the six countries (including Canada) subject to the original investigations. The Commission

calculated U.S. imports based on questionnaire data from these firms during both the original and remand

investigations.62

In the first five-year reviews, six U.S. importers provided usable data to the Commission. 

However, importer questionnaire data for some of the subject sources (Canada, South Africa, and

Taiwan) were incomplete. Consequently, import data for these sources were derived from official

Commerce statistics using the so-called primary HTS statistical reporting numbers.63

 59 Substantive Response of domestic interested parties, July 1, 2010, p. 9; and

http://www.columbus.co.za/aboutus/aboutusmain.htm, retrieved April 1, 2011.

 60 Domestic Interested Parties’ posthearing brief, exh. 1 and exh. 2.

 61 In addition, ThyssenKrupp Stainless USA is related to Italian producer TKAST and U.S. importer

TKAST-USA. Respondents indicate that once ThyssenKrupp Stainless USA is fully operational, it will be unlikely

that stainless steel coiled plate from Italy will be imported, as the ThyssenKrupp entities will not compete with each

other for sales in the U.S. market. Substantive Response of TK interested parties, July 1, 2010, p. 3. Respondents

also indicate that the Vice President of Sales of ThyssenKrupp Stainless USA, Stephen Lacor, is responsible for

preventing any “detrimental actions” by affiliated companies to the U.S. market and to ThyssenKrupp Stainless

USA, and for ensuring the company’s local supply strategy. Mr. Lacor is responsible for taking action against

harmful imports from any of the ThyssenKrupp affiliated companies. ThyssenKrupp Respondent Interested Parties’

posthearing brief, exh. 11.

 62 Certain Stainless Steel Plate From Belgium, Canada, Italy, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan, Invs. Nos.

701-TA-376, 377 and 379 (Final) and 731-TA-788-793 (Final), USITC Publication 3188, May 1999, p. IV-1; and

Certain Stainless Steel Plate From Belgium, Canada, Italy, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan, Invs. Nos.

701-TA-376, 377 and 379 (Final) and 731-TA-788-793 (Final) (Remand), USITC Publication 3541, September

2002, p. II-1; and Certain Stainless Steel Plate From Belgium, Canada, Italy, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan, Inv.

Nos. 701-TA-376, 377 and 379 and 731-TA-788-793 (Review), USITC Publication 3784, June 2005, pp. 4-6.

 63 Official Commerce statistics for the period examined in the original and remand investigations contained

nonsubject plate and other products along with the subject imports. This situation still exists although subsequent

modifications to the HTS, particularly in 2001, have resulted in a closer concordance between the HTS and the

definition of the subject merchandise. During the first five-year reviews, the Commission used “primary” HTS

statistical reporting numbers, identified by the domestic interested parties, to calculate U.S. imports. The primary

HTS statistical reporting numbers (those that contain only subject merchandise or, for most but not all sources,

relatively small amounts of plate that is not annealed or otherwise heat-treated) that were identified by the domestic

interested parties are as follows: 7219.11.0030, 7219.11.0060, 7219.12.0006, 7219.12.0021, 7219.12.0026,

7219.12.0051, 7219.12.0056, 7219.12.0066, 7219.12.0071, 7219.12.0081, and 7219.31.0010. The remaining, or

“secondary,” HTS statistical reporting numbers refer primarily to stainless steel sheet and strip products, and contain

(continued...)

I-32
In these current proceedings, the Commission issued importers’ questionnaires to 70 firms

believed to be importers of subject stainless steel coiled plate, as well as to all U.S. producers of stainless

steel coiled plate. Usable questionnaire responses were received by seven companies, representing

virtually all of total imports from Belgium, Italy, Korea, and nonsubject sources.64 Importer questionnaire

data for South Africa and Taiwan are incomplete. Consequently, as in the first five-year reviews, import

data for these sources are derived from official Commerce statistics using the primary HTS statistical

reporting numbers. Table I-13 lists all responding U.S. importers of stainless steel coiled plate from the

five subject sources and other sources, their locations, and their shares of U.S. imports in 2010.

Table I-13

Stainless steel coiled plate: U.S. importers, source(s) of imports, U.S. headquarters, and shares of

imports in 2010

Firm Headquarters

Parent

Company

Share of imports (percent)

Belgium Italy Korea

South

Africa Taiwan Other Total

ArcelorMittalNew

Providence, NJ

Arcelor USA

Holding LLC *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Baosteel Montvale, NJ

Baoshan Iron

& Steel Co.

(China) *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Olbert Metal

Sales

University Park,

FL

Olbert Metal

Sales

(Canada) *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Outokumpu Schaumburg, IL

Outokumpu

(U.S.) *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ryerson Chicaco, IL

Platinum

Equity LLC

(U.S.) *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Sumitomo1

Los Angeles,

CA

Sumitomo

Corporation

(Japan) *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

TKNNA

Bannockburn,

IL

ThyssenKrupp

USA, Inc.

(U.S.) *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 1 ***.

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

 63 (...continued)

minimal, if any, imports of subject merchandise.

 64 Twenty-eight firms reported that they have not imported stainless steel coiled plate since 2005.

I-33
U.S. Purchasers

The Commission received 10 useable purchaser questionnaire responses from firms that bought

stainless steel coiled plate during 2005-10.65 These firms reported purchases totaling 102,434 short tons

in 2010. The largest purchasers were ***. Six purchasers indicated that they were distributors, 5

processors/service centers, and 2 tubular products producers.66

APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION

Data concerning apparent U.S. consumption of stainless steel coiled plate during the period for

which data were collected in this proceeding are shown in table I-14.

 65 Of the 10 responding purchasers, 10 reported purchase data for domestic product, 4 for imports from Belgium,

0 for Italy, 0 for Korea, 3 for South Africa, 0 for Taiwan, and 7 for other sources.

 66 Some purchasers selected more than one category.

I-34
Table I-14

Stainless steel coiled plate: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. shipments of imports, and

apparent U.S. consumption, 2005-10

Item

Calendar year

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Quantity (short tons)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments of imports from1

–

Belgium *** *** *** *** *** ***

Italy *** *** *** *** *** ***

Korea *** *** *** *** *** ***

South Africa 341 1,320 1,176 34 2 69

Taiwan 373 96 101 18 0 3

Subtotal, subject *** *** *** *** *** ***

Nonsubject countries *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total *** *** *** *** *** ***

Apparent U.S. consumption 122,928 188,868 143,887 84,758 85,046 107,512

Value (1,000 dollars)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments of imports from1

–

Belgium *** *** *** *** *** ***

Italy *** *** *** *** *** ***

Korea *** *** *** *** *** ***

South Africa 922 2,357 2,783 102 14 125

Taiwan 967 269 454 87 0 11

Subtotal, subject *** *** *** *** *** ***

Nonsubject countries *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total *** *** *** *** *** ***

Apparent U.S. consumption 321,113 584,026 688,479 353,285 187,337 346,755

 1 Official Commerce statistics used for U.S. imports from Taiwan and South Africa.

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and official Commerce statistics.

I-35
U.S. MARKET SHARES

U.S. market share data are presented in table I-15.

Table I-15

Stainless steel coiled plate: U.S. consumption and market shares, 2005-10

Item

Calendar year

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Quantity (short tons)

Apparent U.S. consumption 122,928 188,868 143,887 84,758 85,046 107,512

Value (1,000 dollars)

Apparent U.S. consumption 321,113 584,026 688,479 353,285 187,337 346,755

Share of quantity (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments of imports from1

--

Belgium *** *** *** *** *** ***

Italy *** *** *** *** *** ***

Korea *** *** *** *** *** ***

South Africa 0.3 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.1

Taiwan 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

Subtotal, subject *** *** *** *** *** ***

Nonsubject countries *** *** *** *** *** ***

All countries *** *** *** *** *** ***

Share of value (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments of imports from1

--

Belgium *** *** *** *** *** ***

Italy *** *** *** *** *** ***

Korea *** *** *** *** *** ***

South Africa 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

Taiwan 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

Subtotal, subject *** *** *** *** *** ***

Nonsubject countries *** *** *** *** *** ***

All countries *** *** *** *** *** ***

 1 Official Commerce statistics used for U.S. imports from Taiwan and South Africa.

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and official Commerce statistics.

I-36
PART II: CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION IN THE U.S. MARKET

Stainless steel coiled plate is an input used in industrial applications (storage tanks and process

vessels, tubing, and transportation equipment). End uses include pipe and fittings, fabrication, storage

tanks/process vessels, automotive and railcar uses, appliance/food service/kitchen equipment,

petrochemical industry, construction, agriculture, and energy markets. The major purchasers of stainless

steel coil plate are distributors, pipe producers, and tank manufacturers.1

 Since 2005, the growth of China

as a producer and consumer of stainless steel coiled plate, the economic downturn in the United States

and abroad, and fluctuating pricing of raw material inputs have had an effect on the stainless steel coiled

plate market.

CHANNELS OF DISTRIBUTION

Stainless steel coiled plate is sold mainly to service centers, although it is also sold directly to end

users. Service centers may further process the stainless steel coiled plate to customer specifications. 

Service centers often uncoil, level, and cut stainless steel coiled plate to length; they may also slit and reedge the product before selling to end users such as fabricators. 

During 2005-10, more than two-thirds of U.S. producers’ sales were to distributors/processors/

service centers and almost one-third were to end users (table II-1). Sales of imports from Belgium were

*** to distributors, as was the large majority of imports from nonsubject countries; extremely limited data

were available for other subject countries.

 1 Hearing transcript, May 26, p. 31 (Blot).

II-1
Table II-1

Stainless steel coiled plate: U.S. producers’ and importers’ U.S. shipments, by sources and

channels of distribution, 2005-10

Item

Period

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

 Share of reported shipments (percent)

Domestic producers’ U.S. shipments:

 Distributors/processors/service centers *** *** *** *** *** ***

 End users *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of product from Belgium:

 Distributors/processors/service centers *** *** *** *** *** ***

 End users *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of product from nonsubject countries:

 Distributors/processors/service centers *** *** *** *** *** ***

 End users *** *** *** *** *** ***

Note.–Data for domestic producers include only U.S. commercial shipments. Data for Belgium is substantially

complete. ***. No data were available for Italy, Korea, or Taiwan. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION

U.S. producers reported selling stainless steel coiled plate to all regions in the contiguous United

States (table II-2). The sole importer of product from Belgium reported selling to ***. For U.S.

producers, *** percent of sales were within 100 miles of their production facility, *** percent were

between 101 and 1,000 miles, and *** percent were over 1,000 miles. For Belgium, the only responding

importer sold *** percent within 100 miles of its U.S. point of shipment and *** percent between 101

and 1,000 miles. TKUSA reported that its Alabama mill will replace imports, particularly on the West

Coast, with product to be shipped by rail.2

 2 Hearing transcript, May 25, pp. 188-189 and 195-196 (Malashevich, Lacor, and Salas).

II-2
Table II-2

Stainless steel coiled plate: Geographic market areas in the United States served by U.S.

producers and importers

Region

U.S. producers

Importers

Belgium Nonsubject countries

Number of firms

Northeast 2 *** 4

Midwest 2 *** 3

Southeast 2 *** 4

Central Southwest 2 *** 4

Mountains 2 *** 3

Pacific Coast 2 *** 4

Other 0 *** 0

Note.–No data were reported for Italy, Korea, South Africa, or Taiwan.

Note.– Producer, *** did not respond to the questions in this part of the questionnaire. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS

U.S. Supply

Domestic Production

Based on available information, U.S. stainless steel coiled plate producers have the capability to

respond to changes in demand with large changes in shipments to the U.S. market. The main contributing

factors to the high degree of responsiveness of supply are the availability of unused capacity and

increasing overall industry capacity. 

Industry capacity

Domestic capacity increased from *** short tons in 2005 to *** short tons in 2010, while

capacity utilization decreased irregularly from *** percent in 2005 to *** percent in 2010. This low level

of capacity utilization suggests that U.S. producers may have large amounts of available capacity to

increase production of stainless steel coiled plate in response to an increase in prices. 

Export markets

U.S. producers’ exports, as a percentage of total shipments, fluctuated during the review period,

but were *** percent in both 2005 and 2010. This level of exports indicates that U.S. producers may

have some capability to shift shipments between the U.S. market and other markets in response to price

changes.

II-3
Inventory levels

U.S. producers’ inventories increased irregularly from *** percent of total shipments in 2005 to

*** percent in 2010. These inventory levels suggest that U.S. producers may have some capability to

respond to changes in demand with changes in the quantity shipped from inventories. 

Production alternatives

All three responding producers stated that they could switch production from stainless steel coiled

plate to other products. Other products produced on the same equipment as stainless steel coiled plate are

nickel alloys and grain-oriented electrical steels (***), sheet and strip, cut-to-length products, and longproduct billets (***), and carbon steel, electrical steel, and sheet and strip (***). 

Subject Imports

Based on available information, producers in Belgium, Italy, and Korea producers likely have the

capability to respond to demand changes with moderate changes in the quantity of stainless steel coiled

plate shipped to the U.S. market. Producers in Taiwan and South Africa did not provide data, and

published data specific to stainless steel coiled plate is extremely limited. Country specific factors

contributing to supply responsiveness are outlined in table II-3.

Table II-3

Stainless steel coiled plate: Capacity, capacity utilization, inventories, sales to various markets,

and overall capability to shift sales to the United States

*******

Factors that affect firms’ capability to increase sales to the U.S. market include capacity and

capacity utilization rates, internal consumption, inventories, and shipments to various markets.3

Production capacity in Italy and Korea decreased from 2005-10. Capacity utilization rates in Italy and

Korea decreased from 2005-10, and while such rates fell more in Italy than Korea, Korea’s overall

capacity was *** higher. The ratio of inventories to shipments was low for Belgium, Italy, and Korea.

Two of three foreign producers reported changes in factors effecting their supply to the U.S.

market. Specifically, *** reported that growing demand in Asia and other non-U.S. markets would likely

reduce their U.S. shipments. In addition, *** reported that energy costs, and thus shipping costs to the

United States, have increased. ThyssenKrupp also reported that the construction of SL–USA ... replaces

the need to import from Europe and that it is not in TKAST’s economic interest to ship subject

merchandise to the United States.4

 3 According to domestic interested parties, the capacity utilization rates reported above do not fully reflect foreign

producers' ability to increase production, and that TKAST's overall ability to produce stainless steel coiled plate with

unused hot rolling capacity is the true measure of its capacity to ship this product to the United States. TKAST's

unused hot-rolled capacity in 2010 was at least ***. Domestic interested parties’ posthearing brief, p. 3.

 4

 ThyssenKrupp Respondent Interested Parties' posthearing brief, p. 8.

II-4
Nonsubject Imports

The largest sources of nonsubject imports during 2005-10 were Germany and Sweden. 

Combined, these countries accounted for *** percent of nonsubject imports in 2010.

Supply Limitations

*** reported allocations for four months in 2007 with hot-rolled products due to a surge in the

ethanol business while *** reported no supply limitations. Two of six responding importers reported

limiting supply. Specifically, *** reported that it did not import from countries covered by the

antidumping orders even if requested by customers and *** reported that since 2005, it has only sold

product from *** to historic customers, and that from 2005-07 it sold only on a controlled order basis. 

No purchaser reported that any suppliers refused, declined, or were unable to supply stainless steel coiled

plate.

U.S. Demand

Based on available information, purchasers have the capability to respond to changes in the price

of stainless steel coiled plate with small to moderate changes in their purchases of the product. The main

contributing factors to the low to moderate responsiveness of demand are the lack of commercially viable

substitute products and the moderate cost share of stainless steel coiled plate in the final products in

which it is used. 

End Uses

U.S. demand for stainless steel coiled plate depends on the demand for U.S.-produced 

downstream products. Reported end uses include: pipe and fittings, fabrication, storage tanks/process

vessels, automotive and railcar uses, appliance/food service/kitchen equipment industries, petrochemical

industry, construction, agriculture, and energy markets. Both responding producers, all six responding

importers, and all six responding purchasers reported no changes in end uses, and none or these

companies anticipated any changes in end uses. 

Business Cycles

Neither of the responding producers but three of six importers indicated that the market was

subject to business cycles or conditions of competition other than changes in the overall economy. 

Specifically, *** indicated that historically there have been three-four year cycles but that the cycles

appear to have shortened, *** reported that business cycles have shortened from seven years to three

years, and *** stated that the market tends to be slower in summer due to vacations and during

November-December due to closing inventory tax. 

Two of the ten responding purchasers reported that the stainless steel coiled plate market is

subject to business cycles. Specifically, one reported increased imports during economic downturns and

the other reported that raw material surcharges affect demand. Five of ten responding purchasers reported

changes in conditions of competition. Of these, two reported that demand has declined, one reported a

change in the number of distributors, and one reported that China has entered the market.5

 5 One did not specify what conditions had changed since 2005.

II-5
Apparent Consumption

Apparent U.S. consumption of stainless steel coiled plate fluctuated during 2005-10, increasing

from 122,928 short tons in 2005 to 188,868 short tons in 2006, declining to 84,758 short tons in 2008,

and then increasing to 107,512 short tons in 2010. Overall, apparent U.S. consumption in 2010 was 12.5

percent lower than in 2005. 

Firms indicated that demand for stainless steel coiled plate generally tracks overall economic

conditions. Quarterly real growth in U.S. GDP is presented in figure II-1. Average forecasts for U.S. real

GDP growth are 2.6 percent in 2011 and 3.1 percent in 2012.6

 Real industrial production is projected to

increase by 4.5 percent in 2011 and 4.1 percent in 2012.7

Figure II-1

Real U.S. GDP growth: Percentage change, quarterly, January 2005-March 2011 

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Industry publication MEPS reports that ***.8 Data on industrial production for overall

manufacturing, transportation equipment, and industrial machinery are shown in figure II-2.

 6 Blue Chip Economic Indicators, Vol. 36, No. 5, June 10, 2011. This average or consensus rate is derived from

monthly interviews of leading business economists and is one of the best known organizations for consensus

macroeconomic forecasts. See http://www.aeaweb.org/RFE/showRes.php?rfe_id=35&cat_id=, retrieved March 15,

2011. 

 7

 Ibid.

 8

 MEPS, May 2011 p. 3. ***. ***.

II-6
Figure II-2

Indices of industrial production (manufacturing, transportation equipment, and industrial

machinery), January 2005-April 2011

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization, May 17,

2011, http://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/releases/statisticsdata.htm.

Demand Perceptions

Firms’ perceptions of changes in U.S. demand during 2005-10 were mixed, with most firms

reporting that it fluctuated or decreased (table II-4).9

 Firms cited the recession in 2008-09 as the major

reason for decreased demand. Most firms expect U.S. demand to increase in 2011 and 2012. Producers 

*** reported that they expect gradual or modest growth in demand while importer *** expects 10 percent

growth in the next two years. Purchaser *** expects increased demand due to the increased need for

maintenance that has not been done during the recession and more industrial projects being quoted in

2011.

 9 Those firms reporting demand increased typically were reporting changes from the depth of the recession rather

than from 2005.

II-7
Table II-4

Stainless steel coiled plate: Firms' perceptions regarding U.S. demand

Item

Number of firms reporting

Increase Decrease Fluctuate No change

Demand since 2005

U.S. producers 0 1 1 0

Importers 0 1 4 1

Purchasers 2 6 1 1

Foreign producers 0 1 2 0

Demand for purchasers’ final products since 2005

U.S. purchasers 0 1 1 0

Demand in 2011 and 2012

U.S. producers 1 0 0 1

Importers 4 0 1 1

Purchasers 7 1 2 0

Foreign producers 3 0 0 0

Note.– Producer, *** did not respond to the questions in this part of the questionnaire. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Domestic interested parties expect a very modest increase in demand over the next three years,10

while ThyssenKrupp respondents expect strong market growth over the reasonably foreseeable future.11

Domestic interested parties testified that the apparent growth in consumption in 2010 was caused by (1)

the end of the recession and purchasing for products that had been on hold due to lack of financing, (2)

inventory rebuilding, and (3) and customers placing additional orders as raw material prices began

increasing.12 Allegheny Ludlum reported an increase in demand in the first three quarters of 2010, a

collapse in demand in the fourth quarter, and reported seeing some recovery in certain end-use markets

but that second quarter 2011 demand appears to be lagging when compared to the first quarter.13

Substitute Products

Substitutes for stainless steel coiled plate are very limited. No U.S. producers, importers, or 

purchasers reported that there were substitutes nor anticipated any future changes in substitutes. One of

the three responding foreign producers reported that painted carbon steel was a substitute in construction

equipment.

 10 Hearing transcript, May 26, p. 32-33 (Blot).

 11 ThyssenKrupp Respondent Interested Parties' posthearing brief, p. 5.

 12 Hearing transcript, May 26, p. 32-33 (Blot).

 13 Hearing transcript, May 26, p. 16-17, 88-89 (Hartford).

II-8
Cost Share

Stainless steel coiled plate accounts for a moderate to large share of the cost of the intermediate

products in which it is used, but a smaller share of final end-use products. Reported cost shares for some

end uses were as follows: 

• automotive (2 percent)

• pipe/fittings (65-90 percent)

• fabrication (42 percent)

• storage tanks/process vessels (60 percent)

• food service applications/appliances/kitchen equipment (5 percent)

• petroleum and chemical industry (30 percent)

• transportation/railcars (40 percent)

• rerollers (75 percent)

SUBSTITUTABILITY ISSUES

The degree of substitution between domestic and imported stainless steel coiled plate depends on

factors such as product specifications, quality, consistency, and conditions of sale (such as reliability of

supply, delivery lead times, and payment terms). Based on available data, staff believes there is a 

moderate to high degree of substitutability between U.S.-produced stainless steel coiled plate and that

imported from subject countries. Product from Belgium is likely to be slightly less substitutable since

product from Belgium is reportedly available in wide-widths that are not currently produced domestically. 

Knowledge of Country Sources

Purchasers were asked to indicate the countries of origin for which they have actual stainless steel

coiled plate marketing/pricing knowledge. Ten purchasers were familiar with U.S.-produced product, 5

were familiar with product from Belgium and nonsubject countries, and none were familiar with product

from the other subject countries.

As shown in the tabulation below, half of purchasers always or usually make purchases based on

the producer and 3 of 10 based on country of origin. Reasons cited for purchasing based on the producer

include: partnership with mill on widths, stocking programs, lead times, need to know the name of

producing mill, reliability of supply, price and consistency of pricing, availability, and customer service. 

All purchasers’ customers, in contrast, were reported to only sometimes or never make purchasing

decisions based on the producer or country of origin. 

Purchaser / Customer Decision Always Usually Sometimes Never

Purchaser makes decision based on producer 2 3 3 2

Purchaser’s customer makes decision based on producer 0 0 7 2

Purchaser makes decision based on country 2 1 3 4

Purchaser’s customer makes decision based on country 0 0 7 2

II-9
Purchases by Grade

Purchasers were asked to report, by country, the grades of stainless steel coiled plate that they 

purchased (table II-5). Purchasers reported purchasing four of the specified grades, and other grades from

U.S. producers, purchasing only 304/304L and 316/316L from Belgium, and purchasing 304/304L and

other grades from South Africa.

Table II-5

Stainless steel coiled plate: Number of purchasers reporting purchasing various grades produced

in the United States and in subject countries

Producing country 

Grades

304/304L 316/316L 403/410 409 430 434/436 Other

United States 10 9 1 3 0 0 3

Belgium 5 3 0 0 0 0 0

South Africa 2 0 0 0 0 0 1

Note.– Only countries from which purchasers reported purchasing these products are included in the table. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Factors Affecting Purchasing Decisions

Major Factors in Purchasing

When asked to identify the three major factors considered by their firm in their purchasing

decisions for stainless steel coiled plate, the most often cited factors were price (10 firms), quality (8

firms), delivery (7 firms), and availability (4 firms), as shown in table II-6. Price was the most frequently

cited first most important factor (cited by 4 firms), while three firms cited quality as the most important

factor. Delivery was the most frequently reported second most important factor (4 firms each), and

quality was the most frequently reported third most important factor (4 firms). 

Table II-6

Stainless steel coiled plate: Ranking of factors used in purchasing decisions as reported by U.S.

purchasers

Factor

Number of firms reporting

First Second Third Total

Price 4 3 3 10

Quality 3 1 4 8

Delivery (timeliness and lead time) 1 4 2 7

Availability 1 2 1 4

Range of product line 1 0 0 1

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

II-10
The majority of purchasers reported that they always or usually purchase the lowest-priced

product for their spot purchases (7 of 10) and contract purchases (6 of 10), as shown below. 

Purchaser response Always Usually Sometimes Never

Purchase lowest priced product (spot) 3 4 2 1

Purchase lowest priced product (contract) 4 2 1 3

When asked if they purchased stainless steel coiled plate from one source although a comparable

product was available at a lower price from another source, six purchasers reported that they had, for

reasons including lead times, quality, reliability of delivery, alloy/grade choice, and to combine purchases

with other steel products from the same supplier (since stainless steel coiled-plate is a low-volume

product). Four of 10 responding purchasers reported that certain types of stainless steel coiled plate were

only available from a single source.14

Importance of Specified Purchase Factors

Purchasers were asked to rate the importance of 18 factors in their purchasing decisions (table

II-7). The factors rated as very important by more than half of purchasers were quality meets industry 

standards (10 firms), availability (9), price (8), reliability of supply (8), delivery time (8), product

consistency (8), discounts offered (7), and product range (7). 

Factors Determining Quality

When asked to identify factors that determine the quality of stainless steel coiled plate, purchasers

reported numerous factors including: meeting standards including industry, ASTM, and ASME

specifications; performance including yield, mechanical qualities, and claims occurrence; shape of

product, consistency in gauge, thickness/gauge control, no shape issues, surface flatness, and surface

quality; and chemistry. 

Supplier Certification

All 10 responding purchasers require that all of the stainless steel coiled plate they purchase be

certified to meet standards set by ASTM or by a similar body.15 In addition, four purchasers reported

other supplier qualifications including ISO certification, PED, quality, delivery, and performance. 

Purchasers reported that the time to qualify a new supplier ranged from 1 to 60 days, with four firms

reporting 14 days or less, and four reporting 30 or 60 days. All 10 purchasers reported that no domestic

or foreign supplier had failed in its attempt to qualify product, or had lost its approved status since 2005. 

 14 Purchasers reported a number of distinctive products including: 440, 440C, ATI50, ATI219, Nitronic 30,

314LMN, (no source reported); 3CR12 from South Africa; 72-inch produced only in Belgium, Sweden, and China;

and, more generally, Europe only makes over 60-inch wide plate mill coil.

 15 All firms listed ASTM and five also reported other certification including ASME, MILS, and AMS. 

II-11
Table II-7 

Stainless steel coiled plate: Importance of purchase factors, as reported by purchasers

Factor

Very important Somewhat important Not important

Number of firms responding

Availability 9 1 0

Availability of cold-rolled product 4 3 3

Availability of extra wide or long rolls 3 7 0

Availability of metric widths 0 4 6

Delivery terms 5 5 0

Delivery time 8 2 0

Discounts offered 7 2 1

Extension of credit 2 6 2

Price 8 2 0

Minimum quantity requirements 3 6 1

Packaging 4 4 2

Product consistency 8 2 0

Quality meets industry standard 10 0 0

Quality exceeds industry standard 5 4 1

Product range 7 2 1

Reliability of supply 8 2 0

Technical support/service 4 5 1

U.S. transportation costs 4 6 0

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Lead Times

For U.S. producers, *** percent of sales were of product made-to-order. One of the two

responding importers reported selling solely from U.S. inventories while the other sold 95 percent of its

product made-to-order. Reported lead times for U.S. producers’ sales made to order were *** days, while

lead times for sales from inventories were *** days. Importers reported lead times of 90 days for madeto-order product and 2 to 5 days from importers’ U.S. inventories.

U.S. producers report that they traditionally sold stainless steel coiled plate produced to order,

with distributors carrying inventories, but that the market now requires that producers hold more

II-12
inventory.16 Lead times in the U.S. market have declined from 6 to 8 weeks to 4 to 6 weeks.17 According

to ThyssenKrupp, in order to meet customers’ shorter lead time requirements, importers would have to

hold inventories in the United States which is risky given the major fluctuations in surcharges in the last

five years.18

Wide-Width Products

Stainless steel plate in widths greater than 60 inches is used by fabricators of industrial pipe tanks

used in milk trucks or railroad tank cars; wider-width product is less costly to use in these applications, as

it requires less welding than narrower product.19 Allegheny Ludlum estimates that less than 5 percent of

the U.S. stainless steel coiled plate market uses product wider than 60 inches.20

U.S. producers currently produce stainless steel coiled plate up to 60 inches wide.21

ThyssenKrupp reports that it Alabama mill will have the capability of producing up to 72-inch wide

stainless steel coiled plate.22 ***.23 In 1997, during the period examined in the original investigations,

*** percent of subject imports from Belgium were sold in widths greater than 60 inches.24

Changes in Purchasing Patterns

Purchasers were asked about changes in their purchasing patterns from different sources since

2005 (table II-8). Reasons reported for changes included product demand, pricing, availability, customer

specifications, preference for U.S. product, lead times, availability of wide coil, and economic

fluctuations. Five of 10 responding purchasers reported that they had changed suppliers since 2005. 

Specifically, purchasers reporting dropped or reduced purchases from Allegheny Ludlum, TKN, and

Outokumpu because of price and supply issues, and increased purchases from NAS because of price. 

Firms also reported changes because of mill/vendor consolidation; and one firm reported dropping an

unspecified vendor with poor deliveries and replacing it with a vendor with a wider product line. Five of

10 responding purchasers reported new suppliers, including ThyssenKrupp’s new U.S. facility.25

 16 Hearing transcript, May 25, pp. 125-127 (Hartford and Schmitt). Producers’ inventories of stainless steel

coiled plate relative to total shipments increased irregularly from *** percent in 2005 to *** percent in 2010.

 17 Hearing transcript, May 25, pp. 123 (Feeley). 

 18 Hearing transcript, May 26, p. 150 (Lacor).

 19 Hearing transcript, May 26, p. 162-163 (Salas, Lacor, Leibowitz, and Malashevich).

 20 Hearing transcript, May 26, p. 78 (Hartford). 

 21 NAS manufactures stainless steel coiled plate in widths up to 60 inches, that is suitable from most customer

needs. Domestic interested parties' prehearing brief, p. 39. 

 22 Hearing transcript, May 26, p. 161-162 (Salas). 

 23 Domestic interested parties' posthearing brief, exh. 1, p. 7. 

 24 Confidential staff report for the original investigations (memorandum INV-W-064, April 9, 1999), Table IV-3,

p. IV-8. 

 25 ThyssenKrupp’s U.S. facility has not yet begun production of stainless steel coiled plate. It reportedly will

begin producing stainless steel coiled plate in 2011. ThyssenKrupp Respondent Interested Parties' posthearing brief,

p. 10. Purchasers also listed Arcelor (Brazil), Tisco (China), Lisco (China), and Chinese mills as new suppliers.

II-13
Table II-8

Stainless steel coiled plate: Changes in purchase patterns from U.S., subject, and nonsubject

countries

Source of

purchase Increased Constant Decreased Fluctuated Did not purchase

U.S. 3 3 1 3 0

Belgium 0 1 1 3 4

Italy 0 0 0 0 9

Korea 0 0 0 0 9

South Africa 0 1 2 1 6

Taiwan 0 0 0 0 8

Other 0 3 2 3 3

Note.– Not all purchasers responded for all countries.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Importance of Purchasing Domestic Product

Most purchasers (9 of 10) reported that purchasing U.S.-produced product was an important

factor in their purchasing decisions. Six reported that domestic product was required by law (for 1 to 25

percent of their purchases), six reported it was required by their customers (for 5 to 80 percent of their

purchases), and three reported other preferences for domestic product (for 50 to 75 percent of

purchases).26 Reasons cited for preferring domestic product included: shorter lead times/higher inventory

turns, competitive costs/price, stocking programs, and service.

Comparisons of Domestic Products, Subject Imports, and Nonsubject Imports

Purchasers were asked a number of questions comparing stainless steel coiled plate produced in

the United States, subject countries, and nonsubject countries. First, purchasers were asked for a

country-by-country comparison on the same 18 factors (table II-9) for which they were asked to rate the

importance. Purchasers only provided comparisons between U.S. product, imports from Belgium, and

imports from nonsubject countries. 

In comparing domestic product to that from Belgium, the majority of responding purchasers

reported that U.S. product was superior for availability, availability of cold-rolled product, delivery terms,

delivery times, reliability of supply, and U.S. transportation costs; that the products were comparable for

discounts offered, extension of credit, minimum quantity requirements, product consistency, quality

meets industry standards, and quality exceeds industry standards; and that product from Belgium was

superior for availability of extra wide or long rolls and availability of metric widths. For price,

packaging, and technical support, two firms reported that U.S. product was superior and two reported that

the products were comparable; and for product range, two firms reported that the domestic product was

inferior and two firms reported that the products were comparable. 

 26 One firm reported all 3 reasons for purchasing domestic product. 

II-14
In comparing domestic and nonsubject products, half or more of purchasers reported that they

were comparable for 11 factors; the majority reported that U.S. product was superior for availability,

availability of cold-rolled product, delivery times, reliability of supply, and technical support/service; and

a plurality reported that nonsubject product was superior for availability of extra wide or long rolls and

availability of metric widths. 

Table II-9

Stainless steel coiled plate: Comparisons of product by source country, as reported by

purchasers

Factor

U.S. vs Belgium

U.S. vs

Nonsubject

Belgium vs

Nonsubject

S C I SC I S C I

Number of firms responding 

Availability 4 0 0 12 0 0 0 1 2

Availability of cold-rolled product1

3 1 0 9300 1 2

Availability of extra wide or long rolls 0 0 4 3451 2 0

Availability of metric widths 0 0 4 1560 3 0

Delivery terms 3 1 0 6600 1 2

Delivery time 4 0 0 11 0 1 0 1 1

Discounts offered 1 3 0 1 11 0 1 2 0

Extension of credit 0 4 0 3901 2 0

Price2

2 2 0 3720 1 1

Minimum quantity requirements 1 3 0 0 12 0 0 3 0

Packaging 2 2 0 3900 3 0

Product consistency 0 4 0 1 11 0 1 2 0

Quality meets industry standard 0 4 0 2911 2 0

Quality exceeds industry standard 0 4 0 3811 2 0

Product range 0 2 2 2641 2 0

Reliability of supply 3 1 0 9300 1 2

Technical support/service 2 2 0 9300 3 0

U.S. transportation costs2 3 1 0 6600 1 2

 1 See parts III and IV for additional details regarding actual and anticipated production and importation of coldrolled stainless steel coiled plate.

 2 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 U.S. product was generally priced lower than 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. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

II-15
Only one purchaser compared subject imports and nonsubject imports, specifically product from

Belgium compared to that from China, Germany, and Sweden. It reported that product from China was

comparable to that from Belgium on nine factors, superior on three factors (availability, availability of

cold-rolled product, and price), and inferior on five factors (discounts offered, extension of credit, product

consistency, quality meets industry standards and quality exceeds industry standards). In comparing

product from Germany to that from Belgium, it rated them comparable on 12 factors, Germany superior

on 3 factors (delivery terms, reliability of supply, and U.S. transportation costs) and inferior on 2 factors

(availability of extra wide or long rolls and product range). Finally, it rated product from Sweden as

comparable to that from Belgium on 12 factors, and superior on 6 factors (availability, availability of

cold-rolled product, delivery terms, delivery time, reliability of supply, and U.S. transportation costs).

Firms were also asked how frequently stainless steel coiled plate from different countries were

interchangeable (table II-10). All responding U.S. producers reported product from all country pairs were

always interchangeable. Importers reported that for all country pairs imported product was either

frequently or sometimes interchangeable. The majority of purchasers reported that product from all

country pairs was always interchangeable.

Firms that indicated that product from country pairs were not interchangeable cited the following

reasons: chemical and alloy content; that most imports from Belgium are for 72-inch width material that

is not produced domestically; limited product/alloy programs in South Africa and Taiwan; and that while

commodity products with standard grades, dimension and surface finishes are typically frequently

interchangeable, non-commodity products are only sometimes interchangeable.

Firms’ assessments of how often differences other than price were significant are shown in table

II-11. Differences other than price cited by importers (other than those previously listed regarding

interchangeability) included: that products must meet customer requirements and delivery time; product

quality; performance characteristics; on-time delivery record; reject experience; product range; product

consistency; quality; and technical differences (between products that meet the same basic ASTM

specifications).

Purchasers reported that both domestic and subject imported product always or usually met their

minimum quality standards (table II-12). Most responding purchasers reported that U.S. and Belgium

product always met minimum quality standards, one-half reported that South African product always or

usually met minimum quality specifications, and all responding purchasers reported that product from

Italy, Korea, and Taiwan rarely or never met minimum quality standards.

II-16
Table II-10

Stainless steel coiled plate: Perceived interchangeability between stainless steel coiled plate

produced in the United States and in other countries, by country pairs

Country pair

Number of U.S. 

producers reporting

Number of U.S.

importers reporting

Number of U.S.

purchasers reporting

AF S N A F S N A F S N

U.S. vs. other countries:

U.S. vs. Belgium 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 6 1 0 0

U.S. vs. Italy 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 5 1 0 0

U.S. vs. Korea 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 5 1 0 0

U.S. vs. South Africa 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 4 2 0 0

U.S. vs. Taiwan 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 5 1 0 0

U.S. vs. Nonsubject 2 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 5 2 1 0

Subject country comparisons:

Belgium vs. Italy 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 1 0 0

Belgium vs. Korea 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 1 0 0

Belgium vs. South Africa 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 4 0 0 0

Belgium vs. Taiwan 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 5 1 0 0

Italy vs. Korea 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 1 0 0

Italy vs. South Africa 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 4 0 0 0

Italy vs. Taiwan 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 1 0 0

Korea vs. South Africa 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 4 0 0 0

Korea vs. Taiwan 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 1 0 0

South Africa vs. Taiwan 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0

Subject vs. nonsubject country comparisons:

Belgium vs. Nonsubject 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 1 1 0

Italy vs. Nonsubject 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 4 1 1 0

Korea vs. Nonsubject 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 4 1 1 0

South Africa vs. Nonsubject 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 0

Taiwan vs. Nonsubject 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 1 1 0

Note.--A = Always, F = Frequently, S = Sometimes, N = Never.

Note.– Producer, *** did not respond to the questions in this part of the questionnaire. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

II-17
Table II-11

Stainless steel coiled plate: Perceived differences other than prices between stainless steel coiled

plate produced in the United States and in other countries, by country pairs

Country pair

Number of U.S. 

producers reporting

Number of U.S.

importers reporting

Number of U.S.

purchasers reporting

AF S N A F S N A F S N

U.S. vs. other countries:

U.S. vs. Belgium 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 1 0 4 1

U.S. vs. Italy 0 0 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 4 0

U.S. vs. Korea 0 0 0 2 1 2 0 0 1 0 4 0

U.S. vs. South Africa 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 1 0 4 0

U.S. vs. Taiwan 0 0 0 2 1 2 0 0 1 0 4 0

U.S. vs. Nonsubject 0 0 0 2 1 2 2 0 1 0 5 1

Subject country comparisons:

Belgium vs. Italy 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 1

Belgium vs. Korea 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 1

Belgium vs. South Africa 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 1

Belgium vs. Taiwan 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 1

Italy vs. Korea 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 1

Italy vs. South Africa 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 1

Italy vs. Taiwan 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 1

Korea vs. South Africa 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 1

Korea vs. Taiwan 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 1

South Africa vs. Taiwan 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 3 0

Subject vs. nonsubject country comparisons:

Belgium vs. Nonsubject 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 2

Italy vs. Nonsubject 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 1

Korea vs. Nonsubject 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 1

South Africa vs. Nonsubject 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 0

Taiwan vs. Nonsubject 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 1

Note.--A = Always, F = Frequently, S = Sometimes, N = Never.

Note.– Producer, *** did not respond to the questions in this part of the questionnaire. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

II-18
Table II-12

Stainless steel coiled plate: Purchasers’ responses regarding minimum quality specifications

Source of

purchase Always Usually Sometimes Rarely or never

U.S. 1000 0

Belgium 5 0 0 2

Italy 0 0 0 3

Korea 000 3

South Africa 1 1 0 2

Taiwan 0 0 0 3

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

ELASTICITY ESTIMATES

This section discusses the elasticity estimates; party comments are noted below.

U.S. Supply Elasticity27

The domestic supply elasticity measures the sensitivity of the quantity supplied by U.S. producers

to changes in the U.S. market price of stainless steel coiled plate. The elasticity of domestic supply

depends on factors such as the level of excess capacity, the existence of inventories, and the availability

of alternate markets. Analysis of these factors indicates that the U.S. industry has the capacity to increase

domestic shipments in response to price increases. An estimate in the range of 5 to 10 is suggested. 

U.S. Demand Elasticity

The U.S. demand elasticity for stainless steel coiled plate measures the sensitivity of the overall

quantity demanded to a change in the U.S. market price of stainless steel coiled plate, and depends on the

availability and viability of substitute products, as well as the component share of stainless steel coiled

plate in the production of downstream products. Based on the available information, the aggregate

demand elasticity for the U.S. stainless steel coiled plate market is estimated to be in the range of -0.5 to 

-1.0.

Substitution Elasticity

The elasticity of substitution depends on the extent of product differentiation between the

domestic and imported products. Product differentiation depends on factors such as the range of products

produced, quality, availability, and reliability of supply. Based on available information, the elasticity of

substitution between domestically produced stainless steel coiled plate and subject imports is estimated to

be in the range of 2 to 5, with imports from Belgium at the lower end of the range. Domestic interested

parties disagreed with the assessment regarding Belgium, reporting that U.S. producers supply widths up

 27 A supply function is not defined in the case of a non-competitive market.

II-19
to 60 inches and that these sizes are suitable for the vast majority of customers, and further that if the

order on Belgium was revoked, the Belgian producer could increase its supply to the U.S. market of

products in widths less than 60 inches.28 While ThyseenKrupp respondents did not specifically address

the substitution elasticity estimate, they contend that substitutability between subject imports and

domestic products has decreased since the last review as customers increasingly prefer domestic product,

particularly because of shorter lead times.29

 28 Domestic Interested Parties’ prehearing brief, pp. 38-39.

 29 ThyssenKrupp Respondent Interested Parties' posthearing brief, appendix p. 32.

II-20
PART III: CONDITION OF THE U.S. INDUSTRY

OVERVIEW

The U.S. industry's capacity growth since 2005 was primarily due to NAS. Table III-1

summarizes important industry events that have taken place in the U.S. industry since January 2005.

Table III-1

Stainless steel coiled plate: Survey of industry events since 2005

Year Company Description of event

2006 AK Production slowdown: AK fails to reach an agreement with

union workers at its Middletown, OH facility leading to a lockout of

union workers beginning March 1.

NAS Capacity increase: A second electric arc furnace begins

operations and increases melting capacity to 1.1 million from

800,000 metric tons.

2007 AK Production resumption: AK reaches agreement with union

workers at its Middletown, OH facility ending a year-long lockout.

2008 Allegheny Ludlum Capacity decrease: Melt shop at Midland, PA idled in late 2008.

NAS Capacity increase: A new AOD unit, the company’s second,

begins operations, increasing the company’s melt shop capacity

to over 1.4 million metric tons per year. A new hot annealing and

pickling line, the company’s fourth, begins operations with an

annual capacity of just over 1 million metric tons.

2009 Allegheny Ludlum Capacity increase: Idled melt shop at Midland, PA, is re-started.

2010 Allegheny Ludlum Consolidation: Melt shop in Natrona, PA, is shut down leaving

the company with two melts shops - one in Midland, PA and the

other in Brackenridge, PA. 

2010 ThyssenKrupp Stainless

USA

Potential capacity increase: Operations begin at stainless steel

greenfield mill in Alabama. Although the company currently

produces stainless steel sheet and not stainless steel plate, it

plans to install a hot-rolling line in July 2011 and produce stainless

steel plate.

2011 ThyssenKrupp AG Possible reorganization: The stainless operations will be

independent. All options, including the sale of the stainless

operations to an outside company, are being examined for

continuing the operations outside of the ThyssenKrupp group of

companies.

Source: American Metal Market (various articles); ThyssenKrupp Stainless USA Press Release, “Stainless steel production starts

at ThyssenKrupp Stainless USA in Alabama,” http://www.thyssenkrupp-stainless-usa.com/press_detail.html?news=45, October 7,

2010; ThyssenKrupp AG, Press Release , “Supervisory Board approves plans for strategic development of ThyssenKrupp,”

http://www.thyssenkrupp.com/en/presse/art_detail.html&eid=TKBase_1305277305797_1810061965, May 13, 2011.

III-1
Changes Experienced by the Industry

Domestic producers were asked to indicate whether their firm had experienced any plant

openings, relocations, expansions, acquisitions, consolidations, closures, or prolonged shutdowns because

of strikes or equipment failure; curtailment of production because of shortages of materials or other

reasons, including revision of labor agreements; or any other change in the character of their operations or

organization relating to the production of stainless steel coiled plate since 2005. All domestic producers

indicated that they had experienced such changes; their responses are presented in table III-2.

Table III-2

Stainless steel coiled plate: Changes in the character of U.S. producers’ operations since

January 1, 2005

* * * * * * *

Anticipated Changes in Operations

The Commission asked domestic producers to report anticipated changes in the character of their

operations relating to the production of stainless steel coiled plate. Their responses appear in table III-3. 

The majority of producers reported an expected increase in capacity in their individual operations.

Table III-3

Stainless steel coiled plate: Anticipated changes in the character of U.S. producers’ operations

* * * * * * *

U.S. CAPACITY, PRODUCTION, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION

U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization data for stainless steel coiled plate

are presented in table III-4. Capacity and production fluctuated but increased overall, recovering in 2009

from their period lows in 2008. NAS accounted for *** of U.S. production during the period for which

data were collected, ***. Of the three producers, *** did not report an increase in production in 2010

when compared with 2009. *** accounted for the largest increase in production during the period for

which data were collected, increasing its total output by *** percent. In addition, *** in overall

production in 2009 and 2010.

During the period for which data were collected, NAS reported ***, and accounted for ***.1

 

Table III-4

Stainless steel coiled plate: U.S. capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 2005-10

* * * * * * *

 1 ***.

III-2
Figure III-1

Stainless steel coiled plate: U.S. capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 2005-10

* * * * * * *

Constraints on Capacity

The Commission asked domestic producers to report constraints on their capacity to produce

stainless steel coiled plate. All domestic producers reported that they did not experience capacity

constraints.

Alternative and Downstream Products

The Commission asked domestic producers to report production of other products on the same

equipment and machinery, and/or using the same production and related workers employed to produce

stainless steel coiled plate. All domestic producers indicated that they produce other products on their

stainless steel coiled plate equipment and machinery.

Data on domestic producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization for alternative and

downstream steel products are presented in table III-5.

Table III-5

Stainless steel coiled plate: U.S. producers' capacity, production, and capacity utilization for

alternative and downstream products, 2005-10

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCERS’ SHIPMENTS

Data on U.S. producers’ shipments of stainless steel coiled plate are presented in table III-6. The

quantity of U.S. shipments increased between 2005 and 2006, declined in 2007 and more sharply in 2008,

before increasing in 2009 and 2010, although U.S. shipments were still below 2005 levels. The value of

U.S. shipments was higher at the end of the period compared with 2005, despite declining sharply from

period highs in 2006-07. The domestic producers reported *** during the period for which data were

collected. Exports as a percentage of total shipments fluctuated throughout the period, ranging from ***

percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2009, but ended in 2010 at approximately the same level as in 2005, just

over *** percent. Average unit values for export shipments were higher than the unit values for U.S.

commercial shipments in each year except in 2006, when export values were $*** per short ton lower.

Table III-6

Stainless steel coiled plate: U.S. producers’ shipments, by types, 2005-10

* * * * * * *

III-3
U.S. PRODUCERS’ INVENTORIES

Table III-7, which presents end-of-period inventories for stainless steel coiled plate, shows that

inventories increased between 2005 and 2010 in absolute and relative terms. The domestic industry’s

inventories of stainless steel coiled plate fluctuated between 2005 and 2007, then increased between 2008

and 2010. Throughout the period for which data were collected, ***, with the exception of ***, when

***. In addition, producer inventories experienced the largest overall increase from 2009 to 2010,

increasing by *** short tons, of which ***. ***’s reported inventory levels fluctuated the most from year

to year, when compared with the other domestic producers.

Table III-7

Stainless steel coiled plate: U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories, 2005-10

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCERS’ IMPORTS AND PURCHASES

U.S. producers of stainless steel coiled plate did not import or purchase from any source during

the review period.

U.S. EMPLOYMENT, WAGES, AND PRODUCTIVITY

The U.S. producers’ aggregate employment data for stainless steel coiled plate are presented in

table III-8. The number of production and related workers (“PRWs”) employed by the domestic stainless

steel coiled plate producers fluctuated during the period for which data were collected, reaching lows in

2008 and 2010, and ending the period with lower employment levels but higher compensation and

productivity, as well as lower unit labor costs.

Table III-8

Stainless steel coiled plate: U.S. producers’ employment-related data, 2005-10

* * * * * * *

III-4
 2

 The U.S. firms are AK Steel, Allegheny Ludlum, and NAS. 

III-5

FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE OF THE U.S. PRODUCERS

Introduction

Three U.S. firms provided financial data on their operations on stainless steel coiled plate.2

 These

data are believed to account for the vast majority of U.S. operations on stainless steel coiled plate since

2005. No firms reported internal consumption, transfers to related firms, or tolling operations. All firms

reported a fiscal year end of December 31.

Operations on Stainless Steel Coiled Plate

Income-and-loss data for U.S. firms on their operations on stainless steel coiled plate are

presented in table III-9, while selected financial data, by firm, are presented in table III-10. The domestic

industry experienced steadily increasing operating income from 2005 to 2007, followed by generally

decreasing operating income thereafter, including an operating loss in 2009. In 2010, the domestic

industry returned to a level of operating income similar to the level achieved in 2008; however, operating

income was still below the levels achieved during the 2006 to 2007 time frame. While total net sales

quantity fluctuated from 2005 to 2007, total net sales value steadily increased during this time. In 2008,

both net sales quantity and value declined markedly; however, net sales value declined to a greater degree

than net sales quantity. In 2009, net sales quantity increased while net sales value continued to decline. 

Finally, in 2010 net sales quantity remained essentially unchanged while net sales value increased. Thus,

per-unit net sales value increased from 2005 to 2007, declined in 2008 and 2009, then once again

increased in 2010.

Table III-9

Stainless steel coiled plate: Results of operations of U.S. producers, 2005-10

* * * * * * *

Table III-10

Stainless steel coiled plate: Results of operations of U.S. producers, by firm, 2005-10

* * * * * * *
 3

 ThyssenKrupp Respondent Interested Parties assert that the metal margin (the difference between the price of

stainless steel plate and the average cost of raw materials) is a better measure for studying recent price/cost behavior

in this industry than operating income as a ratio to sales. ThyssenKrupp Respondent Interested Parties’ prehearing

brief, p. 20. During the period for which data were requested, the per short ton metal margins were as follows: ***. 

The Domestic Interested Parties disagreed that the metal margin is a superior analytical tool, and stated that there are

many operating expenses other than raw material costs that must be taken into account when assessing the financial

performance of the industry. Domestic Interested Parties’ posthearing brief, p. 12. 

 4

 E-mail correspondence from ***, April 7, 2011. 

 5

 E-mail correspondence from ***, April 7, 2011. 

 6

 Ibid. NAS’ *** financial performance in 2010, and the industry’s overall, presumably is due in part to a

reversal of the 2009 scenario. At the May 25 hearing, the Domestic Interested Parties explained that the domestic

producers try to achieve good alignment between the price they pay for raw materials and the price they recover

through the surcharge on sales prices. While the majority of sales have good alignment in this regard, approximately

40 percent of sales are not aligned. Hearing transcript, May 25, pp. 135-136 (Hartford). See also Domestic

Interested Parties’ posthearing brief, p. 11 n. 5. 

 7

 A variance analysis is calculated in three parts, sales variance, cost of sales variance, and SG&A expense

variance. Each part consists of a price variance (in the case of the sales variance) or a cost variance (in the case of

the cost of sales and SG&A expense variance) and a volume variance. The sales or cost variance is calculated as the

change in unit price times the new volume, while the volume variance is calculated as the change in volume times

the old unit price. Summarized at the bottom of the table, the price variance is from sales; the cost/expense variance

is the sum of those items from COGS and SG&A variances, respectively; and the volume variance is the sum of the

volume variance lines under price and cost/expense variance. 

III-6

The per-unit cost of goods sold (“COGS”) increased continually from 2005 to 2007 due primarily

to increased raw material costs, but overall increased to a lesser degree than per-unit revenue during this

time. In 2008 and 2009, per-unit COGS declined (primarily due to raw material costs) to a lesser degree

than per-unit revenue. Finally, in 2010 per-unit COGS increased to a lesser degree than per-unit revenue. 

Thus, per-unit gross and operating income increased from 2005 to 2007, declined in 2008 and 2009, then

once again increased in 2010.3

According to AK Steel, the firm’s reported financial performance reflects ***.4

 According to Allegheny Ludlum, the firm’s reported financial performance since 2008 reflects

***.5

According to NAS, ***.6

Variance Analysis

A variance analysis for stainless steel coiled plate is presented in table III-11.7

 The information

for the variance analysis is derived from table III-9. The analysis shows that the increase in operating

income from 2005 to 2010 is primarily attributable to the favorable price variance that more than offset an

unfavorable net cost/expense variance (that is, prices rose to a greater extent than costs/expenses).

Table III-11

Stainless steel coiled plate: Variance analysis on operations of U.S. producers, 2005-10

* * * * * * *
 8

 E-mail correspondence from ***, April 7, 2011. Additional information on capital expenditures/cost reduction

projects during the period for which data were requested was provided during the May 25 hearing. Hearing

transcript, May 25, pp. 121-123 (Hartford).

 9

 Table III-12 does not include any data from ThyssenKrupp USA. At the May 25 hearing, ThyssenKrupp

Respondent Interested Parties stated that $1.2 billion of the $1.4 billion investment in stainless operations has

already been spent on the new ThyssenKrupp mill in Alabama. Hearing transcript, May 25, p. 190 (Iller). 

III-7

Capital Expenditures and Research and Development Expenses

The responding firms’ aggregate data on capital expenditures and research and development

(“R&D”) expenses are shown in table III-12. Three firms provided capital expenditure data, while two

firms provided data on R&D expenses. Capital expenditures for stainless steel coiled plate increased

steadily from 2005 to 2008, then declined markedly in 2009 and 2010. NAS accounted for over ***

percent of total capital expenditures ***, and Allegheny Ludlum accounted for over *** percent of total

capital expenditures in 2010. According to NAS, capital expenditures primarily reflect ***, while

Allegheny Ludlum reported that its capital expenditures primarily reflect ***. Allegheny Ludlum also

accounted for *** of reported R&D expenses ***, and reported that such expenses primarily reflect

***.8 9

Table III-12

Stainless steel coiled plate: Capital expenditures and research and development expenses of U.S.

producers, 2005-10

* * * * * * *

Assets and Return on Investment

The Commission’s questionnaire requested data on assets used in the production, warehousing,

and sale of stainless steel coiled plate to compute return on investment (“ROI”). Data on the U.S.

producers’ total assets and their ROI are presented in table III-13. From 2005 to 2010, the total assets for

stainless steel coiled plate increased irregularly from $*** in 2005 to $*** in 2010. The sharp decline in

2008 largely reflects much lower cash and equivalents and net accounts receivable. ROI increased by ***

percentage points from 2005 to 2007, but then declined by *** percentage points through 2009 before

once again increasing by *** percentage points in 2010. 

Table III-13

Stainless steel coiled plate: Asset values and return on investment of U.S. producers, 2005-10

* * * * * * *

PART IV: U.S. IMPORTS AND THE FOREIGN INDUSTRY

U.S. IMPORTS

Overview

The Commission issued questionnaires to 70 firms believed to have imported stainless steel

coiled plate between 2005 and 2010. Seven firms provided data and information in response to the

questionnaires, while 28 firms indicated that they had not imported stainless steel coiled plate during the

period for which data were collected. Firms responding to the Commission’s questionnaire accounted for

the following shares of individual subject country subject imports during the review period:

• Virtually all of the stainless steel coiled plate imports from the subject countries other than

South Africa and Taiwan; and

• Virtually all of the stainless steel coiled plate imports from all other countries.

In light of the data coverage by the Commission’s questionnaires, import data in this report are

based on questionnaire responses for stainless steel coiled plate imports from Belgium, Italy, Korea, and

nonsubject sources.1

 Due to incomplete questionnaire data, official Commerce statistics are used for

stainless steel coiled plate from South Africa and Taiwan.2 3

 1 Staff believes that import coverage from questionnaire responses covers the great majority of imports from these

countries during 2005-10. The Commission received a questionnaire response from *** importer of subject

merchandise from Belgium. The company’s reported import volumes are consistent with the foreign producer

questionnaire response of Aperam, the only manufacturer of subject merchandise in Belgium. In addition, the

Commission received questionnaire data amounting to *** imports from Italy and Korea. This is consistent with the

foreign producer questionnaire responses of TKAST, the dominant manufacturer of subject merchandise in Italy, and

POSCO, the only manufacturer of hot-rolled stainless steel coiled plate in Korea. The Commission also received

questionnaire responses from ***, which are believed to account for the great majority of stainless steel coiled plate

from nonsubject sources. Additional questionnaire responses accounted for virtually all of the remaining imports

from nonsubject sources. Staff followed up with all major importers identified in Customs data to ensure that

questionnaire responses were the most reliable source of import data.

 2

 Staff did not receive a questionnaire response from ***, a major importer of subject merchandise from South

Africa. Staff contacted *** and *** stated that the company had imported stainless steel coiled plate from South

Africa during the period of review, but the company has since gone out of business. Staff telephone interview with

***. In addition, the Commission did not receive questionnaire responses from Ta Chen or any other importer of

stainless steel coiled plate from Taiwan, despite repeated contacts, and multiple attempted follow-up contacts.

 3

 Official Commerce statistics are based on the primary HTS statistical reporting numbers. Official Commerce

statistics for the period examined in the original and remand investigations contained nonsubject plate and other

products along with the subject imports. This situation still exists although subsequent modifications to the HTS,

particularly in 2001, have resulted in a closer concordance between the HTS and the definition of the subject

merchandise. During the first five-year reviews, the Commission used “primary” HTS statistical reporting numbers,

identified by the domestic interested parties, to calculate U.S. imports. The primary HTS statistical reporting

numbers (those that contain only subject merchandise or, for most but not all sources, relatively small amounts of

plate that is not annealed or otherwise heat-treated) that were identified by the domestic interested parties are as

follows: 7219.11.0030, 7219.11.0060, 7219.12.0006, 7219.12.0021, 7219.12.0026, 7219.12.0051, 7219.12.0056,

7219.12.0066, 7219.12.0071, 7219.12.0081, and 7219.31.0010. The remaining, or “secondary,” HTS statistical

reporting numbers refer primarily to other forms of stainless steel, and contain minimal, if any, imports of subject

merchandise.

IV-1
Imports from Subject and Nonsubject Countries

Table IV-1 presents data for U.S. imports of stainless steel coiled plate from Belgium, Italy,

Korea, South Africa, Taiwan, and all other sources. As shown in table IV-1, total subject imports were at

their highest level in 2007 before declining to their lowest level in 2009. Belgium was the largest subject

source throughout the period. There were *** subject imports from Italy and Korea during 2005-10,

while subject imports from South Africa and Taiwan fluctuated, generally at relatively low levels. Total

stainless steel coiled plate imports from subject and nonsubject countries fluctuated throughout the

period, ending *** percent below 2005 levels. Nonsubject countries continue to have the largest share of

imports, in terms of quantity and value.

Unit values of subject imports increased between 2005 and 2008, decreased by *** percent in

2009, then recovered in 2010, ending above 2005 levels. Unit values of imports from subject and

nonsubject countries were relatively close except in 2007 and 2008. Unit values of imports from South

Africa were generally the lowest except in 2005 and 2009.

IV-2
Table IV-1

Stainless steel coiled plate: U.S. imports, by sources, 2005-10

Source

Calendar year

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Quantity (short tons)

Belgium *** *** *** *** *** ***

Italy *** *** *** *** *** ***

Korea *** *** *** *** *** ***

South Africa 341 1,320 1,176 34 2 69

Taiwan 373 96 101 18 0 3

Subtotal *** *** *** *** *** ***

Other sources *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value (1,000 dollars)

1

Belgium *** *** *** *** *** ***

Italy *** *** *** *** *** ***

Korea *** *** *** *** *** ***

South Africa 922 2,357 2,783 102 14 125

Taiwan 967 269 454 87 0 11

Subtotal *** *** *** *** *** ***

Other sources *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value (dollars per short ton)

Belgium *** *** *** *** *** ***

Italy *** *** *** *** *** ***

Korea *** *** *** *** *** ***

South Africa 2,707 1,786 2,367 2,986 6,544 1,812

Taiwan 2,595 2,804 4,520 4,756 – 4,015

Subtotal *** *** *** *** *** ***

Other sources *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total *** *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on next page.

IV-3
Table IV-1--Continued

Stainless steel coiled plate: U.S. imports, by sources, 2005-10

Source

Calendar year

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Share of quantity (percent)

Belgium *** *** *** *** *** ***

Italy *** *** *** *** *** ***

Korea *** *** *** *** *** ***

South Africa *** *** *** *** *** ***

Taiwan *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal *** *** *** *** *** ***

Other sources *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of value (percent)

Belgium *** *** *** *** *** ***

Italy *** *** *** *** *** ***

Korea *** *** *** *** *** ***

South Africa *** *** *** *** *** ***

Taiwan *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal *** *** *** *** *** ***

Other sources *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1 Landed, duty-paid.

Note.–The leading nonsubject sources of imports are Germany and Sweden. Secondary nonsubject sources

include China, Spain, Brazil, Finland, and Japan.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires (Belgium, Italy, Korea, and 

nonsubject) and from official Commerce statistics (South Africa and Taiwan).

IV-4
Leading Nonsubject Sources of Imports

During 2005-10, imports of stainless steel coiled plate entered the United States from a variety of

sources other than the five subject countries. The leading nonsubject suppliers are shown in table IV-2.4

Nonsubject imports reached their highest level in 2007, decreased in 2008-09, then recovered between

2009 and 2010. The presence of U.S. imports of stainless steel coiled plate from China increased in the

latter part of the period, which is consistent with trends observed by the domestic interested parties.5

Table IV-2

Stainless steel coiled plate: U.S. imports from leading nonsubject sources, 2005-10

* * * * * * *

U.S. IMPORTERS’ IMPORTS SUBSEQUENT TO DECEMBER 31, 2010

The Commission requested importers to indicate whether they had imported or arranged for the

importation of stainless steel coiled plate from subject countries for delivery after December 31, 2010. 

Only one company, ***, responded that it had imported or arranged for the importation of stainless steel

coiled plate from subject countries for delivery after December 31, 2010. *** imported or arranged for

the importation of stainless steel coiled plate from *** as well as nonsubject sources. Data on *** actual

and arranged imports in 2011 are presented in the following tabulation.

* * * * * * *

U.S. IMPORTERS’ INVENTORIES

Table IV-3 presents data for inventories of U.S. imports of stainless steel coiled plate from

Belgium, Italy, and Korea, and all other sources held in the United States.6

 Inventories of subject imports,

after peaking in 2006, gradually decreased throughout the period until 2010, when they increased slightly

when compared with 2009. Two firms (***) reported the majority of inventories of imports from

nonsubject countries during 2005-10. Such inventories decreased noticeably, if irregularly, between 2005

and 2010.

 4 The leading nonsubject sources of imports are Germany and Sweden. Secondary nonsubject sources include

China, Spain, Brazil, Finland, and Japan. Official Commerce statistics and Customs data confirm that the

Commission received questionnaire data from the major importers of the leading nonsubject sources as well as

secondary sources.

 5 See hearing transcript, May 26, p. 80 (Hartford).

 6

 Staff notes that data for inventories held by U.S. importers do not include inventories from Taiwan held by

Ta Chen. Ta Chen (or TCI) recently announced that it is “expanding our inventory” and “ready to meet your needs.” 

The company's full-page advertisement suggests that it holds inventories of stainless steel coil in a variety of grades

(including 304; 304L; 306L; and 430); plate and sheet thicknesses (.500" to 28 gauge); finishes (HRAP #1; 2B; 2D;

#4; BA); and widths (36; 48; 60; and 72 inches). The advertisement further indicates that current inventory is held in

Atlanta, Baltimore, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, and New Jersey. See Modern Metals, November 2010, inside

front cover.

IV-5
Table IV-3

Stainless steel coiled plate: U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of imports, by source, 

2005-10

Item

Calendar year

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Imports from Belgium:

Inventories (short tons) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ratio to U.S. imports (percent) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ratio to total shipments of 

imports (percent) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Imports from Italy:

Inventories (short tons) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ratio to U.S. imports (percent) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ratio to total shipments of 

imports (percent) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Imports from Korea:

Inventories (short tons) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ratio to U.S. imports (percent) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ratio to total shipments of 

imports (percent) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal:

Inventories (short tons) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ratio to U.S. imports (percent) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ratio to total shipments of 

imports (percent) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Imports from all other sources:

Inventories (short tons) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ratio to U.S. imports (percent) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ratio to total shipments of 

imports (percent) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Imports from all sources:

Inventories (short tons) 6,962 1,862 5,088 5,511 2,234 1,857

Ratio to U.S. imports (percent) 22.9 6.4 13.8 27.9 23.3 10.5

Ratio to total shipments of 

imports (percent) 23.5 5.5 15.2 29.0 17.6 10.5

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

IV-6
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.7 8

Fungibility

As discussed previously in Parts II and III of this report, certain stainless steel coiled plate

products may be available from a limited number of suppliers. With respect to cold-rolled product, data

collected by the Commission indicates that the domestic producers did not produce cold-rolled stainless

steel coiled plate in 2010, or throughout the period for which data were collected.9

 Imports of the coldrolled product were also minimal. Almost all subject imports were of hot-rolled stainless steel coiled

plate, with U.S. imports of the cold-rolled product from *** reported by ***. *** reported importing ***

short tons of the cold-rolled product in 2010.

With respect to wide-width plate, the domestic producers did not produce stainless steel coiled

plate in widths greater than 60 inches in 2010, or throughout the period for which data were collected.10

*** reported that *** of its stainless steel coiled plate imports from Belgium in 2010 consisted of plate in

widths over 60 inches. Overall, stainless steel coiled plate in widths greater than 60 inches is believed to

represent a small share of the U.S. market, approximately five percent.11

 7 The data presented in “Fungibility,” “Geographic Markets” and “Presence in the Market” are based on official

Commerce import statistics, and may include nonsubject product. Although questionnaire data was used for three of

the five subject countries and all other nonsubject sources, Staff believes that official Commerce import statistics are

generally consistent with questionnaire data.

 8

 There were *** reported U.S. imports from Italy and Korea during the period for which data were collected.

 9

 Although the domestic producers did not produce cold-rolled stainless steel coiled plate during the period for

which data were collected, the domestic producers assert that they are capable of producing cold-rolled plate. 

Hearing transcript, May 26, pp. 24-25 (Feely), and pp. 78-79 (Luberda). NAS ***. Domestic Interested Parties'

prehearing brief, p. 38. Moreover, the domestic producers have produced cold-rolled stainless steel coiled plate in

the past, as demonstrated in the first review. See Staff Report on Certain Stainless Steel Plate from Belgium,

Canada, Italy, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan, Investigations Nos. 701-TA-376, 377 & 379 and 731-TA-788-793

(Review), Memorandum INV-CC-058, April 27, 2005, p. I-12 n. 18.

 10 NAS reports that it has the capacity to produce wide-width plate, but reports that it cannot compete with the

lower-priced imports. Hearing transcript, May 26, pp. 24-25 (Feely). In addition, ***. Email from ***, June 14,

2011. Once operational, TKSL-USA will have the capacity to produce plate up to 72 inches wide. Hearing

transcript, May 26, p. 161 (Salas).

 11 Hearing transcript, May 26, p. 78 (Hartford).

IV-7
Geographic Markets

During 2005-10, the top Customs district for imports from Belgium and South Africa were cities

on the Eastern seaboard, Philadelphia, PA and Baltimore, MD, respectively. The top Customs district for

imports from Taiwan was Los Angeles, CA. Additional information on geographic markets may be

found in Part II of this report.

Presence in the Market

Imports from Belgium were present in every month of the period for which data were collected,

except in February 2009. Imports from South Africa were relatively more sporadic and/or in relatively

low volumes during the period for which data were collected, with the exception of the second half of

2005 and calendar years 2006 and 2007. Imports from Taiwan were present in less than half of the

months in each year between 2005 and 2010.

THE INDUSTRY IN BELGIUM

Overview

Aperam Stainless Belgium (“Aperam”) is the sole producer of subject merchandise in Belgium.

The company produces only stainless flat-rolled products and does not manufacture carbon or other nonstainless steel products.12 During the original investigations it operated as ALZ Belgium. ALZ Belgium

began in 1961 as a joint venture with Allegheny Ludlum. ALZ Belgium’s parent company, Arbed, was

subsequently acquired by the Arcelor Group, which then created a new unit that combined Ugine S.A., a

French stainless steel producer, with ALZ Belgium. The former company ALZ Belgium changed its

name to U&A Belgium on December 31, 2001. Arcelor was acquired by Mittal in 2006, forming

ArcelorMittal.13 In January 2011, ArcelorMittal’s stainless steel business was spun off as Aperam

Stainless (“Aperam”), a newly created company.14 According to its questionnaire response, the stainless

steel division was spun off because ***. The spin off will allow the stainless steel business to “***.”15

The company’s predecessors provided data on its stainless steel coiled plate operations during the original

investigations and first reviews. Aperam also provided data on its stainless steel coiled plate operations in

the current proceeding.

Stainless Steel Coiled Plate Operations

Table IV-4 presents data provided by Aperam concerning stainless steel coiled plate operations in

Belgium during calendar years 2005-10. The company did not report having a business plan or any

internal documents that describe, discuss, or analyze expected future market conditions for hot-rolled

steel.

 12 Certain Stainless Steel Plate From Belgium, Canada, Italy, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan, Investigation

Nos. 701-TA-376, 377, & 379 and 731-TA-788-793 (Review), USITC Publication 3784, June 2005, p. IV-7.

 13 Certain Stainless Steel Plate From Belgium, Canada, Italy, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan, Investigation

Nos. 701-TA-376, 377, & 379 and 731-TA-788-793 (Review), USITC Publication 3784, June 2005, p. IV-7.

 14 Aperam is headquartered in Luxembourg. http://www.arcelormittal.com/index.php?lang=en&page=642,

retrieved April 19, 2011.

 15 Aperam ***. Questionnaire response of Aperam.

IV-8
As presented in table IV-4, production fluctuated during the period, *** in 2009 then increasing

in 2010, ending *** percent lower than 2005. The Belgian producer’s commercial shipments of stainless

steel coiled plate mirrored the production trends. Home market shipments were a small share of total

commercial shipments, ranging between *** percent in 2005 and *** percent in 2008, and ending at ***

percent. The largest export market for Aperam is the European Union, particularly ***.16

Table IV-4

Stainless steel coiled plate: Belgian capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2005-10

* * * * * * *

Alternative and Downstream Products

As shown in table IV-5, the majority of the Belgian producer’s capacity for hot-rolled stainless

steel was devoted to ***. The majority of Aperam’s capacity for cold-rolled stainless steel was used for

***.

Table IV-5

Stainless steel coiled plate: Belgian capacity, production, and capacity utilization for alternative

and downstream products, 2005-10

* * * * * * *

As noted in the preceding table, Aperam did not include its production or capacity to produce hotrolled stainless steel for rerolling into cold-rolled stainless steel. Aperam's combined hot-rolled and

cold-rolled steel capacity and production, accounting for its internal consumption in its downstream

operations, from 2005-10, are presented in the following tabulation.

* * * * * * *

THE INDUSTRY IN ITALY

Overview

The dominant producer of stainless steel coiled plate in Italy is ThyssenKrupp Acciai Speciali

Terni, S.p.A (“TKAST”).17 TKAST, which is a division of ThyssenKrupp, operated as AST during the

original investigations, was acquired by Krupp Thyssen Stainless in 1998 and then was transferred to its

current owner ThyssenKrupp Steel Italia S.p.A in 1999.18 TKAST provided data on its stainless steel

coiled plate operations during the original investigations and first reviews. The company also provided

data on its stainless steel coiled plate operations in response to Commission questionnaires in these

current reviews.

 16 Questionnaire response of Aperam. Subject merchandise represented *** percent of Aperam's total sales in its

most recent fiscal year. Ibid.

 17 According to ***, Marcegaglia accounts for the remaining hot-rolling capacity in Italy, or *** percent.

 18 Certain Stainless Steel Plate From Belgium, Canada, Italy, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan, Investigation

Nos. 701-TA-376, 377, & 379 and 731-TA-788-793 (Review), USITC Publication 3784, June 2005, p. IV-9.

IV-9
Stainless Steel Coiled Plate Operations

Table IV-6 presents data provided by TKAST concerning its stainless steel coiled plate

operations in Italy during calendar years 2005-10. TKAST has *** hot-rolling lines, as well as annealing

and pickling lines for ***.19

As presented in table IV-6, capacity for stainless steel coiled plate in Italy decreased by ***

during the period for which data were collected. The decrease in capacity was a result of the closure of a

plant in Turin in 2008 as well as a change in the product mix.20 21 Capacity remained stable between 2005

and 2007, decreased by *** in 2008, and remained at 2008 levels through the end of the period. 

Production fluctuated throughout the period, and reached *** in 2008. Production levels increased *** in

2009 and 2010, ending *** percent lower than 2005.

The Italian producer’s commercial shipments of stainless steel coiled plate mirrored the

production trends. Home market shipments as a share of total shipments increased over the period, and

accounted for more than *** percent of total shipments in 2010. While home market shipments have

increased, the overall quantity of exports decreased during the period for which data were collected.22

Average unit values for home market shipments were generally higher when compared with export

shipments during the early part of the period, but by 2010 were generally lower.

Table IV-6

Stainless steel coiled plate: Italian capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2005-10

* * * * * * *

Alternative and Downstream Products

As shown in table IV-7, the majority of the Italian producer’s capacity for hot-rolled stainless

steel was devoted to ***. Stainless steel coiled plate accounted for ***.

Table IV-7

Stainless steel coiled plate: Italian capacity, production, and capacity utilization for alternative and

downstream products, 2005-10

* * * * * * *

 19 Questionnaire response of TKAST.

 20 ThyssenKrupp Respondent Interested Parties' posthearing brief, appendix, p. 35.

 21 ***. Questionnaire response of TKAST. Moreover, the hot annealing and pickling line in Turin is “currently

in the custody of Italian authorities and its future is uncertain.” TKAST also emphasized that it has made substantial

investments in finishing capacity in its Terni facility, and is more focused on value-added products such as cut-tolength plate and other cold-rolled products. ThyssenKrupp Respondent Interested Parties’ posthearing brief,

appendix, p. 35.

 22 Sales of subject merchandise represented *** percent of its total sales in 2010. Questionnaire response of

TKAST.

IV-10
THE INDUSTRY IN KOREA

Overview

During the original investigations, there were two producers of stainless steel flat-rolled products

in Korea, POSCO and Sammi Steel Co. Ltd. (“Sammi”).23 Sammi was reported to produce only coldrolled products that were not exported to the United States during the original investigations and first

reviews.24 POSCO remains the only Korean producer of hot-rolled stainless steel plate; it does not

manufacture cold-rolled stainless steel plate. POSCO provided data on its stainless steel coiled plate

operations during the original investigations and first reviews. The company also provided data on its

stainless steel coiled plate operations in response to Commission questionnaires in these current reviews.

Stainless Steel Coiled Plate Operations25 26

Table IV-8 presents data provided by POSCO concerning its stainless steel coiled plate

operations during calendar years 2005-10. The Korean producer’s allocated production capacity

decreased throughout the period for which data were collected, ending *** percent lower than 2005. 

Production increased between 2005 and 2006, then decreased, ending *** percent lower than 2005. The

quantity of home market shipments fluctuated throughout the period, ending *** percent lower than 2005. 

Export shipments also fluctuated throughout the period, ending *** percent lower than 2005. POSCO’s

exports are primarily directed toward Asia, particularly ***.27 However, Asia’s share of commercial

shipments has declined by *** percentage points from 2005 to 2010.28

 23 Certain Stainless Steel Plate from Belgium, Canada, Italy, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan, Invs. Nos. 701-

TA-376, 377, and 379 (Final) and 731-TA-788-793 (Final), USITC Publication 3188, May 1999, p. VII-6.

 24 Sammi subsequently entered into bankruptcy, was acquired by INI Steel Co. in restructuring proceedings in

2001, and was renamed BNG Steel Co. (“BNG”) in 2002. ***. Staff Report on Certain Stainless Steel Plate from

Belgium, Canada, Italy, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan, Investigations Nos. 701-TA-376, 377 & 379 and

731-TA-788-793 (Review), Memorandum INV-CC-058, April 27, 2005, p. IV-23 n. 57.

 25 In late 2010, Russia imposed antidumping duties on certain flat-rolled steel from Brazil, China (including

Taiwan), Korea, and South Africa. The antidumping duty rate is 62.8 percent for Korean companies, with the

exception of POSCO, which has an individual rate of 4.8 percent. “Russia introduces duty on some stainless steel,”

http://af.reuters.com/article/idAFLDE6AN21V20101124, retrieved on May 2, 2011. POSCO reported that ***. 

POSCO also reported that ***. Questionnaire response of POSCO.

 26 POSCO reported that *** percent of its stainless steel coiled plate production consisted of plate in widths over

60 inches.

 27 Questionnaire response of POSCO. In addition, subject merchandise accounted for *** percent of total sales in

its most recent fiscal year. Ibid.

 28 POSCO reported that ***. Questionnaire response of POSCO. ZPSS, a joint venture company between

POSCO and China’s Shagang Group, began production in late 2006 and produces stainless steel and hot-rolled

products. “POSCO ZPSS leading stainless steel market in China,”

http://www.steelguru.com/stainless_steel_news/POSCO_ZPSS_leading_stainless_steel_market_in_China/172194.ht

ml; “Posco Going Global for Takeoff,” http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2008/04/234_14692.html,

retrieved on April 28, 2011. ZPSS had a hot-rolled coil annealing and pickling capacity of *** short tons in 2010. 

Hot-rolled coil annealing and pickling capacity is projected to increase further to *** short tons in 2011, *** short

tons in 2012, and *** short tons in 2013-2015. Hot-rolled coil annealing and pickling capacity includes capacity to

produce hot-rolled coiled product outside of the scope of the subject orders, e.g., capacity to produce hot-rolled sheet

(continued...)

IV-11
Table IV-8

Stainless steel coiled plate: Korean capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2005-10

* * * * * * *

Alternative and Downstream Products

As shown in table IV-9, POSCO has a *** capacity for hot-rolled stainless steel than cold-rolled

stainless steel. The majority of POSCO’s hot-rolled and cold-rolled stainless steel capacity is used to

produce ***.29

Table IV-9

Stainless steel coiled plate: Korean capacity, production, and capacity utilization for alternative

and downstream products, 2005-10

* * * * * * *

THE INDUSTRY IN SOUTH AFRICA

Overview

Columbus Stainless is the only producer of stainless steel coiled plate in South Africa

(“Columbus”). As noted earlier, the firm is related to NAS, a domestic manufacturer, through common

ownership by the Acerinox Group. During the first reviews, the company reported that since “***.” In

the original investigations and first reviews, Columbus provided the Commission with a questionnaire

response. In the current proceedings, Columbus did not provide the Commission with a questionnaire

response.30

Stainless Steel Coiled Plate Operations31

As presented in table IV-10, South Africa’s global shipments of stainless steel coiled (continuous

mill) plate increased by *** percent during 2005-06 before declining by *** percent during 2006-10. 

According to its website, home market shipments comprise 25 percent of the company’s total sales. In

addition, the company has a “well-developed” sales network for its exports in Europe, the Americas, the

 28 (...continued)

and strip. Original data were published in metric tons which were converted to short tons using a conversion factor

of 1.1023. ***.

 29 Originally, POSCO reported that ***. Email from ***, June 6, 2011. However, in response to a staff inquiry,

POSCO retracted its statement, and confirmed that ***. Email from ***, June 17, 2011.

 30 A foreign producer questionnaire was sent via email and fax, the information of which was available in its

company website (http://www.columbus.co.za). ***. Email from ***, June 3, 2011.

 31 In late 2010, Russia imposed antidumping duties on certain flat-rolled steel from Brazil, China (including

Taiwan), Korea, and South Africa. The antidumping duty rate is 33.3 percent with respect to South Africa. “Russia

introduces duty on some stainless steel,” http://af.reuters.com/article/idAFLDE6AN21V20101124, retrieved on

May 2, 2011.

IV-12
Middle East and the Far East.32 In addition, the domestic interested parties reported that Columbus

produced 705,472 short tons of hot-rolled coil in 2007.33 

Table IV-10

Stainless steel coiled plate: South Africa’s hot-rolled annealing and pickling capacity, and global

shipments of continuous mill plate, 2005-10

Item

Calendar year

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Quantity (short tons)

Capacity (

1

) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)

Global shipments2 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 1 Hot-rolled coil annealing and pickling capacity was *** short tons in 2010. Data include capacity to produce

hot-rolled coiled product outside of the scope of the subject orders, e.g., capacity to produce hot-rolled sheet and

strip, and are unavailable for 2005-10.

 2

 Global shipment data exclude coils for rerolling.

Note.–***.

Source: ***.

Table IV-11 presents South Africa’s exports, as reported by the Global Trade Atlas.

Table IV-11

Stainless steel coiled plate: South Africa’s exports, 2005-10

Item

Calendar year

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Quantity (short tons)

Exports 41,780 69,284 68,145 40,014 75,171 33,190

Note.–Export data, derived from the Global Trade Atlas, may include nonsubject product.

Source: Global Trade Atlas, HTS subheadings 7219.11, 7219.12, and 7219.31 (Exports).

 32 Columbus’ website, http://www.columbus.co.za/aboutus/aboutusmain.htm, retrieved on May 2, 2011.

 33 Prehearing brief of domestic interested parties, p. 28 and exh. 3.

IV-13
THE INDUSTRY IN TAIWAN

Overview

Petitioners in the original investigations identified several stainless steel plate manufacturers in

Taiwan, three of which provided questionnaire responses to the Commission. One firm, YUSCO, was

believed to account for the major portion both of Taiwan production and exports of the subject

merchandise. YUSCO was founded in December 1988. It is reportedly the largest integrated stainless

steel mill in Southeast Asia, with melting capacity of 1 million metric tons; hot-rolling capacity of

900,000 metric tons; and cold-rolling capacity of 650,000 metric tons.34 YUSCO, along with Tang Eng

and Tung Mung, provided data during the original investigations. During the first reviews, no producer

from Taiwan responded to the Commission’s questionnaire. YUSCO, along with several other steel

producers and exporters in Taiwan including Ta Chen, YUSCO’s ***, received but did not respond to the

Commission’s questionnaire in the current reviews.

Stainless Steel Coiled Plate Operations35

As presented in table IV-12, Taiwan’s global shipments of stainless steel coiled (continuous mill)

plate increased irregularly during 2005-10 by *** percent. There are four Taiwan companies with hotrolled coil annealing and pickling capacity: Chien Shing Stainless Steel Co., Ltd., Tang Eng Iron

Works Co., Ltd., Tung Mung Development Co., Ltd., and YUSCO.36 All of these companies were in

operation during the first reviews.

 34 http://www.yusco.com.tw/English/about_yusco_ch.htm, retrieved on June 19, 2011.

 35 In late 2010, Russia imposed antidumping duties on certain flat-rolled steel from Brazil, China (including

Taiwan), Korea, and South Africa. The antidumping duty rate is 39.1 percent with respect to Taiwan. “Russia

introduces duty on some stainless steel,” http://af.reuters.com/article/idAFLDE6AN21V20101124, retrieved on

May 2, 2011.

 36 ***; Chien Shing Stainless Steel Co., Ltd., “Profile,” http://www.csssc.com.tw/en/about_us_profile.html and

“Products: Available Products, Size and Size Tolerance,” http://www.csssc.com.tw/en/products_SST.html; Tang

Eng Iron Works Co., Ltd., “Preface,” and “Tolerances of Thickness and Width,” 

http://www.tangeng.com.tw/eindex.asp; Tung Mung Development Co., Ltd., “Preface,” and “Main Products,” 

http://www.tungmung.com.tw/; Yieh United Steel Corp., “About YUSCO,”

http://www.yusco.com.tw/English/about_yusco_ch.htm and “Specifications,”

http://www.yusco.com.tw/English/specifications_ch.htm. According to Tung Mung’s website, the company does

not produce stainless steel coiled plate but only cold-rolled sheet and strip. This is consistent with information

reported by the company during the original investigations. Staff Report on Certain Stainless Steel Plate from

Belgium, Canada, Italy, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan, Investigations Nos. 701-TA-376-379 (Final) and

731-TA-788-793 (Final), Memorandum INV-W-064, April 9, 1999, p. VII-20.

IV-14
Table IV-12

Stainless steel coiled plate: Taiwan's hot-rolled annealing and pickling capacity, and global

shipments of continuous mill plate, 2005-10

Item

Calendar year

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Quantity (short tons)

Capacity (

1

) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)

Global shipments2 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 1 Hot-rolled coil annealing and pickling capacity was *** short tons in 2010. Data include capacity to produce

hot-rolled coiled product outside of the scope of the subject orders, e.g., capacity to produce hot-rolled sheet and

strip and are unavailable for 2005-10. Tung Mung Development Co., Ltd. does not produce stainless steel coiled

plate but only cold-rolled sheet and strip. Capacity includes the hot-rolled annealing and pickling capacity of Tung

Mung.

 2

 Global shipment data exclude coils for rerolling.

Note.–***.

Source: ***.

Table IV-13 presents Taiwan’s exports, as reported by the Global Trade Atlas.

Table IV-13

Stainless steel coiled plate: Taiwan's exports, 2005-10

Item

Calendar year

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Quantity (short tons)

Exports 72,537 89,200 49,067 31,287 34,312 34,007

Note.–Export data, derived from the Global Trade Atlas, may include nonsubject product.

Source: Global Trade Atlas, HTS subheadings 7219.11, 7219.12, and 7219.31.

IV-15
THE GLOBAL MARKET

Capacity and Shipments

Global stainless steel hot-rolled coil annealing and pickling capacity is concentrated in three areas

(from greatest to smallest): Asia, Western Europe, and North America (table IV-14).

Table IV-14

Global, regional, and individual country stainless steel hot-rolled coil annealing and pickling

capacity, 2010-15

* * * * * * *

Although global shipments of stainless steel hot-rolled products increased by *** percent during

2005-10, shipments did not increase in all regions (table IV-15). Shipments from North America

decreased by *** percent which was the largest decrease of any region. Shipments from Belgium and

Italy increased by *** and *** percent respectively. Korea’s shipments increased by *** percent,

shipments from Taiwan increased by *** percent, and shipments from Africa decreased by *** percent. 

Shipments are predicted to increase during 2011-15 in all regions (table IV-16).

Table IV-15

Stainless steel hot-rolled products: Global, regional, and individual country shipments of

continuous mill plate (excluding coils for rerolling), 2005-10

* * * * * * *

Table IV-16

Stainless steel hot-rolled products: Forecast of global, regional, and individual country shipments

of continuous mill plate (excluding coils for rerolling), 2011-15

* * * * * * *

Consumption

Although global stainless steel hot-rolled flat product consumption increased globally by

*** percent during 2005-10, there were wide variations by region (table IV-17). There were consumption

declines in the United States and Italy of *** percent and *** percent, respectively, while consumption in

Asia increased by *** percent. Consumption is projected to continue to grow during 2011-15 with most

regions experiencing consumption growth. The country with the largest increase is China, *** percent,

but consumption is projected to grow in North America and Western Europe by *** percent and ***

percent, respectively (table IV-18).

Table IV-17

Stainless steel hot-rolled flat products: Global, regional, and individual country apparent

consumption, 2005-10

* * * * * * *

IV-16
Table IV-18

Stainless steel hot-rolled flat products: Forecast of global, regional, and individual country

apparent consumption, 2011-15

* * * * * * *

Firms’ responses regarding demand outside the United States since 2005, and in 2011 and 2012,

are summarized in table IV-19. Firms reported a variety of answers regarding demand trends since

2005.37 Changes in demand since 2005 reported by purchasers, U.S. producers, importers, and foreign

producers include the downturn in the global economy and the growth/economic development of China,

India, Brazil, and other countries. 

Most firms expect an increase in demand outside the United States in 2011 and 2012. Expected

changes in demand include continued economic recovery, continued economic growth/economic

development, low interest rates increasing investments using stainless steel coiled plate, and new uses

increasing future demand.

Table IV-19

Stainless steel coiled plate: Firms' perceptions regarding demand outside the United States

Item

Number of firms reporting

Increase Decrease Fluctuate No change

Demand since 2005

 U.S. producers 0 1 0 1

 Importers 2 0 3 1

 Purchasers 2 4 2 1

 Foreign producers 1 0 2 0

Demand in 2011 and 2012

 U.S. producers 1 0 0 1

 Importers 4 0 1 1

 Purchasers 5 2 2 0

 Foreign producers 3 0 0 0

Note.– Producer, *** did not respond to the questions in this part of the questionnaire.

Note.--Foreign producers were asked separately about demand in their home markets and in third country markets; 

all firms responded the same for both markets.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

 37 The foreign producer reporting an increase since 2005 was ***.

IV-17
Prices

One foreign producer reported prices were the same for its products in all markets, the other two

responding producers referred to CRU data. The trend of average world prices for stainless steel hotrolled coil in grades 304 and 316 during January 2005-February 2011 is displayed in figure IV-1.

Figure IV-1

Stainless steel hot-rolled coil: Average world prices for grades 304 and 316, January 2005-

February 2011

Note.–Product priced is in standard widths, thickness is 3-12 mm. Therefore, data may include prices for hot-rolled

coiled product outside of the scope of the subject orders, e.g., product in sheet gauges.

Source: MEPS International Ltd., “MEPS - World Stainless Steel Prices,” for hot-rolled coil.

http://www.meps.co.uk/Stainless%20Prices.htm,.

Data on prices for stainless steel hot-rolled coil in AISI grades 304 and 316 are presented in the

following tables.

Table IV-20

Stainless steel hot-rolled coil: U.S. negotiated transaction prices for stainless steel hot-rolled coil

AISI grade 304, by region and country, January 2005-May 2011

* * * * * * *

Table IV-21

Stainless steel hot-rolled coil: U.S. negotiated transaction prices for stainless steel hot-rolled coil

AISI grade 316, by region and country, January 2005-May 2011

* * * * * * *

IV-18
PART V: PRICING AND RELATED INFORMATION1

FACTORS AFFECTING PRICES

By definition, stainless steel is an iron alloy that contains at least 10.5 percent chromium and no

more than 1.2 percent carbon. Raw materials for the production of stainless steel coiled plate include

carbon steel and stainless steel scrap, as well as alloy materials (especially chromium, nickel, and

molybdenum). As shown in table V-1, the amount of alloying elements used varies by grade of stainless

steel. Some common grades, such as AISI grades 304 and 316, contain significant amounts of nickel

while others, such as AISI grades 409 and 430, contain little if any nickel. The price of stainless steel

coiled plate also depends on the extent of processing. 

Table V-1

Stainless steel: Share of alloying elements in various grades of stainless steel

AISI grade

Alloying element

Nickel Chromium Manganese Molybdenum Titanium

Share of alloying element in stainless steel grade (percent)

304 8.0-10.5 18.0-20.0 2.0 -- --

316L 10.0-14.0 16.0-18.0 2.0 2.0-3.0 --

409 0.50 10.50-11.75 1.0 -- 0.48-0.75

430 0.75 16.0-18.0 1.0 -- --

Source: Specialty Steel Industry of North America, Designer Handbook: Design Guidelines for the Selection and

Use of Stainless Steel, pp. 8, 10, http://www.ssina.com/publications/design.html, retrieved April 15, 2011.

 1 ***.

V-1
Raw Material Costs

Raw material components vary based on the grade of stainless steel produced and the proportion

and composition of scrap material used. Accordingly, raw material costs depend on the desired

characteristics of the final product. Both responding producers reported that nickel was the largest cost

(from *** to *** percent of the cost), followed by chrome (*** to *** percent), and iron (*** to ***

percent). Importers generally identified nickel as the most costly raw material. Importers also listed

chromium, molybdenum, and iron as costly raw materials.

Price trends for iron scrap and for alloying elements nickel, chromium, manganese, and

molybdenum are shown in figures V-1 and V-2, respectively.2

 Iron scrap prices fluctuated within a range

of $133 to $328 per short ton during 2005-07. In 2008, prices spiked to $772 in August but were down to

$195 by the end of the year. In 2009-10, prices gradually increased and were $495 by May 2011. 

Chromium and manganese prices showed a similar trend to iron scrap prices, with a spike in prices in

2008 while nickel prices peaked in 2007. Molybdenum prices were relatively stable from 2005-08,

declined in early 2009, and then increased slightly but remained below 2005 levels.

***.3

 

 2 During January 2005-May 2011, chromium prices ranged from $108-497 per short ton and manganese prices

were $93-484 per short ton. Nickel prices ($4-23 per pound) and molybdenum prices ($9-38 per pound) were much

higher. American Metal Market. 

The price of ferrotitanium fell from a high of $8.83 per pound in January 2006 to $1.35 in May-June 2009,

rose to $3.52 in May 2010, declined to $3.20 in December 2010, then rose to $4.13 in May 2011. Platts Metals

Week Price Notification Monthly Report, monthly editions January 2006 - May 2011.

 3

 ***.

V-2
Figure V-1

Raw materials: Iron scrap (No. 1 Bushelings, Pittsburgh), index of monthly prices, January 2005-

May 2011

Source: American Metal Market, retrieved June 8, 2011.

Figure V-2

Raw materials: Alloying elements, index of monthly prices, January 2005-May 2011

Source: American Metal Market, retrieved June 8, 2011.

V-3
Energy Costs

Energy costs are an important factor in stainless steel production. At the melting stage, electric

arc furnaces use large amounts of electricity while natural gas is used in reheating and annealing lines.4

 

Available data indicate that annual average industrial prices of electricity (per kilowatt hour) generally

increased from 5.23 cents in January 2005 to 6.35 cents in January 2011 (figure V-3).5

 Natural gas prices

(per thousand cubic feet) spiked during late 2005 and mid-2008, declined to a period low in September

2009, and have since increased but not to pre-2008 prices. Prices for electricity and natural gas are not

forecasted to vary appreciably from 2010 levels in 2011 and 2012. 

Figure V-3

Industrial natural gas and electricity: Monthly prices, January 2005-April 2011 and May 2011-

December 2012 (forecast)

Source: Short Term Energy Outlook, Energy Information Administration, retrieved from www.eia.doe.gov, June 1,

2011.

 4 Hearing transcript, May 26, p. 102 (Hartford).

 5

 As shown in figure V-3, energy prices appear to be highly cyclical, with electricity prices increasing in the

summer and natural gas prices increasing in the winter, due to seasonal demand. 

V-4
Surcharges

Many firms add one or more types of surcharges to the base price of their products to account for

fluctuations in raw material and energy prices. Raw material surcharges are calculated using formulas

based on trigger prices for each raw material and vary depending on the specific grade of steel. Fuel and

energy surcharges are based on prices of natural gas and transportation fuels. Both responding U.S.

producers reported raw material surcharges and fuel surcharges, and one reported energy surcharges. 

Five importers reported the use of one or more type of surcharge; specifically raw material surcharges (5

firms), fuel (2), energy (4), and transportation (1). 

U.S. producers’ surcharges are adjusted monthly with a 60 day lag.6

 Domestic producers have

utilized surcharges since the 1980s, beginning with nickel surcharges and later including other raw

materials. The most recently added surcharges were for energy; Allegheny Ludlum added this surcharge

around 2002-03.7

For illustrative purposes, Allegheny Ludlum’s surcharges, per short ton of stainless steel, for May

2008 and December 2010 are shown in table V-2. The table illustrates the type of surcharges, and the

variation in types and extent of surcharges, by grade of stainless steel, and over time. As shown in the

table, the nickel surcharge has been higher than other surcharges for grades 304 and 316 (comprising 55

to 75 percent of total surcharges in the periods shown). 

Some purchasers report that the surcharge mechanism’s yield loss ratio assumes greater losses

than actually occurs in production, and mills frequently use (lower cost) scrap as feedstock rather than

virgin metal used as the base for the surcharge. These purchasers report that these aspects of the

surcharge mechanisms are a source of profit for the producers.8

 6 Allegheny Ludlum reported that “the raw material cost indices average for the month of January would

determine our surcharge in the month of March.” Hearing transcript, May 25, pp. 99-100 (Hartford and Schmitt).

 7

 Hearing transcript, May 26, pp. 89-92 (Hartford and Feeley).

 8

 Metal Bulletin, “AMM’s Stainless and its Alloys Conference: Stainless buyers fed up with surcharge,”

retrieved June 2, 2011. See also domestic producers’ discussion of surcharges in Domestic Interested Parties’

posthearing brief, p. 11 n. 5

V-5
Table V-2

Stainless steel: Allegheny Ludlum’s raw material and energy surcharges

Grade/ period

Surcharges (per short ton)

Nickel Chrome Molybdenum Iron Energy Total

May 2008

304/304L $2,335 $834 $0 $180 $38 $3,386

316/316L 2,918 741 1,459 175 38 5,331

430 0 741 0 205 38 984

December 2010

304/304L 1,690 415 0 154 0 2,259

316/316L 2,112 369 587 150 0 3,218

430 0 369 0 176 0 544

Note.--No other surcharges (including for manganese) were indicated for these grades during these time periods.

Source: Surcharges For Orders Promised for Delivery, May 4, 2008 Through May 31, 2008 

and November 28, 2010 Through January 1, 2011 http://www.alleghenyludlum.com, retrieved April 15, 2011.

All 10 responding purchasers reported that they paid surcharges since 2005, including 10 for raw

materials, 9 for fuel, 6 for energy, and 4 for transportation. Purchasers indicated that all domestic

suppliers had surcharges.9

 All responding purchasers reported that these surcharges had been in effect

during the entire review period. Purchasers reported that these surcharges have lead to fluctuations in

prices but none reported that the type of surcharges has changed since 2005.

U.S. Inland Transportation Costs

Both responding producers and three of five importers reported that they typically arrange

transportation to their customers. U.S. producers reported that their U.S. inland transportation costs

ranged from *** percent. Two importers reported transportation costs of *** percent. Freight costs

account for a much smaller percentage of stainless steel costs than for carbon steel.10

Transportation Costs to the U.S. Market

ThyssenKrupp reported that long distance shipping costs have escalated.11 TKAST’s freight rates 

from Europe to the United States increased from ***.12

The Baltic Dry Index, which tracks worldwide shipping prices of various dry bulk cargos, spiked

in late 2007 and 2008, fell sharply in late 2008, and increased slightly in 2009-10. Over the last year, the

 9 Nine purchasers reported all domestic suppliers had surcharges, the other purchaser reported NAS and

Allegheny had surcharges. 

 10 Hearing transcript, May 26, p. 143 (Lacor).

 11 Hearing transcript, May 25, pp. 143-144 (Iller). 

 12 ThyssenKrupp Respondent Interested Parties' posthearing brief, appendix p. 19.

V-6
index fell from September 2010 to February 2011, and has increased very slightly, but still remains at

much lower levels than the peak period of 2007-08.13

Exchange Rates

ThyssenKrupp contends that the declining dollar makes shipments from Europe to the United

States less attractive, and that the downward pressure on the dollar is likely to continue.14

Exchange rate data for January 2005-March 2011 are shown in appendix E. During this period,

the real value of the dollar versus the Euro fell by 3.9 percent, the real value of the U.S. dollar compared

to the Korean won fell by 14.2 percent, and the real value of the U.S. dollar compared to the South Africa

rand increased by 0.4 percent. The nominal value of the U.S. dollar to the Taiwan new dollar increased

by 7.5 percent.15

PRICING PRACTICES

Pricing Methods

Both responding U.S. producers, Allegheny Ludlum and NAS, reported using ***. Four of six

responding importers reported transaction-by-transaction-pricing, three reported contract prices, two

reported set price lists, and two reported other methods. U.S. producers and importers sell primarily on a

spot basis with a small percentage of short-term contracts; no firms reported long-term contracts. For

U.S. producers, about *** percent of 2010 sales were on a spot basis and *** percent were on a shortterm contract basis; similarly for importers, 95.6 percent of 2010 sales were on a spot basis and 4.4

percent were on a short-term contract basis.16

Six purchasers reported that they purchase stainless steel coiled plate daily, three purchase

weekly, and one purchases monthly. Nine of 10 responding purchasers reported that they did not expect

their purchasing patterns to change in the next two years.17 Most (9 of 10) purchasers contact 1 to 3

suppliers before making a purchase.

Sales Terms and Discounts

Both U.S. producers typically quote prices on an f.o.b. basis while three of four responding 

importers quote prices on a delivered basis. Both responding producers offer quantity and total volume

discounts. Three importers offer total volume discounts, one offers quantity discounts, and two reported

no discounts. Both producers and four of the six responding importers reported selling net 30 days. 

 13 Bloomberg, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=BDIY:IND, retrieved June 9, 2011. 

 14 ThyssenKrupp Respondent Interested Parties' posthearing brief, p. 9, and exh. 20, The Wall Street Journal

“Dollar’s Decline Speeds Up, with Risks for U.S.” April 23, 2011. This article attributes the U.S. dollar’s weakness 

to low interest rates, inflation concerns, and federal budget deficits, and expects that none of these factors will 

change soon.

 15 Real exchange rates for the Taiwan currency were not available. International Financial Statistics, International

Monetary Fund, retrieved June 8, 2011, and St. Louis Federal Reserve, retrieved June 8, 2011.

 16 One U.S. producer and one of the three responding importers reported using short-term contracts.

 17 The purchaser that expected purchase patterns to change reported that purchase patterns are project driven and

always changing.

V-7
Price Leadership

All 10 responding purchasers reported that NAS was a price leader, and 3 also reported that

Allegheny Ludlum was a price leader. No other price leaders were reported.

Regional Price Differences

Firms were asked if regional price differences existed in the stainless steel coiled plate market. 

One producer reported minor price variations from time to time and the other reported that West Coast

prices have been historically lower. No importer noted any geographic price differences. 

PRICE DATA

The Commission requested U.S. producers and importers to provide quarterly data for the total

quantity and f.o.b. value of the following stainless steel coiled plate products shipped to unrelated U.S.

customers during 2005-10:

Product 1.--AISI Grade 304, thickness 0.25 inch (0.24-0.295 inch), width 48-60 inches, in coils.

Product 2.--AISI Grade 304, thickness 0.1875 inch (0.1870-0.2325 inch), width 48-60 inches, in 

 coils.

Product 3.--AISI Grade 304L, thickness 0.25 inch (0.24-0.295 inch), width 48-60 inches, in coils.

Product 4.--AISI Grade 316L, thickness 0.1875 inch (0.1870-0.2325 inch), width 48-60 inches, 

 in coils.

Two U.S. producers provided usable pricing data for sales of the requested products. One

importer of stainless steel coiled plate from Belgium provided usable pricing data for products 1 and 2,

but no data for Belgium were reported for products 3 and 4. No useable pricing data were reported for

Italy, Korea, South Africa, or Taiwan. By quantity, reported pricing data for 2005-10 accounted for

approximately *** percent of U.S. producers’ shipments of stainless steel coiled plate and *** percent of

imports from Belgium. Price data for products 1-4 are presented in tables V-3 to V-5 and figures V-4 to

V-7. 

Table V-3

Stainless steel coiled plate: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and

imported product 1 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, 2005-10

* * * * * * *

Table V-4

Stainless steel coiled plate: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and

imported product 2 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, 2005-10

* * * * * * *

V-8
Table V-5

Stainless steel coiled plate: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic products 3

and 4, by quarters, 2005-10

* * * * * * *

Figure V-4

Stainless steel coiled plate: Weighted-average f.o.b prices and quantities of domestic and

imported product 1, by quarters, 2005-10

* * * * * * *

Figure V-5

Stainless steel coiled plate: Weighted-average f.o.b prices and quantities of domestic and

imported product 2, by quarters, 2005-10

* * * * * * *

Figure V-6

Stainless steel coiled plate: Weighted-average f.o.b prices and quantities of domestic product 3,

by quarters, 2005-10

* * * * * * *

Figure V-7

Stainless steel coiled plate: Weighted-average f.o.b prices and quantities of domestic product 4,

by quarters, 2005-10

* * * * * * *

Price Trends and Comparisons

Prices declined slightly in 2005, increased sharply until the second quarter of 2007, then declined

to below 2005 levels in 2009, before increasing through the end of 2010. Table V-6 summarizes the price

trends, by country and by product. As shown in the table, domestic price increases ranged from 13 to 45

percent during 2005-10. Table V-7 summarizes the data on margins. Subject imports from Belgium were

priced lower than domestic products in 5 instances by margins of *** to *** percent, and were priced

higher than domestic products in 8 instances, by margins of *** to *** percent.18

 18 In the original investigations, imports from the countries currently subject to the orders (other than Taiwan)

were priced lower than domestic product in 68 of 192 comparisons. Specifically, imports from each subject country

were priced lower than domestic product in the following number of comparisons: Belgium- 12 of 53; Italy- 17 of

57; Korea- 7 of 15; and South Africa- 32 of 67. Only rough comparisons were possible from Taiwan since *** did

not provide detailed price data. Confidential staff report for the original investigations (memorandum INV-W-064,

April 9, 1999), p. V-39 and n. 11. 

In the first reviews, imports from Belgium, Italy, and Korea were priced lower than domestic product in 46

of 115 comparisons; no price data were reported for South Africa or Taiwan. Specifically, imports from each subject

country were priced lower than domestic product in the following number of comparisons: Belgium- 16 of 74; Italy15 of 21; and Korea- 15 of 20. Confidential staff report for the original investigations (memorandum INV-CC-058,

April 27, 2005), p. V-28. 

V-9
Table V-6

Stainless steel coiled plate: Summary of f.o.b. prices for products 1-4, by country

* * * * * * *

Table V-7

Stainless steel coiled plate: Instances of underselling/overselling and the range and average of

margins, 2005-10

Underselling Overselling

Number of

instances

Range

(percent)

Average

margin

(percent)

Number of

instances

Range

(percent)

Average

margin

(percent)

Belgium 5 *** *** 8 *** ***

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Purchaser Perceptions of Relative Price Trends

Purchasers were asked how the price of stainless steel coiled plate from subject countries had

changed relative to U.S. prices since 2005. All responding purchasers reported that prices of subject

imports had increased or had not changed relative to U.S. prices (table V-8).

Table V-8

Stainless steel coiled plate: Number of purchasers reporting subject price changes relative to U.S.

prices

Country Increased Decreased Unchanged 

Belgium 3 0 3

Italy 0 0 2

Korea 1 0 1

South Africa 1 0 3

Taiwan 0 0 2

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

V-10
Contains Business Proprietary Information

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES AND THE 

COMMISSION’S STATEMENT ON ADEQUACY

A-1

EXPLANATION OF COMMISSION DETERMINATIONS ON ADEQUACY

in

Stainless Steel Plate from Belgium, Italy, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-376 and

379 and 731-TA-788, 790-793 (Second Review)

On September 7, 2010, 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 received a consolidated response to its notice of institution from domestic

interested parties Allegheny Ludlum Corporation and North American Stainless, U.S. producers of

stainless steel plate (“SSP”), and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy,

Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, a union whose workers are engaged in the

production of SSP. These parties account for the majority of domestic production of SSP. The

Commission found the individual response of each of these parties, which contained party-specific data,

to be adequate. With respect to the orders on SSP from Belgium, Italy, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan,

the Commission determined that the domestic interested party group response was adequate.

The Commission also received adequate individual responses concerning the order on SSP from

Italy, filed jointly by ThyssenKrupp Acciai Speciali Terni S.p.A. (“TKAST”), an Italian producer of SSP,

and ThyssenKrupp Acciai Speciali Terni USA, Inc., a U.S. importer of SSP from Italy. The Commission

found that the respondent interested party group response was adequate with respect to the order on SSP

from Italy because the responding producer, TKAST, is the sole producer of SSP in Italy.

Because the group and individual responses from both domestic interested parties and respondent

interested parties were adequate in the review of the order concerning SSP from Italy, the Commission

determined to conduct a full review in this proceeding.

The Commission did not receive a response from any respondent interested parties in the reviews

concerning subject imports from Belgium, Korea, South Africa, or Taiwan and therefore determined that

the respondent interested party group response from each of these countries was not adequate. The

Commission nevertheless voted to conduct full reviews concerning subject imports from Belgium, Korea,

South Africa, and Taiwan to promote administrative efficiency in light of the Commission’s

determination to conduct a full review of the other order 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).

30434 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Notices 

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. 10–5–218, 

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. 

2Following the five-year reviews, Commerce 

revoked the antidumping duty order on stainless 

steel plate from Canada effective May 21, 2004 (70 

FR 41207, July 18, 2005). 3Following a changed circumstances review, 

Commerce revoked the countervailing duty order 

on stainless steel plate from Italy, effective 

September 4, 1998 (71 FR 15380, March 28, 2006). 

Country(ies), provide the following 

information on your firm’s(s’) 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2009 (report quantity data 

in pounds 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; 

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to 

produce the Subject Merchandise in 

each Subject Country (i.e., the level of 

production that your establishment(s) 

could reasonably have expected to 

attain during the year, assuming normal 

operating conditions (using equipment 

and machinery in place and ready to 

operate), normal operating levels (hours 

per week/weeks per year), time for 

downtime, maintenance, repair, and 

cleanup, and a typical or representative 

product mix); and 

(c) 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. 

(12) 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 since the Order 

Date, and significant changes, if any, 

that are likely to occur within a 

reasonably foreseeable time. Supply 

conditions to consider include 

technology; production methods; 

development efforts; ability to increase 

production (including the shift of 

production facilities used for other 

products and the use, cost, or 

availability of major inputs into 

production); and factors related to the 

ability to shift supply among different 

national markets (including barriers to 

importation in foreign markets or 

changes in market demand abroad). 

Demand conditions to consider include 

end uses and applications; the existence 

and availability of substitute products; 

and the level of competition among the 

Domestic Like Product produced in the 

United States, Subject Merchandise 

produced in each Subject Country, and 

such merchandise from other countries. 

(13) (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. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: May 24, 2010. 

William R. Bishop, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12760 Filed 5–28–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–376 and 379 

and 731–TA–788, 790–793 (Second Review)] 

Stainless Steel Plate From Belgium, 

Italy, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of five-year reviews 

concerning the countervailing duty 

orders on stainless steel plate from 

Belgium and South Africa and the 

antidumping duty orders on stainless 

steel plate from Belgium, Italy, Korea, 

South Africa, and Taiwan. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it has instituted reviews 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) 

to determine whether revocation of the 

countervailing duty orders on stainless 

steel plate from Belgium and South 

Africa and the antidumping duty orders 

on stainless steel plate from Belgium, 

Italy, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan 

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 July 1, 2010. Comments on 

the adequacy of responses may be filed 

with the Commission by August 16, 

2010. 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), as most recently amended at 74 FR 

2847 (January 16, 2009). 

DATES: Effective Date: June 1, 2010. 

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.—May 11, 1999, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘Commerce’’) 

issued countervailing duty orders on 

imports of certain stainless steel plate 

from Belgium, Italy, and South Africa 

(64 FR 25288). On May 21, 1999, 

Commerce issued antidumping duty 

orders on imports of certain stainless 

steel plate from Belgium, Canada, Italy, 

Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan (64 FR 

27756). On March 11, 2003, Commerce 

amended these antidumping and 

countervailing duty orders on imports of 

certain stainless steel plate to remove 

the original language that excluded 

cold-rolled stainless steel plate in coils 

(68 FR 11520 and 68 FR 11524). 

Following five-year reviews by 

Commerce and the Commission, 

effective July 18, 2005, Commerce 

issued a continuation of the 

countervailing duty orders on stainless 

steel plate from Belgium, Italy, and 

South Africa and the antidumping duty 

orders on stainless steel plate from 

Belgium, Italy, Korea, South Africa, and 

Taiwan (70 FR 41202).2 The 

Commission is now conducting second 

reviews of the countervailing duty 

orders on stainless steel plate from 

Belgium and South Africa 3 and the 

antidumping duty orders on stainless 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Notices 30435 

4While the Commission majority in the original 

determinations defined two separate domestic like 

products (i.e., hot-rolled stainless steel plate in coils 

and cold-rolled stainless steel plate in coils), on 

remand the Commission majority’s determinations 

involved a single domestic like product, certain 

stainless steel plate in coils. 

steel plate from Belgium, Italy, Korea, 

South Africa, and Taiwan to determine 

whether revocation of the orders would 

be likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of material injury to the 

domestic industry within a reasonably 

foreseeable time. It will assess the 

adequacy of interested party responses 

to this notice of institution to determine 

whether to conduct full 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 Belgium, Italy, Korea, South 

Africa, and Taiwan. 

(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 after remand and its full 

first five-year review determinations, 

the Commission defined a single 

Domestic Like Product as certain (hotrolled and cold-rolled) stainless steel 

plate in coils, coextensive with 

Commerce’s scope definition. Certain 

Commissioners defined the Domestic 

Like Product differently in the original 

determinations.4

(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 

after remand and its full first five-year 

review determinations, the Commission 

defined the Domestic Industry as all 

producers of certain stainless steel plate 

in coils. Certain Commissioners defined 

the Domestic Industry differently in the 

original determinations. 

(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 has advised that a five-year 

review is not considered the ‘‘same 

particular matter’’ as the corresponding 

underlying original investigation for 

purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post 

employment statute for Federal 

employees, and Commission rule 

201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), 73 FR 

24609 (May 5, 2008). This advice was 

developed in consultation with the 

Office of Government Ethics. 

Consequently, former employees are not 

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 July 1, 2010. 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 

August 16, 2010. 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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
30436 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Notices 

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) and name, telephone number, 

fax number, and e-mail 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 and 

countervailing duty orders 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 

2004. 

(7) A list of 3–5 leading purchasers in 

the U.S. market for the Domestic Like 

Product and the Subject Merchandise 

(including street address, World Wide 

Web address, and the name, telephone 

number, fax number, and e-mail address 

of a responsible official at each firm). 

(8) A list of known sources of 

information on national or regional 

prices for the Domestic Like Product or 

the Subject Merchandise in the U.S. or 

other markets. 

(9) 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 2009, except as noted 

(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) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to 

produce the Domestic Like Product (i.e., 

the level of production that your 

establishment(s) could reasonably have 

expected to attain during the year, 

assuming normal operating conditions 

(using equipment and machinery in 

place and ready to operate), normal 

operating levels (hours per week/weeks 

per year), time for downtime, 

maintenance, repair, and cleanup, and a 

typical or representative product mix); 

(c) The quantity and value of U.S. 

commercial shipments of the Domestic 

Like Product produced in your U.S. 

plant(s); and 

(d) The quantity and value of U.S. 

internal consumption/company 

transfers of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s). 

(e) The value of (i) Net sales, (ii) cost 

of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, 

(iv) selling, general and administrative 

(SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating 

income of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s) (include 

both U.S. and export commercial sales, 

internal consumption, and company 

transfers) for your most recently 

completed fiscal year (identify the date 

on which your fiscal year ends). 

(10) 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 

during calendar year 2009 (report 

quantity data in short tons and value 

data in U.S. dollars). If you are a trade/ 

business association, provide the 

information, on an aggregate basis, for 

the firms which are members of your 

association. 

(a) The quantity and value (landed, 

duty-paid but not including 

antidumping or countervailing duties) 

of U.S. imports and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total U.S. 

imports of Subject Merchandise from 

each Subject Country accounted for by 

your firm’s(s’) imports; 

(b) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping and/or 

countervailing duties) of U.S. 

commercial shipments of Subject 

Merchandise imported from each 

Subject Country; and 

(c) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping and/or 

countervailing duties) of U.S. internal 

consumption/company transfers of 

Subject Merchandise imported from 

each Subject Country. 

(11) 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 2009 

(report quantity data in short tons and 

value data in U.S. dollars, landed and 

duty-paid at the U.S. port but not 

including antidumping or 

countervailing duties). If you are a 

trade/business association, provide the 

information, on an aggregate basis, for 

the firms which are members of your 

association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total production of Subject Merchandise 

in each Subject Country accounted for 

by your firm’s(s’) production; and 

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to 

produce the Subject Merchandise in 

each Subject Country (i.e., the level of 

production that your establishment(s) 

could reasonably have expected to 

attain during the year, assuming normal 

operating conditions (using equipment 

and machinery in place and ready to 

operate), normal operating levels (hours 

per week/weeks per year), time for 

downtime, maintenance, repair, and 

cleanup, and a typical or representative 

product mix); and 

(c) 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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Notices 30437 

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. 10–5–219, 

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. 

2Subsequent to the issuance of the first five-year 

review institution notices, Commerce discovered 

that it had previously revoked the countervailing 

duty order for France on November 7, 2003, in its 

notice of implementation under Section 129 of the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act. Consequently, 

Commerce (69 FR 35585, June 25, 2004) and the 

Commission (69 FR 35678, June 25, 2004) both 

rescinded the first five-year review of the 

countervailing duty order on stainless steel sheet 

and strip from France. Following the Commission’s 

and Commerce’s five-year reviews of the remaining 

orders, Commerce revoked the antidumping duty 

orders on stainless steel sheet and strip from France 

and the United Kingdom effective July 27, 2004 (70 

FR 44894, August 4, 2005). Following a changed 

circumstances review, Commerce revoked the 

countervailing duty order on stainless steel sheet 

and strip in coils from Italy, effective November 17, 

1998 (71 FR 15382, March 28, 2006).

Merchandise from each Subject Country 

accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. 

(12) Identify significant changes, if 

any, in the supply and demand 

conditions or business cycle for the 

Domestic Like Product that have 

occurred in the United States or in the 

market for the Subject Merchandise in 

the Subject Country(ies) after 2004, 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. 

(13) (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. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: May 24, 2010. 

William R. Bishop, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12759 Filed 5–28–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–382 and 731– 

TA–798–803 (Second Review)] 

Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip From 

Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, 

and Taiwan 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of five-year reviews 

concerning the countervailing duty 

order on stainless steel sheet and strip 

from Korea and the antidumping duty 

orders on stainless steel sheet and strip 

from Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, 

Mexico, and Taiwan. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it has instituted reviews 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) 

to determine whether revocation of the 

countervailing duty order on stainless 

steel sheet and strip from Korea and the 

antidumping duty orders on stainless 

steel sheet and strip from Germany, 

Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and Taiwan 

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 July 1, 2010. Comments on 

the adequacy of responses may be filed 

with the Commission by August 16, 

2010. 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), as most recently amended at 74 FR 

2847 (January 16, 2009). 

DATES: Effective Date: June 1, 2010. 

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 July 27, 1999, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘Commerce’’) 

issued antidumping duty orders on 

imports of stainless steel sheet and strip 

in coils from France, Germany, Italy, 

Japan, Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, and the 

United Kingdom (64 FR 40555–40570). 

On August 6, 1999, Commerce issued 

countervailing duty orders on imports of 

stainless steel sheet and strip in coils 

from France, Italy, and Korea (64 FR 

42923–42925). Following five-year 

reviews by Commerce and the 

Commission, effective July 25, 2005, 

Commerce issued a continuation of the 

countervailing duty orders on stainless 

steel sheet and strip in coils from Italy 

and Korea and the antidumping duty 

orders on stainless steel sheet and strip 

in coils from Germany, Italy, Japan, 

Korea, Mexico, and Taiwan (70 FR 

44886, August 4, 2005).2 The 

Commission is now conducting second 

five-year reviews to determine whether 

revocation of the countervailing duty 

order on stainless steel sheet and strip 

in coils from Korea and the 

antidumping duty orders on stainless 

steel sheet and strip in coils from 

Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, 

and Taiwan 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 

review 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 Germany, Italy, Japan, 

Korea, Mexico, and Taiwan. 

(3) The Domestic Like Product is the 

domestically produced product or


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 2, 2010 / Notices 30777 

Whereas, the Foreign-Trade Zones Act 

provides for ‘‘ * * * the establishment 

* * * of foreign-trade zones in ports of 

entry of the United States, to expedite 

and encourage foreign commerce, and 

for other purposes,’’ and authorizes the 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant to 

qualified corporations the privilege of 

establishing foreign-trade zones in or 

adjacent to U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection ports of entry; 

Whereas, the Board’s regulations (15 

CFR part 400) provide for the 

establishment of special-purpose 

subzones when existing zone facilities 

cannot serve the specific use involved, 

and when the activity results in a 

significant public benefit and is in the 

public interest; 

Whereas, the Cedar Rapids Airport 

Commission, grantee of FTZ 175, has 

made application to the Board for 

authority to establish special-purpose 

subzone status with manufacturing 

authority at the Deere & Company 

facilities, located in Waterloo, Iowa 

(FTZ Docket 50–2009, filed 11/12/2009); 

Whereas, notice inviting public 

comment has been given in the Federal 

Register (74 FR 59524, 11/18/2009) and 

the application has been processed 

pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board’s 

regulations; and, 

Whereas, the Board adopts the 

findings and recommendations of the 

examiner’s report, and finds that the 

requirements of the FTZ Act and 

Board’s regulations are satisfied, and 

that the proposal is in the public 

interest; 

Now, therefore, the Board hereby 

grants authority for subzone status for 

activity related to the manufacturing 

and distribution of agricultural 

equipment at the facilities of Deere & 

Company, located in Waterloo, Iowa 

(Subzone 175A), as described in the 

application and Federal Register notice, 

subject to the FTZ Act and the Board’s 

regulations, including Section 400.28. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 21st day of 

May, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, Alternate Chairman, ForeignTrade Zones Board. 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13214 Filed 6–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board 

[Order No. 1681] 

Grant of Authority for Subzone Status; 

South Florida Materials Corporation 

(Distribution of Petroleum Products); 

Port Everglades, FL 

Pursuant to its authority under the ForeignTrade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), the ForeignTrade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the 

following Order: 

Whereas, the Foreign-Trade Zones Act 

provides for ‘‘* * * the establishment 

* * * of foreign-trade zones in ports of 

entry of the United States, to expedite 

and encourage foreign commerce, and 

for other purposes,’’ and authorizes the 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant to 

qualified corporations the privilege of 

establishing foreign-trade zones in or 

adjacent to U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection ports of entry; 

Whereas, the Board’s regulations (15 

CFR part 400) provide for the 

establishment of special-purpose 

subzones when existing zone facilities 

cannot serve the specific use involved, 

and when the activity results in a 

significant public benefit and is in the 

public interest; 

Whereas, Broward County, Florida, 

grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 25, has 

made application to the Board for 

authority to establish a special-purpose 

subzone at the petroleum product 

storage and distribution facility of South 

Florida Materials Corporation (d/b/a 

Vencenergy), located in Port Everglades, 

Florida, (FTZ Docket 44–2009, filed 10/ 

22/2009); 

Whereas, notice inviting public 

comment has been given in the Federal 

Register (74 FR 55812–55813, 10/29/ 

2009) and the application has been 

processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and 

the Board’s regulations; and, 

Whereas, the Board adopts the 

findings and recommendations of the 

examiner’s report, and finds that the 

requirements of the FTZ Act and 

Board’s regulations are satisfied, and 

that the proposal is in the public 

interest; 

Now, therefore, the Board hereby 

grants authority for subzone status for 

activity related to petroleum product 

storage and distribution at the facility of 

South Florida Materials Corporation 

(d/b/a Vencenergy), located in Port 

Everglades (Subzone 25F), as described 

in the application and Federal Register 

notice, subject to the FTZ Act and the 

Board’s regulations, including Section 

400.28. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 21st day of 

May 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, Alternate Chairman, ForeignTrade Zones Board. 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13210 Filed 6–1–10; 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. 

DATES: Effective Date: June 1, 2010. 

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 FiveYear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Orders: Policy 

Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998). 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
30778 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 2, 2010 / Notices 

1 In comments made on the interim final sunset 

regulations, a number of parties stated that the 

proposed five-day period for rebuttals to 

substantive responses to a notice of initiation was 

insufficient. This requirement was retained in the 

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: 

DOC Case No. ITC Case No. Country Product Department 

contact 

A–405–803 ........ 731–TA–1084 ... Finland .................... Carboxymethyl-cellulose ......................... Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391. 

A–201–834 ........ 731–TA–1085 ... Mexico .................... Carboxymethyl-cellulose ......................... Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391. 

A–421–811 ........ 731–TA–1086 ... Netherlands ............ Carboxymethyl-cellulose ......................... Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391. 

A–405–803 ........ 731–TA–1087 ... Sweden .................. Carboxymethyl-cellulose ......................... Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391. 

A–423–808 ........ 731–TA–788 ..... Belgium .................. Stainless Steel Plate in Coils (2nd Review).Brandon Farlander (202) 482–0182. 

A–475–822 ........ 731–TA–790 ..... Italy ......................... Stainless Steel Plate in Coils (2nd Review).Brandon Farlander (202) 482–0182. 

A–580–831 ........ 731–TA–791 ..... Korea ...................... Stainless Steel Plate in Coils (2nd Review).Brandon Farlander (202) 482–0182. 

A–791–805 ........ 731–TA–792 ..... South Africa ............ Stainless Steel Plate in Coils (2nd Review).Brandon Farlander (202) 482–0182. 

A–583–830 ........ 731–TA–783 ..... Taiwan .................... Stainless Steel Plate in Coils (2nd Review).Brandon Farlander (202) 482–1391. 

A–428–825 ........ 731–TA–798 ..... Germany ................. Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 

(2nd Review).

Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391. 

A–475–824 ........ 731–TA–799 ..... Italy ......................... Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 

(2nd Review).

Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391. 

A–588–845 ........ 731–TA–800 ..... Japan ...................... Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 

(2nd Review).

Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391. 

A–580–834 ........ 731–TA–801 ..... Korea ...................... Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 

(2nd Review).

Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391. 

A–201–822 ........ 731–TA–802 ..... Mexico .................... Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 

(2nd Review).

Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391. 

A–583–831 ........ 731–TA–803 ..... Taiwan .................... Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 

(2nd Review).

Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391. 

C–423–809 ....... 701–TA–376 ..... Belgium .................. Stainless Steel Plate in Coils (2nd Review).Brandon Farlander (202) 482–0182. 

C–791–806 ....... 701–TA–379 ..... South Africa ............ Stainless Steel Plate in Coils (2nd Review).Brandon Farlander (202) 482–0182. 

C–580–835 ....... 701–TA–382 ..... Korea ...................... Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 

(2nd Review).

Brandon Farlander (202) 482–0182. 

Filing Information 

As a courtesy, we are making 

information related to Sunset 

proceedings, including copies of the 

pertinent statute and Department’s 

regulations, the Department schedule 

for Sunset Reviews, a listing of past 

revocations and continuations, and 

current service lists, available to the 

public on the Department’s 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(d), 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. 

See 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). 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. Please consult the 

Department’s regulations for 

information regarding the Department’s 

conduct of Sunset Reviews.1 Please 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 2, 2010 / Notices 30779 

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. 

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). 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13058 Filed 6–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology 

Notice of Jointly Owned Invention 

Available for Licensing 

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards 

and Technology, Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of jointly owned 

invention available for licensing. 

SUMMARY: The invention listed below is 

jointly owned by the U.S. Government, 

as represented by the Department of 

Commerce, and by Applied Research 

Associates, Inc. The Department of 

Commerce’s interest in the invention is 

available for licensing in accordance 

with 35 U.S.C. 207 and 37 CFR part 404 

to achieve expeditious 

commercialization of results of federally 

funded research and development. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Technical and licensing information on 

this invention may be obtained by 

writing to: National Institute of 

Standards and Technology, Office of 

Technology Partnerships, Building 222, 

Room A242, Gaithersburg, MD 20899. 

Information is also available via 

telephone: 301–975–2649, fax 301–975– 

3482, or e-mail: nathalie.rioux@nist.gov. 

Any request for information should 

include the NIST Docket number or 

Patent number and title for the 

invention as indicated below. 

The invention available for licensing 

is: 

[NIST DOCKET NUMBER: 10–004] 

Title: Gradient Elution Moving 

Boundary Electrophoresis for the 

Analysis of Complex Samples and 

Detection of Toxins. 

Abstract: Methods of detecting the 

presence of toxins in a sample using 

electrophoretic separations and of 

performing electrophoretic separation of 

complex samples are provided. The 

method of detecting the presence of 

toxins includes reacting a sample and a 

substrate with a signaling enzyme 

which converts the substrate to the 

product in a reaction medium, 

introducing a run buffer into a 

separation channel having an inlet end, 

selectively introducing at least one of 

the substrate and the product of the 

reaction medium into the inlet end of 

the separation channel, 

electrophoretically separating the 

substrate and the product, and 

determining the rate of conversion of 

the substrate to the product, wherein a 

change in the rate of conversion is 

indicative of the presence of toxins. The 

method of performing electrophoretic 

separations of complex samples having 

charged particulates and oppositely 

charged analytes comprises introducing 

a run buffer into a separation channel 

having an inlet end, selectively 

introducing the oppositely charged 

analytes in the complex sample into the 

separation channel, and 

electrophoretically separating the 

charged particulates and the oppositely 

charged analytes. Additionally, a device 

for varying with respect to time the bulk 

flow of a fluid in a separation channel 

of an electrophoretic device having a 

buffer reservoir in fluid contact with the 

separation channel is provided. The 

device includes a pressure sensor in 

fluid contact with a buffer reservoir, a 

high pressure reservoir in selective 

fluidic communication with the buffer 

reservoir, a low pressure reservoir in 

selective fluidic communication with 

the buffer reservoir and in fluidic 

communication with the high pressure 

reservoir, and a pumping device for 

pumping a gas from the low pressure 

reservoir to the high pressure reservoir. 

Dated: May 25, 2010. 

Katharine B. Gebbie, 

Director, Physics Laboratory. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13200 Filed 6–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XW62 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone off Alaska; Stock Assessment of 

Eastern Bering Sea Pollock; Peer 

Review Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has requested the 

Center for Independent Experts (CIE) to 

conduct a peer review of the agency’s 

stock assessment of Eastern Bering Sea 

walleye pollock (Theragra 

chalcogramma). The CIE, operated by 

Northern Taiga Ventures, Inc., provides 

independent peer reviews of NMFS’s 

fisheries stock assessments. The Eastern 

Bering Sea pollock stock assessment is 

reviewed annually by the Alaska 

Fisheries Science Center, the North 

Pacific Fishery Management Council 

(NPFMC) Plan Team, and the NPFMC 

Scientific and Statistical Committee. 

The CIE review will examine whether 

the assessment incorporates the best 

available scientific information and 

provides a reasonable approach to 

understanding the population dynamics 

and stock status of Eastern Bering Sea 

pollock. The public is invited to attend 

and observe the presentations and 

discussions between the CIE panel and 

the NMFS scientists who collected and 

processed the data, and designed the 

underlying model. 

DATES: The public meeting will be held 

from June 28 through July 2, 2010, 9 

a.m. to 5 p.m. Pacific Standard Time. 

ADDRESSES: The review will be held at 

the NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science 

Center, 7600 Sand Point Way N.E., 

Building 4, Seattle, WA 98115. Photo 

identification is required to enter this 

facility. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James Ianelli, 206–526–6510. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CIE 

panel will consist of three peer 

reviewers who will assess materials 

related to the topic, participate in a 

review workshop with the NMFS 

scientists who developed the model and 

the analytical approach, and produce a 

report. This review will be highly 

technical in nature and will cover 

mathematical details of the analytical 

approach. More information about the 

CIE is available on its website at 

www.ciereviews.org.


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES

59744 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Notices 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The land 

is located entirely within the exterior 

boundary of the Upper Klamath 

National Wildlife Refuge and will 

remain closed to the public land laws, 

including the mining laws. The land 

will continue to be managed by the 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Order 

By virtue of the authority vested in 

the Secretary of the Interior by Section 

204 of the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 

1714, it is ordered as follows: 

The Secretarial Order dated January 

20, 1910, which withdrew land on 

behalf of the Bureau of Reclamation for 

the Klamath Reclamation Project is 

hereby revoked insofar as it affects the 

following described land: 

Willamette Meridian 

T. 34 S., R. 6 E., 

Sec. 25, NE1⁄4 and S1⁄2; 

Sec. 26, NE1⁄4SE1⁄4 and S1⁄2SE1⁄4; 

Sec. 35, E1⁄2E1⁄2 and E1⁄2W1⁄2NE1⁄4; 

Sec. 36. 

T. 35 S., R. 6 E., 

Sec. 1, lots 1 through 4, inclusive, S1⁄2N1⁄2, 

and S1⁄2; 

Sec. 2, lot 1, S1⁄2NE1⁄4, and SE1⁄4; 

Secs. 12, 13, 24, and 25; 

Sec. 35, E1⁄2; 

Sec. 36. 

T. 36 S., R. 6 E., 

Sec. 1; 

Sec. 2, lot 3, E1⁄2, SE1⁄4NW1⁄4, and SW1⁄4; 

Sec. 3, E1⁄2SE1⁄4; 

Sec. 11, NE1⁄4 and S1⁄2; 

Sec. 12; 

Sec. 13, N1⁄2 and E1⁄2SE1⁄4; 

Sec. 14, NE1⁄4, N1⁄2NW1⁄4, SE1⁄4NW1⁄4, and 

NW1⁄4SE1⁄4. 

The area described contains approximately 

9,001.84 acres, more or less, in Klamath 

County. 

Authority: 43 CFR 2370. 

Dated: September 13, 2010. 

Wilma A. Lewis, 

Assistant Secretary—Land and Minerals 

Management. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24285 Filed 9–27–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–MN–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–376 and 379 

and 731–TA–788, 790–793 (Second Review)] 

Stainless Steel Plate From Belgium, 

Italy, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of Commission 

determination to conduct full five-year 

reviews concerning the countervailing 

duty orders on stainless steel plate from 

Belgium and South Africa and the 

antidumping duty orders on stainless 

steel plate from Belgium, Italy, Korea, 

South Africa, and Taiwan. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it will proceed with full 

reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(5)) to determine whether 

revocation of the countervailing duty 

orders on stainless steel plate from 

Belgium and South Africa and the 

antidumping duty orders on stainless 

steel plate from Belgium, Italy, Korea, 

South Africa, and Taiwan 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: September 7, 

2010. 

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 

September 7, 2010, 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 (75 

FR 30434, June 1, 2010) was adequate 

and that the respondent interested party 

group response with respect to Italy was 

adequate and decided to conduct a full 

review with respect to the antidumping 

duty order concerning stainless steel 

plate from Italy. The Commission found 

that the respondent interested party 

group responses with respect to 

Belgium, Korea, South Africa, and 

Taiwan were inadequate. However, the 

Commission determined to conduct full 

reviews concerning the antidumping 

duty orders on stainless steel plate from 

Belgium, Korea, South Africa, and 

Taiwan to promote administrative 

efficiency in light of its decision to 

conduct a full review with respect to the 

antidumping duty order concerning 

stainless steel plate from Italy. 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: September 22, 2010. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24244 Filed 9–27–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–382 and 

731–TA–798–803 (Second Review)] 

Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip From 

Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, 

and Taiwan 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of Commission 

determination to conduct full five-year 

reviews concerning the countervailing 

duty order on stainless steel sheet and 

strip from Korea and the antidumping 

duty orders on stainless steel sheet and 

strip from Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, 

Mexico, and Taiwan. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it will proceed with full 

reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(5)) to determine whether 

revocation of the countervailing duty 

order on stainless steel sheet and strip 

from Korea and the antidumping duty 

orders on stainless steel sheet and strip 

from Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, 

Mexico, and Taiwan 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


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2010 / Notices 81309 

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 May 2, 2011, 

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 

reviews beginning at 9:30 a.m. on May 

25, 2011, 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 May 18, 2011. 

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 May 20, 2011, 

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 May 11, 

2011. 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 June 6, 2011; 

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 June 6, 2011. 

On June 29, 2011, 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 July 1, 2011, 

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. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: December 20, 2010. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32409 Filed 12–23–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–376 and 379 

and 731–TA–788, 790–793 (Second Review)] 

Stainless Steel Plate from Belgium, 

Italy, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Scheduling of full five-year 

reviews concerning the countervailing 

duty orders on stainless steel plate from 

Belgium and South Africa and the 

antidumping duty orders on stainless 

steel plate from Belgium, Italy, Korea, 

South Africa, and Taiwan. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of full reviews 

pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)) 

(the Act) to determine whether 

revocation of the countervailing duty 

orders on stainless steel plate from 

Belgium and South Africa and/or the 

antidumping duty orders on stainless 

steel plate from Belgium, Italy, Korea, 

South Africa, and Taiwan would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of material injury within a 

reasonably foreseeable time. The 

Commission has determined that these 

reviews are extraordinarily complicated, 

and will therefore 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: December 20, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennifer Merrill (202–205–3188), 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: 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
81310 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2010 / Notices 

Background.—On September 7, 2010, 

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 (75 

FR 59744, September 28, 2010). 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 May 9, 2011, 

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 

reviews beginning at 9:30 a.m. on May 

26, 2011, 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 May 18, 2011. 

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 May 20, 2011, 

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 May 17, 

2011. 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 June 13, 2011; 

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 June 13, 2011. 

On July 11, 2011, 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 July 13, 2011, 

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. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: December 20, 2010. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32411 Filed 12–23–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–617] 

In the Matter of Certain Digital 

Television Products and Certain 

Products Containing Same and 

Methods Of Using Same; Notice of 

Commission Determination To Modify 

a Limited Exclusion Order and Ceaseand-Desist Orders 

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 limited exclusion order and cease-anddesist orders issued in the abovecaptioned investigation following the 

decision of the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Vizio, 

Inc. v. U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 605 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 

2010). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Daniel E. Valencia, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–1999. Copies of non-confidential 

documents filed in connection with this


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Notices 61699 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–423–808, A–475–822, A–791–805, A–580– 

831, and A–583–830] 

Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From 

Belgium, Italy, South Africa, South 

Korea, and Taiwan: Final Results of the 

Expedited Sunset Reviews of the 

Antidumping Duty Orders 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On June 2, 2010, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) initiated sunset reviews of 

the antidumping duty orders on 

stainless steel plate in coils (SSPC) from 

Belgium, Italy, South Africa, South 

Korea, and Taiwan, pursuant to section 

751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the Act). The Department has 

conducted expedited (120-day) sunset 

reviews for these orders pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2). As a result 

of these sunset reviews, the Department 

finds that revocation of the antidumping 

duty orders would be likely to lead to 

the continuation or recurrence of 

dumping. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 6, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Hector Rodriguez or Elizabeth 

Eastwood, 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) 482–0629 

and (202) 482–3874, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On June 2, 2010, the Department 

published the notice of initiation of the 

sunset reviews of the antidumping duty 

orders on SSPC from Belgium, Italy, 

South Africa, South Korea, and Taiwan 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. 

See Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Review, 75 FR 30777 (June 2, 2010). 

The Department received a notice of 

intent to participate from Allegheny 

Ludlum Corporation, North American 

Stainless and the United Steel, Paper 

and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, 

Energy, Allied Industrial and Service 

Workers International Union (domestic 

interested parties), within the deadline 

specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). 

The domestic interested parties claimed 

interested party status under sections 

771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act as U.S. 

producers of SSPC in the United States 

or a certified union whose workers are 

engaged in the production of SSPC in 

the United States. 

The Department received adequate 

substantive responses to the notice of 

initiation from the domestic interested 

parties within the 30-day deadline 

specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). We 

received no substantive responses from 

respondent interested parties with 

respect to any of the orders covered by 

these sunset reviews. As a result, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department 

conducted expedited (120-day) sunset 

reviews of the antidumping duty orders 

on SSPC from Belgium, Italy, South 

Africa, South Korea, and Taiwan. 

Scope of the Orders 

Stainless steel is an alloy steel 

containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or 

less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more 

of chromium, with or without other 

elements. The subject plate products are 

flat-rolled products, 254 mm or over in 

width and 4.75 mm or more in 

thickness, in coils, and annealed or 

otherwise heat treated and pickled or 

otherwise descaled. The subject plate 

may also be further processed (e.g., 

cold-rolled, polished, etc.) provided that 

it maintains the specified dimensions of 

plate following such processing. 

Excluded from the scope of the orders 

are the following: (1) Plate not in coils, 

(2) plate that is not annealed or 

otherwise heat treated and pickled or 

otherwise descaled, (3) sheet and strip, 

and (4) flat bars. 

The merchandise subject to the orders 

is currently classifiable in the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS) at subheadings: 

7219.11.00.30, 7219.11.00.60, 

7219.12.00.06, 7219.12.00.21, 

7219.12.00.26, 7219.12.00.51, 

7219.12.00.56, 7219.12.00.66, 

7219.12.00.71, 7219.12.00.81, 

7219.31.00.10, 7219.90.00.10, 

7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 

7219.90.00.60, 7219.90.00.80, 

7220.11.00.00, 7220.20.10.10, 

7220.20.10.15, 7220.20.10.60, 

7220.20.10.80, 7220.20.60.05, 

7220.20.60.10, 7220.20.60.15, 

7220.20.60.60, 7220.20.60.80, 

7220.90.00.10, 7220.90.00.15, 

7220.90.00.60, and 7220.90.00.80. 

Although the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

merchandise subject to these orders is 

dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in these reviews are 

addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Expedited Sunset 

Reviews of the Antidumping Duty 

Orders on Stainless Steel Plate in Coils 

from Belgium, Italy, South Africa, South 

Korea, and Taiwan’’ from Susan H. 

Kuhbach, Acting Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Operations, to 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration 

(September 30, 2010) (Decision Memo), 

which is hereby adopted by this notice. 

The issues discussed in the Decision 

Memo include the likelihood of 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

and the magnitude of the margins likely 

to prevail if the orders were revoked. 

Parties can find a complete discussion 

of all issues raised in these reviews and 

the corresponding recommendations in 

this public memorandum which is on 

file in the Central Records Unit, room 

7046 of the main Department building. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memo can be accessed directly 

on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. 

The paper copy and electronic version 

of the Decision Memo are identical in 

content. 

Final Results of Reviews 

We determine that revocation of the 

antidumping duty orders on SSPC from 

Belgium, Italy, South Africa, South 

Korea, and Taiwan would be likely to 

lead to the continuation or recurrence of 

dumping at the following weightedaverage percentage margins: 

Manufacturers/Exporters/Producers 

Weightedaverage 

margin 

(percent) 

Belgium: 

AMS Belgium* .................................................................................................................................................................................. 8.54 

All-Others Rate ................................................................................................................................................................................. 8.54 

Italy: 

Thyssen Krupp Acciai Speciali Terni S.p.A** ................................................................................................................................... 45.09 

All-Others Rate ................................................................................................................................................................................. 39.69 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

61700 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Notices 

1With respect to the antidumping duty order on 

CMC from Mexico, the Department is conducting a 

full sunset review, the preliminary results of which 

were signed on September 20, 2010. See Purified 

Carboxymethylcellulose from Mexico: Preliminary 

Results of the First Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review of 

Antidumping Duty Order, 75 FR 60084 (September 

29, 2010). 

2Aqualon Company is a division of Hercules 

Incorporated.

Manufacturers/Exporters/Producers 

Weightedaverage 

margin 

(percent) 

South Africa: 

Columbus Stainless .......................................................................................................................................................................... 41.63 

All-Others Rate ................................................................................................................................................................................. 41.63 

South Korea: 

Pohang Iron & Steel Co., Ltd ........................................................................................................................................................... 16.26 

All-Others Rate ................................................................................................................................................................................. 16.26 

Yieh United Steel Corporation .......................................................................................................................................................... 8.02 

YUSCO/Ta Chen .............................................................................................................................................................................. 10.20 

All-Others Rate ................................................................................................................................................................................. 7.39 

* AMS Belgium is the successor-in-interest to ALZ N.V. 

** Thyssen Krupp Acciai Speciali Terni S.p.A is the successor-in-interest to Acciai Speciali Terni SpA. 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (APO) of 

their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. 

Timely notification of the return or 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective orders 

is hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and terms of an 

APO is a violation which is subject to 

sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing the 

results and notice in accordance with 

sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of 

the Act. 

Dated: September 30, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–25216 Filed 10–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–405–803, A–421–811, A–401–808] 

Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From 

Finland, the Netherlands, and Sweden: 

Final Results of the Expedited First 

Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping 

Duty Orders 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On June 2, 2010, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) initiated first sunset 

reviews of the antidumping duty orders 

on purified carboxymethylcellulose 

(CMC) from, inter alia, Finland, the 

Netherlands, and Sweden, pursuant to 

section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (the Act). The Department 

has conducted expedited (120-day) 

sunset reviews of the Finland, the 

Netherlands, and Sweden antidumping 

duty orders pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2).1 As a result of 

these sunset reviews, the Department 

finds that revocation of the antidumping 

duty orders would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of dumping. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dena Crossland or Angelica Mendoza, 

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) 482–3362 or (202) 482– 

3019, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On June 2, 2010, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

notice of initiation of the sunset reviews 

of the antidumping duty orders on CMC 

from Finland, the Netherlands, Mexico, 

and Sweden, pursuant to section 751(c) 

of the Act. See Initiation of Five-Year 

(‘‘Sunset’’) Review, 75 FR 30777 (June 2, 

2010) (Notice of Initiation). 

The Department received a notice of 

intent to participate from domestic 

interested party Aqualon Company 

(Aqualon) 2 within the deadline 

specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). 

Aqualon claimed interested party status 

under section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as 

the sole manufacturer of a domestic-like 

product in the United States. 

The Department received adequate 

substantive responses to the Notice of 

Initiation from Aqualon within the 30- 

day deadline specified in 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(3)(i). We received no 

substantive responses from respondent 

interested parties with respect to the 

antidumping duty orders on CMC from 

Finland and Sweden. 

On July 2, 2010, respondent Akzo 

Nobel filed a response concerning the 

sunset review of CMC from the 

Netherlands. Using the data provided by 

Aqualon in its July 1, 2010, substantive 

response, and data provided by Akzo 

Nobel in its July, 2, 2010, response, the 

Department found that Akzo Nobel 

accounted for less than 50 percent of 

exports of subject merchandise from the 

Netherlands. On July 22, 2010, the 

Department determined that Akzo 

Nobel’s response was not adequate 

because it did not account for more than 

50 percent of the total exports of subject 

merchandise to the United States over 

the relevant five-year period as required 

by 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(A). See 

Memorandum to Richard O. Weible, 

Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, 

‘‘Adequacy Determination in the First 

Five-Year ‘Sunset Review’ (2005 

through 2009) of the Antidumping Duty 

Order on Purified 

Carboxymethylcellulose from the 

Netherlands,’’ dated July 22, 2010. 

As a result, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department 

determined that it would conduct 

expedited (120-day) sunset reviews of 

the antidumping duty orders on CMC 

from Finland, the Netherlands, and 

Sweden and notified the U.S. 

International Trade Commission. See 

Letter to Ms. Catherine DeFilippo, 

Director, Office of Investigations, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, from 

James Maeder, Director, Office 2, AD/ 

CVD Operations, entitled ‘‘Expedited 

and Full Sunset Reviews of the 

Antidumping Duty Orders Initiated in 

June 2010,’’ dated July 22, 2010. 

On September 15, 2010, the 

Department contacted Aqualon 

regarding its reference to Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(HTSUS) number 3913.31.00.10 at page

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Notices 62103 

5 ‘‘GIN4 Mo,’’ ‘‘GIN5’’ and ‘‘GIN6’’ are the 

proprietary grades of Hitachi Metals America, Ltd.

molybdenum. The steel also contains, 

by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and 

1.1 percent, sulfur of 0.020 percent or 

less, and includes between 0.20 and 

0.30 percent copper and between 0.20 

and 0.50 percent cobalt. This steel is 

sold under proprietary names such as 

‘‘GIN4 Mo.’’ The second excluded 

stainless steel strip in coils is similar to 

AISI 420–J2 and contains, by weight, 

carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70 

percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 

0.50 percent, manganese of between 

0.45 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no 

more than 0.025 percent and sulfur of 

no more than 0.020 percent. This steel 

has a carbide density on average of 100 

carbide particles per 100 square 

microns. An example of this product is 

‘‘GIN5’’ steel. The third specialty steel 

has a chemical composition similar to 

AISI 420 F, with carbon of between 0.37 

and 0.43 percent, molybdenum of 

between 1.15 and 1.35 percent, but 

lower manganese of between 0.20 and 

0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more 

than 0.025 percent, silicon of between 

0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of no 

more than 0.020 percent. This product 

is supplied with a hardness of more 

than Hv 500 guaranteed after customer 

processing, and is supplied as, for 

example, ‘‘GIN6’’.5

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in this review are 

addressed in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum (‘‘Decision 

Memorandum’’) from Susan H. 

Kuhbach, Acting Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Operations, to 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, 

dated September 30, 2010, which is 

hereby adopted by this notice. 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, located in 

room 7046 of the main Commerce 

building. The issues include the 

likelihood of continuation or recurrence 

of a countervailable subsidy, the net 

countervailable subsidy likely to 

prevail, and the nature of the subsidy. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly on the Web at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Final Results of Review 

The Department determines that 

revocation of the CVD order would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of a countervailable subsidy 

at the following weighted-average 

percentage rates: 

Manufacturers/exporters/producers 

Weighted-average 

subsidy rate 

(percent) 

Hyundai Steel Company—(formerly known as INI/BNG and as Inchon) ................................................................................... 0.54 

Dai Yang Metal Company ........................................................................................................................................................... 0.67 

Taihan .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 4.64 

All Others ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.63 

Notification Regarding Administrative 

Protective Order 

This notice serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. 

Timely notification of return/ 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and the terms of an 

APO is a sanctionable violation. 

We are issuing and publishing the 

results and notice in accordance with 

sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act. 

Dated: September 30, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–25304 Filed 10–6–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–791–806] 

Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From 

South Africa: Final Results of 

Expedited Sunset Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On June 2, 2010, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) initiated the second 

sunset review of the countervailing duty 

order (‘‘CVD’’) on stainless steel plate in 

coils from South Africa pursuant to 

section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (‘‘the Act’’). On the basis of 

a notice of intent to participate and an 

adequate substantive response filed on 

behalf of the domestic interested parties 

and an inadequate response from 

respondent interested parties (in this 

case, no response), the Department 

conducted an expedited sunset review 

of the CVD order pursuant to section 

751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(B). As a result of this 

sunset review, the Department finds that 

revocation of the CVD order would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of a countervailable subsidy 

at the level indicated in the ‘‘Final 

Results of Review’’ section of this notice. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 7, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric 

Greynolds or David Goldberger, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–6071 or (202) 482– 

4136, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On June 2, 2010, the Department 

initiated the second sunset review of the 

CVD order on stainless steel plate in 

coils from South Africa pursuant to 

section 751(c) of the Act. See Initiation 

of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 75 FR 

30777 (June 2, 2010). The Department 

received a notice of intent to participate 

from the following domestic interested 

parties: Allegheny Ludlum Corporation 

and the United Steel, Paper and 

Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, 

Energy, Allied Industrial and Service 

Workers International Union (United 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
62104 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Notices 

1With respect to the antidumping duty orders on 

certain stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from 

Mexico and Italy, the Department is conducting full 

sunset reviews.

Steelworkers) (collectively, ‘‘domestic 

interested parties’’), within the deadline 

specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). 

The domestic interested parties claimed 

interested party status under sections 

771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act, as a 

domestic producer of stainless steel 

plate in coils in the United States and 

a certified union representing workers 

in the domestic industry producing 

stainless steel plate in coils in the 

United States. 

The Department received an adequate 

substantive response collectively from 

the domestic interested parties within 

the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(3)(i). However, the 

Department did not receive a 

substantive response from any 

government or respondent interested 

party to this proceeding. As a result, 

pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), 

the Department conducted an expedited 

review of the CVD order. 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise subject to the CVD 

order consists of stainless steel plate in 

coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel 

containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or 

less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more 

of chromium, with or without other 

elements. The subject plate products are 

flat-rolled products, 254 mm or over in 

width and 4.75 mm or more in 

thickness, in coils, and annealed or 

otherwise heat treated and pickled or 

otherwise descaled. The subject plate 

may also be further processed (e.g., 

cold-rolled, polished, etc.) provided that 

it maintains the specified dimensions of 

plate following such processing. 

Excluded from the scope of the order 

are the following: (1) Plate not in coils, 

(2) plate that is not annealed or 

otherwise heat treated and pickled or 

otherwise descaled, (3) sheet and strip, 

and (4) flat bars. The merchandise 

subject to the order is currently 

classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) at subheadings: 

7219.11.00.30, 7219.11.00.60, 

7219.12.00.05, 7219.12.00.20, 

7219.12.00.25, 7219.12.00.50, 

7219.12.00.55, 7219.12.00.65, 

7219.12.00.70, 7219.12.00.80, 

7219.31.00.10, 7219.90.00.10, 

7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 

7219.90.00.60, 7219.90.00.80, 

7220.11.00.00, 7220.20.10.10, 

7220.20.10.15, 7220.20.10.60, 

7220.20.10.80, 7220.20.60.05, 

7220.20.60.10, 7220.20.60.15, 

7220.20.60.60, 7220.20.60.80, 

7220.90.00.10, 7220.90.00.15, 

7220.90.00.60, and 7220.90.00.80. 

Although the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

scope of the order is dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in this review are 

addressed in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum (‘‘Decision 

Memorandum’’) from Susan H. 

Kuhbach, Acting Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Operations, to 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, 

dated September 30, 2010, which is 

hereby adopted by this notice. 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, located in 

room 7046 of the main Commerce 

building. The issues include the 

likelihood of continuation or recurrence 

of a countervailable subsidy, the net 

countervailable subsidy likely to 

prevail, and the nature of the subsidy. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly on the Web at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Final Results of Review 

The Department determines that 

revocation of the CVD order would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of a countervailable subsidy 

at the following weighted-average 

percentage rates: 

Manufacturers/exporters/ 

producers 

Weightedaverage 

subsidy rate 

(percent) 

Columbus Stainless .................. 3.95 

All Others .................................. 3.95 

Notification Regarding Administrative 

Protective Order 

This notice serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. 

Timely notification of return/ 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and the terms of an 

APO is a sanctionable violation. 

We are issuing and publishing the 

results and notice in accordance with 

sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act. 

Dated: September 30, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–25305 Filed 10–6–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–428–825, A–588–845, A–580–834, A–583– 

831] 

Certain Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip 

in Coils From Germany, Japan, the 

Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Final 

Results of the Expedited Second 

Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping 

Duty Orders 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On June 2, 2010, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) initiated second sunset 

reviews of the antidumping duty orders 

on certain stainless steel sheet and strip 

in coils from Germany, Italy, Japan, the 

Republic of Korea (Korea), Mexico, and 

Taiwan, pursuant to section 751(c) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

Act). The Department has conducted 

expedited (120-day) sunset reviews for 

the Germany, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan 

antidumping duty orders pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2).1 As a result 

of these sunset reviews, the Department 

finds that revocation of the antidumping 

duty orders would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of dumping. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Cordell or Angelica Mendoza, 

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) 482–0408, or (202) 

482–3019, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Background 

On June 2, 2010, the Department 

published the notice of initiation of the 

second sunset reviews of the 

antidumping duty orders on certain 

stainless steel sheet and strip in coils 

from Japan, Germany, Italy, Korea, 

Taiwan, and Mexico, pursuant to 

section 751(c) of the Act. See Initiation 

of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review, 75 FR


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
67346 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / Notices 

should have expertise and knowledge of 

agricultural trade as it relates to policy 

and commodity specific products. No 

person, company, producer, farm 

organization, trade association, or other 

entity has a right to membership on a 

committee. In making appointments, 

every effort will be made to maintain 

balanced representation on the 

committees: Representation from 

producers, farm and commodity 

organizations, processors, traders, and 

consumers. Geographical balance on 

each committee will also be sought. 

Nominations: Nominating a person to 

serve on any of the committees requires 

submission of a current re ́sume ́ for the 

nominee and the following form: AD– 

755 (Advisory Committee Membership 

Background Information), available on 

the Internet at: http://www.fas.usda.gov/ 

admin/ad755.pdf. In addition, FAS 

encourages the submission of the 

optional form AD–1086 (Applicant for 

Advisory Committees Supplemental 

Sheet), available on the Internet at: 

http://www.fas.usda.gov/admin/ 

ad1086.pdf. Forms may also be 

requested by sending an e-mail to 

Steffon.Brown@fas.usda.gov, or by 

phone at (202) 720–6219. 

Federally Registered Lobbyists: In 

order to be considered for advisory 

committee membership, nominees 

should submit an affirmative statement 

that the applicant is not a federally 

registered lobbyist, and that the 

applicant understands that if appointed, 

the applicant will not be allowed to 

continue to serve as an advisory 

committee member if the applicant 

becomes a federally registered lobbyist. 

Foreign Firms: Persons who are 

employed by firms that are 50 percent 

plus one share foreign-owned must state 

the extent to which the organization or 

interest to be represented by the 

nominee is owned by non-U.S. citizens, 

organizations, or interests. If the 

nominee is to represent an entity or 

corporation with ten percent or greater 

non-U.S. ownership, the nominee must 

demonstrate at the time of nomination 

that this ownership interest does not 

constitute control and will not adversely 

affect his or her ability to serve as an 

advisor on the U.S. agriculture advisory 

committee for trade. 

Dated: October 26, 2010. 

John D. Brewer, 

Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27630 Filed 11–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–10–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

The Department of Commerce will 

submit to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for clearance the 

following proposal for collection of 

information under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

chapter 35). 

Agency: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 

Title: Topographic and Bathymetric 

Data Inventory Survey. 

OMB Control Number: None. 

Form Number(s): NA. 

Type of Request: Regular submission 

(new information collection). 

Number of Respondents: 283. 

Average Hours per Response: 

Preliminary telephone interview, 5 

minutes; data form, 15 minutes. 

Burden Hours: 59. 

Needs and Uses: In compliance with 

Executive Order 12862, Setting 

Customer Service Standards, this survey 

will be used by the NOAA Coastal 

Services Center to obtain information 

from our customers on the location of 

topographic and bathymetric data that 

are publicly available. The information 

about the data will be used to construct 

a Topographic and Bathymetric Data 

Inventory, an index of the best-available 

elevation data sets by region. Twentyone pieces of information about each 

dataset will be collected to give an 

accurate picture of data quality and give 

users of the Topographic and 

Bathymetric Data Inventory access to 

each dataset. The end goal of this 

collection is to provide a 

comprehensive, publicly available, 

topographic and bathymetric data web 

resource. 

Affected Public: State, local and tribal 

government. 

Frequency: Once. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary. 

OMB Desk Officer: 

OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov. 

Copies of the above information 

collection proposal can be obtained by 

calling or writing Diana Hynek, 

Departmental Paperwork Clearance 

Officer, (202) 482–0266, Department of 

Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230 (or via the Internet at 

dHynek@doc.gov). 

Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be sent 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice to 

OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov. 

Dated: October 28, 2010. 

Gwellnar Banks, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27622 Filed 11–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–JE–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–580–831] 

Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from 

South Korea: Correction to Final 

Results of the Expedited Sunset 

Review of the Antidumping Duty Order 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: November 2, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Hector Rodriguez or Elizabeth 

Eastwood, 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) 482–0629 

and (202) 482–3874, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Correction 

On October 7, 2010, the Department 

of Commerce (the Department) 

published in the Federal Register the 

following notice: Certain Stainless Steel 

Sheet and Strip in Coils From Germany, 

Japan, the Republic of Korea, and 

Taiwan: Final Results of the Expedited 

Second Sunset Reviews of the 

Antidumping Duty Orders, 75 FR 62014 

(Oct. 7, 2010) (Final Sunset Notice). 

After the publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register, we identified an 

inadvertent error in the Final Sunset 

Notice. The Department made an error 

in the ‘‘Final Results of Reviews’’ section 

of the notice by inadvertently including 

an incorrect weighted-average margin 

for the South Korean respondent Pohang 

Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. (POSCO), as well 

as the ‘‘all others’’ rate for South Korea. 

Specifically, the weighted-average 

margin for POSCO and the ‘‘all others’’ 

rate for South Korea, listed as 16.26 

percent, should have been listed as 6.08 

percent pursuant to implementation of 

the findings of the World Trade 

Organization Panel in United States— 

Anti-Dumping Measures on Stainless 

Steel Plate in Coils and Stainless Steel 

Sheet and Strip From Korea. See Notice 

of Amendment of Final Determinations 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From the 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / Notices 67347 

Republic of Korea; and Stainless Steel 

Sheet and Strip in Coils From the 

Republic of Korea, 66 FR 45279, 45283 

(Aug. 28, 2001). 

Conclusion 

The Department clarifies that the 

‘‘Final Results of Reviews’’ section of the 

Final Sunset Notice inadvertently listed 

the weighted-average margin for POSCO 

and the ‘‘all others’’ rate for South Korea 

as 16.26 percent; however, the correct 

rate is 6.08 percent. The Department 

intends to notify the International Trade 

Commission of this correction to its 

determination. 

We are issuing and publishing the 

results and notice in accordance with 

sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. 

Dated: October 27, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27639 Filed 11–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XA009 

Marine Mammals; File No. 14326 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; issuance of permit 

amendment. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the NMFS National Marine Mammal 

Laboratory (NMML), Seattle, WA 

(Responsible Party: John Bengton, 

Ph.D.), has been issued a minor 

amendment to Permit No. 14326. 

ADDRESSES: The permit amendment and 

related documents are available for 

review upon written request or by 

appointment in the following office(s): 

Permits, Conservation and Education 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 

13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone 

(301) 713–2289; fax (301) 713–0376; 

Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand 

Point Way NE, BIN C15700, Bldg. 1, 

Seattle, WA 98115–0700; phone (206) 

526–6150; fax (206) 526–6426; and 

Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 

21668, Juneau, AK 99802–1668; phone 

(907) 586–7221; fax (907) 586–7249. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tammy Adams or Amy Sloan, (301) 

713–2289. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 

31, 2009, notice was published in the 

Federal Register (74 FR 44822) that 

Permit No. 14326 to conduct research 

on Steller sea lions (Eumetopias 

jubatus) had been issued to the abovenamed applicant under the authority of 

the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 

1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et 

seq.), the regulations governing the 

taking and importing of marine 

mammals (50 CFR part 216), the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), 

and the regulations governing the 

taking, importing, and exporting of 

endangered and threatened species 

(50 CFR parts 222–226). The permit is 

valid through August 31, 2014, and 

authorizes takes of Steller sea lions 

throughout their range in the U.S. 

during capture, tissue sampling, 

marking, attachment of scientific 

instruments, and surveys. The permit 

also authorizes a limited number of 

research-related mortalities. 

The amended permit allows takes of 

up to 20 adult female Steller sea lions 

annually by capture using additional 

drug combinations in the remotely 

delivered darts. It does not change the 

number of animals that may be taken or 

any other terms and conditions of the 

permit. The amendment is effective 

through the original expiration date of 

the permit. 

In compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), NMFS 

determined that the activities proposed 

are consistent with the Preferred 

Alternative in the Final Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

Steller Sea Lion and Northern Fur Seal 

Research (NMFS 2007), and that 

issuance of the permit would not have 

a significant adverse impact on the 

human environment. 

As required by the ESA, issuance of 

this permit was based on a finding that 

such permit: (1) Was applied for in good 

faith; (2) will not operate to the 

disadvantage of such endangered 

species; and (3) is consistent with the 

purposes and policies set forth in 

section 2 of the ESA. 

Dated: October 27, 2010. 

Tammy C. Adams, 

Acting Chief, Permits, Conservation and 

Education Division, Office of Protected 

Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27660 Filed 11–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

Materials Technical Advisory 

Committee; Notice of Partially Closed 

Meeting 

The Materials Technical Advisory 

Committee will meet on November 12, 

2010, 10 a.m., Herbert C. Hoover 

Building, Room 3884, 14th Street 

between Constitution & Pennsylvania 

Avenues, NW., Washington, DC. The 

Committee advises the Office of the 

Assistant Secretary for Export 

Administration with respect to technical 

questions that affect the level of export 

controls applicable to materials and 

related technology. 

Agenda 

Open Session 

1. Opening remarks by the Chairman 

and Introduction. 

2. Opening remarks by the Bureau of 

Industry and Security. 

3. Report of the Composite Working 

Group (CWG). 

4. Presentation on Battelle Programs 

Supporting U.S. Biological and 

Chemical Defense. 

5. Update on Regime activities. 

6. Comments from the Public and new 

business. 

Closed Session 

7. Discussion of matters determined to 

be exempt from the provisions relating 

to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. 

app. 2 sections 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). 

The open session will be accessible 

via teleconference to 20 participants on 

a first come, first serve basis. To join the 

conference, submit inquiries to Ms. 

Yvette Springer at 

Yspringer@bis.doc.gov no later than 

November 5, 2010. 

A limited number of seats will be 

available during the public session of 

the meeting. Reservations are not 

accepted. To the extent time permits, 

members of the public may present oral 

statements to the Committee. Written 

statements may be submitted at any 

time before or after the meeting. 

However, to facilitate distribution of 

public presentation materials to 

Committee members, the materials 

should be forwarded prior to the 

meeting to Ms. Springer via e-mail. 

The Assistant Secretary for 

Administration, with the concurrence of 

the delegate of the General Counsel, 

formally determined on September 27, 

2010, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 

amended, that the portion of the 

meeting dealing with matters the


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
25666 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Notices 

notice creates, expands or reduces any 

rights otherwise available to any 

employee, former employee or applicant 

under the laws of the United States, 

including the provisions of law 

specified in 5 U.S.C. 2302(d). 

Frank A. Manies, 

Director, Human Resources and 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–10984 Filed 5–4–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS 

Sunshine Act Notice 

AGENCY: United States Commission on 

Civil Rights. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

DATE AND TIME: Friday, May 13, 2011; 

9 a.m. EDT. 

PLACE: The Washington Marriott at 

Metro Center, Junior Ballroom Salons 

1 and 2, 775 12th Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20005. 

Briefing Agenda 

This briefing is open to the public. 

Topic: Peer-to-Peer Violence and 

Bullying: Examining the Federal 

Response 

I. Introductory Remarks by Chairman 

II. Speakers’ Presentations 

III. Questions by Commissioners and 

Staff Director 

IV. Adjourn Briefing 

CONTACT PERSON FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION: Lenore Ostrowsky, Acting 

Chief, Public Affairs Unit (202) 376– 

8591. Hearing-impaired persons who 

will attend the meeting and require the 

services of a sign language interpreter 

should contact Pamela Dunston at (202) 

376–8105 or at signlanguage@usccr.gov 

at least three business days before the 

scheduled date of the meeting. 

Dated: May 3, 2011. 

Kimberly A. Tolhurst, 

Senior Attorney-Advisor. 

[FR Doc. 2011–11116 Filed 5–3–11; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6335–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

The Department of Commerce will 

submit to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for clearance the 

following proposal for collection of 

information under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 35). 

Agency: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 

Title: National Ocean Recreational 

Expenditure (NORE) Survey. 

OMB Control Number: 0648–xxxx. 

Form Number(s): NA. 

Type of Request: Regular submission 

(request for a new information 

collection). 

Number of Respondents: 12,701. 

Average Hours per Response: Nonparticipants in ocean activities, 2 

minutes; Participants in ocean activities, 

10 minutes. 

Burden Hours: 2,449. 

Needs and Uses: This is a request for 

a new information collection. 

Consistent with Executive Order 

13547: Stewardship of our Oceans, our 

Coasts and our Great Lakes, and 

NOAA’s Next Generation Strategic Plan, 

the National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) plans to collect data to estimate 

expenditures on recreational activities 

in the U.S. that interact with marine 

resources falling within the scope of 

NMFS’ public trust responsibilities. 

These activities may include but are not 

limited to: Wildlife watching (for 

example, whales or dolphins) from a 

boat or from shore; kayaking or canoeing 

in fish habitat areas such as estuaries 

and sloughs; and snorkeling or scuba 

diving on fish aggregating devices such 

as ship wrecks. The survey will help 

enhance NMFS’ understanding of the 

economic implications of its public trust 

responsibilities as they relate to nonfishing recreational activities. The data 

collected may also provide information 

useful for the purposes of marine spatial 

planning. Measures of economic 

performance that may be supported by 

this data collection include the 

following: (1) Contribution to net 

national benefit; and (2) contribution to 

regional economic impacts (income and 

employment). 

Affected Public: Individuals or 

households. 

Frequency: One time or every two 

months for up to one year. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary. 

OMB Desk Officer: 

OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov. 

Copies of the above information 

collection proposal can be obtained by 

calling or writing Diana Hynek, 

Departmental Paperwork Clearance 

Officer, (202) 482–0266, Department of 

Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230 (or via the Internet at 

dHynek@doc.gov). 

Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be sent 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice to 

OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov. 

Dated: May 2, 2011. 

Gwellnar Banks, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2011–10954 Filed 5–4–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–423–809] 

Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from 

Belgium: Final Results of Full Sunset 

Review and Revocation of the 

Countervailing Duty Order 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On June 2, 2010, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) initiated the second 

sunset review of the countervailing duty 

(‘‘CVD’’) order on certain stainless steel 

plate in coils from Belgium (‘‘SSPC’’ or 

‘‘subject merchandise’’) pursuant to 

section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (‘‘the Act’’). On the basis of 

a notice of intent to participate and an 

adequate substantive response filed on 

behalf of the domestic interested parties 

and adequate substantive responses 

from ArcelorMittal Stainless Belgium 

N.V. (‘‘AMS’’) and the Government of 

Belgium (‘‘GOB’’), the Department 

determined to conduct a full sunset 

review of the CVD order pursuant to 

section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.218(e)(2). As a result of our 

analysis, the Department finds that 

revocation of the CVD order would not 

likely lead to continuation or recurrence 

of a countervailable subsidy. Therefore, 

the Department is revoking this CVD 

order. 

DATES: Effective Date: May 5, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patricia Tran or Jennifer Meek, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 1, Import 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–1503 or (202) 482– 

2778. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On June 2, 2010, the Department 

initiated the second sunset review of the 

CVD order on SSPC from Belgium in 

accordance with section 751(c) of the 

Act. See Initiation of Five-Year 

(‘‘Sunset’’) Review, 75 FR 30777 (June 2, 

2010). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Notices 25667 

1On May 11, 2007, the Department received a 

scope inquiry request from U&A Belgium regarding 

whether the scope of the antidumping (‘‘AD’’) and 

CVD orders on SSPC from Belgium excludes 

stainless steel products with an actual thickness 

less than 4.75mm, regardless of its nominal 

thickness. The Department conducted a scope 

inquiry applicable to all countries subject to the 

SSPC AD and CVD orders. In the Department’s 

scope ruling, dated December 3, 2008, the 

Department determined that SSPC with a nominal 

thickness of 4.75mm, but with an actual thickness 

less than 4.75mm, and within the dimensional 

tolerances for this thickness of plate, is included in 

the scope of the AD orders on SSPC from Belgium, 

Italy, South Africa, the Republic of Korea, and 

Taiwan and CVD orders on SSPC from Belgium and 

South Africa. See Memorandum from Melissa G. 

Skinner to Stephen J. Claeys, entitled ‘‘Stainless 

Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium: Final Scope 

Ruling,’’ ’ dated December 3, 2008. 

Within the deadline specified in 19 

CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i), the Department 

received notices of intent to participate 

on behalf of Allegheny Ludlum 

Corporation and the United Steel, Paper 

and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, 

Energy, Allied Industrial and Service 

Workers International Union 

(collectively, ‘‘Petitioners’’). The 

submitters claimed interested party 

status under sections 771(9)(C) and (D) 

of the Act, as a manufacturer of a 

domestic like product and as a certified 

union representing workers in the 

domestic industry producing certain 

SSPC, respectively. The Department 

received a substantive response from 

Petitioners within the deadline 

specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). 

The Department also received 

substantive responses in a timely 

manner from the following respondent 

interested parties: AMS and the GOB. 

Timely rebuttal comments were 

received from Petitioners, AMS and the 

GOB on July 9, 2010. On July 22, 2010, 

after analyzing the submissions and 

rebuttals from interested parties and 

finding the substantive responses 

adequate, the Department determined to 

conduct a full sunset review. See 

Memorandum from Yasmin Nair, 

International Trade Compliance 

Analyst, to Susan H. Kuhbach, Director, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, entitled 

‘‘Adequacy Determination in 

Countervailing Duty Sunset Review of 

Certain Stainless Steel Plate in Coils 

from Belgium,’’ dated July 22, 2010. 

On December 27, 2010, the 

Department issued the preliminary 

results of the full sunset review, finding 

a likelihood of continuation or 

recurrence of subsidization with a net 

countervailable subsidy likely to prevail 

of zero percent for AMS and all other 

companies. See Stainless Steel Plate in 

Coils From Belgium: Preliminary Results 

of Full Sunset Review, 75 FR 81217, 

81218 (December 27, 2010) 

(‘‘Preliminary Results’’). 

Interested parties were invited to 

comment on our Preliminary Results. 

The Department received case briefs 

from Petitioners, the GOB, and AMS 

within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(1)(i). On February 16, 2011, 

the Department returned the case briefs 

submitted by the GOB and AMS, 

requesting the briefs to be resubmitted 

with the removal of certain references to 

information not on the record of this 

sunset review. Although both objected 

to the Department’s decision, the GOB 

and AMS submitted revised versions of 

their case briefs on February 18, 2011. 

Timely rebuttal briefs were submitted 

by Petitioners, the GOB, and AMS. 

A public hearing was requested by 

AMS and was held on Tuesday, March 

8, 2011, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.310(c). 

On April 7, 2011, the European Union 

submitted a letter in support of the 

arguments made by the GOB and AMS. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by the order are 

imports of certain stainless steel plate in 

coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel 

containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or 

less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more 

of chromium, with or without other 

elements. The subject plate products are 

flat-rolled products, 254 mm or over in 

width and 4.75 mm 1 or more in 

thickness, in coils, and annealed or 

otherwise heat treated and pickled or 

otherwise descaled. The subject plate 

may also be further processed (e.g., 

cold-rolled, polished, etc.) provided that 

it maintains the specified dimensions of 

plate following such processing. 

Excluded from the scope of the order are 

the following: (1) Plate not in coils, (2) 

plate that is not annealed or otherwise 

heat treated and pickled or otherwise 

descaled, (3) sheet and strip, and (4) flat 

bars. 

The merchandise subject to the order 

is currently classifiable in the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) at 

subheadings: 7219.11.00.30, 

7219.11.00.60, 7219.12.00.05, 

7219.12.00.06, 7219.12.00.20, 

7219.12.00.21, 7219.12.00.25, 

7219.12.00.26, 7219.12.00.50, 

7219.12.00.51, 7219.12.00.55, 

7219.12.00.56, 7219.12.00.65, 

7219.12.00.66, 7219.12.00.70, 

7219.12.00.71, 7219.12.00.80, 

7219.12.00.81, 7219.31.00.10, 

7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20, 

7219.90.00.25, 7219.90.00.60, 

7219.90.00.80, 7220.11.00.00, 

7220.20.10.10, 7220.20.10.15, 

7220.20.10.60, 7220.20.10.80, 

7220.20.60.05, 7220.20.60.10, 

7220.20.60.15, 7220.20.60.60, 

7220.20.60.80, 7220.90.00.10, 

7220.90.00.15, 7220.90.00.60, and 

7220.90.00.80. Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

Department’s written description of the 

scope of the order remains dispositive. 

Analysis of the Comments Received 

All issues raised in this review are 

addressed in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum (‘‘Decision 

Memorandum’’) from Christian Marsh, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations, to Paul Piquado, Acting 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, dated concurrently 

with this notice, which is hereby 

adopted by this notice. Parties can find 

this public memorandum in the Central 

Records Unit, Room 7046 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. 

Changes From the Preliminary Results 

As a result of the Department’s 

analysis of received comments, we have 

made certain changes from the 

Preliminary Results. The Department 

finds that three programs which gave 

rise to net countervailable subsidies and 

which were determined not to be 

terminated in the Preliminary Results— 

Societe ́ Nationale de Creditea`

L’Industrie Loans, 1985 Conversion of 

Sidmar N.V.’s Debt to Equity, and 

SidInvest—are in fact terminated and 

that benefit streams from those 

programs are fully allocated. See 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. 

Because the Department concludes that 

all programs previously found 

countervailable have been terminated 

and that benefit streams from those 

programs are fully allocated, we 

determine that revocation of the CVD 

order on SSPC from Belgium will not 

likely lead to continuation or recurrence 

of a countervailable subsidy. See id. 

Final Results of Review 

The Department determines that 

revocation of the CVD order will not 

likely lead to continuation or recurrence 

of a countervailable subsidy. As a result, 

and in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.222(i)(2), we are revoking this order 

effective July 18, 2010, the fifth 

anniversary of the date of publication in 

the Federal Register of the most recent 

notice of continuation of this order. See 

Continuation of Antidumping Duty 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
25668 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Notices 

1The domestic SSSS in coils industry includes 

AK Steel Corporation; Allegheny Ludlum 

Corporation; North American Stainless; the United 

Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, 

Energy, Allied Industrial Service Workers 

International Union; United Auto Workers (‘‘UAW’’) 

Local 3303; and UAW Local 4104 (collectively, 

‘‘domestic interested parties’’).

Orders on Certain Stainless Steel Plate 

in Coils From Belgium, Italy, South 

Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan, and 

the Countervailing Duty Orders on 

Certain Stainless Steel Plate in Coils 

From Belgium, Italy, and South Africa, 

70 FR 41202 (July 18, 2005). We will 

notify the International Trade 

Commission of these results. 

Effective Date of Revocation 

Pursuant to section 19 CFR 

351.222(i)(2), the Department will 

instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection to terminate the suspension 

of liquidation of the merchandise 

subject to this order entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, on or after 

July 18, 2010. Entries of subject 

merchandise prior to the effective date 

of revocation will continue to be subject 

to suspension of liquidation and CVD 

deposit requirements. The Department 

will complete any pending 

administrative reviews of this order and 

will conduct administrative reviews of 

subject merchandise entered prior to the 

effective date of revocation in response 

to appropriately filed requests for 

review. 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (APO) of 

their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. 

Timely notification of the return or 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective orders 

is hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and terms of an 

APO is a violation which is subject to 

sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing the 

results and notice in accordance with 

sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act. 

Dated: April 28, 2011. 

Paul Piquado, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–11002 Filed 5–4–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–201–822] 

Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 

From Mexico: Final Results of the FiveYear (‘‘Sunset’’) Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to sections 751(c) 

and 752 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’), the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘Department’’) finds that 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

order on stainless steel sheet and strip 

(‘‘SSSS’’) in coils from Mexico would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of dumping. 

DATES: Effective Date: May 5, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Cordell or Angelica Mendoza, 

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) 482–0408, or (202) 

482–3019, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 27, 2010, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register, a notice of the Preliminary 

Results of the second sunset review of 

the antidumping duty order on SSSS in 

coils from Mexico. See Stainless Steel 

Sheet and Strip in Coils From Mexico; 

Preliminary Results of the Five-Year 

(‘‘Sunset’’) Review of Antidumping Duty 

Order, 75 FR 81221 (December 27, 2010) 

(‘‘Preliminary Results’’). In those 

Preliminary Results, we determined that 

revocation of the order would likely 

result in continuation or recurrence of 

dumping. The Department received a 

case brief from the respondent, 

ThyssenKrupp Mexinox S.A. de C.V., 

and its affiliated U.S. importer, Mexinox 

USA, Inc. (collectively ‘‘Mexinox’’) on 

February 15, 2011. On February 18, 

2011, the Department published the 

amended final results of the 2008–2009 

administrative review, in which it 

calculated a weighted-average dumping 

margin of 12.13 percent for Mexinox. 

See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in 

Coils From Mexico: Notice of Amended 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 76 FR 9542 

(February 18, 2011). On February 22, 

2011, the Department received a rebuttal 

brief from the domestic interested 

parties.1 On February 22, 2011, the 

Department invited parties to submit 

comments addressing the issue of 

whether dumping is likely to continue 

or recur, if the antidumping duty order 

is revoked, in light of the amended final 

results of the 2008–2009 administrative 

review. On February 23, 2011, Mexinox 

withdrew its January 23, 2011 request 

for a hearing. On February 28, 2011, 

both Mexinox and the domestic 

interested parties filed comments and 

both Mexinox and the domestic 

interested parties filed rebuttal 

comments on March 4, 2011. 

Scope of the Order 

For purposes of the order, the 

products covered are certain stainless 

steel sheet and strip in coils. Stainless 

steel is an alloy steel containing, by 

weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 

10.5 percent or more of chromium, with 

or without other elements. The subject 

sheet and strip is a flat-rolled product in 

coils that is greater than 9.5 mm in 

width and less than 4.75 mm in 

thickness, and that is annealed or 

otherwise heat treated and pickled or 

otherwise descaled. The subject sheet 

and strip may also be further processed 

(e.g., cold-rolled, polished, aluminized, 

coated, etc.) provided that it maintains 

the specific dimensions of sheet and 

strip following such processing. The 

merchandise subject to the order is 

currently classified in the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTS’’) at subheadings: 7219.13.00.31, 

7219.13.00.51, 7219.13.00.71, 

7219.13.00.81, 7219.14.00.30, 

7219.14.00.65, 7219.14.00.90, 

7219.32.00.05, 7219.32.00.20, 

7219.32.00.25, 7219.32.00.35, 

7219.32.00.36, 7219.32.00.38, 

7219.32.00.42, 7219.32.00.44, 

7219.33.00.05, 7219.33.00.20, 

7219.33.00.25, 7219.33.00.35, 

7219.33.00.36, 7219.33.00.38, 

7219.33.00.42, 7219.33.00.44, 

7219.34.00.05, 7219.34.00.20, 

7219.34.00.25, 7219.34.00.30, 

7219.34.00.35, 7219.35.00.05, 

7219.35.00.15, 7219.35.00.30, 

7219.35.00.35, 7219.90.00.10, 

7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 

7219.90.00.60, 7219.90.00.80, 

7220.12.10.00, 7220.12.50.00, 

7220.20.10.10, 7220.20.10.15, 

7220.20.10.60, 7220.20.10.80, 

7220.20.60.05, 7220.20.60.10, 

7220.20.60.15, 7220.20.60.60, 

7220.20.60.80, 7220.20.70.05, 

7220.20.70.10, 7220.20.70.15, 

7220.20.70.60, 7220.20.70.80, 

7220.20.80.00, 7220.20.90.30, 

7220.20.90.60, 7220.90.00.10, 

7220.90.00.15, 7220.90.00.60, 

7220.90.00.80. 

Although the HTS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the Department’s written 

description of the merchandise subject 

to the order is dispositive. Excluded 

from the scope of the order is the 

following: (1) Sheet and strip that is not


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2011 / Notices 28809 

on January 19, 2011, based on a 

complaint filed by Remy International, 

Inc. and Remy Technologies, L.L.C. 

(collectively, ‘‘Remy’’). 76 FR 3158. The 

complaint alleges violations of section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (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 starter motors and 

alternators by reason of infringement of 

various United States Patents. The 

original complaint named eight 

respondents. On April 11, 2011, Remy 

filed a motion to amend the complaint 

and notice of investigation to add Yun 

Sheng and EMS as respondents. On 

April 21, 2011, the Commission 

investigative attorney filed a response in 

support of the motion. No other 

responses were filed. 

On April 27, 2011, the ALJ issued the 

subject ID granting Remy’s motion to 

add Yun Sheng and EMS as 

respondents. No petitions for review of 

the ID were filed. 

The Commission has determined not 

to review the ID. 

The Notice of Investigation is 

amended to include the following 

respondents alleged to be in violation of 

section 337 and are parties upon which 

the amended complaint is to be served: 

Yun Sheng USA, Inc. 395 Oyster Point, 

Blvd., Ste 230, San Francisco, 

California 94080; 

Electric Motor Services, 70 River Rd., 

Logan, West Virginia 25601–4042. 

The authority for the Commission’s 

determination is contained in section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in 

section 210.42 of the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 

210.42). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: May 13, 2011. 

James R. Holbein, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2011–12182 Filed 5–17–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 701–TA–376 (Second 

Review)] 

Stainless Steel Plate From Belgium; 

Termination of Five-Year Review 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Effective June 1, 2010, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘Commerce’’) 

initiated and the U.S. International 

Trade Commission (‘‘Commission’’) 

instituted a five-year review concerning 

the countervailing duty order on 

stainless steel plate from Belgium (75 

FR 30777 and 75 FR 30434). On May 5, 

2011, Commerce published notice in the 

Federal Register of the final results of 

its full five-year review of the 

countervailing duty order concerning 

stainless steel plate from Belgium, 

finding that revocation of the 

countervailing duty order would not 

likely lead to continuation or recurrence 

of a countervailable subsidy. Therefore, 

Commerce revoked the countervailing 

duty order (76 FR 25666). Accordingly, 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), the 

subject review is terminated. 

DATES: Effective Date: May 5, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Keysha Martinez (202–205–2136), Office 

of Investigations, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired individuals are advised that 

information on this matter can be 

obtained by contacting the 

Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov).The public record for 

this investigation may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

Authority: This review is being terminated 

under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act 

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 

section 207.69 of the Commission’s rules 

(19 CFR 207.69). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: May 12, 2011. 

James R. Holbein, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2011–12181 Filed 5–17–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–700] 

In the Matter of Certain Mems Devices 

and Products Containing Same; Notice 

of Commission Decision to Affirm-InPart and Reverse-In-Part a Final Initial 

Determination Finding a Violation of 

Section 337; Issuance of a Limited 

Exclusion Order; and Termination of 

the Investigation 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined to affirmin-part and reverse-in-part a final initial 

determination (‘‘ID’’) of the presiding 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) finding 

a violation of section 337 by 

respondents in the above-captioned 

investigation, and has issued a limited 

exclusion order directed against 

products of respondents Knowles 

Electronics LLC (‘‘Knowles’’) of Itasca, 

Illinois and Mouser Electronics, Inc. 

(‘‘Mouser’’) of Mansfield, Texas. 

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) 

708–5468. 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 January 5, 2010, based on a 

complaint filed on December 1, 2009, by 

Analog Devices, Inc. (‘‘Analog Devices’’) 

of Norwood, Massachusetts. 75 FR 449– 

50 (January 5, 2010). The complaint, as 

supplemented, alleged 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


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES

Contains Business Proprietary Information

B-1

APPENDIX B

HEARING WITNESSES

Contains Business Proprietary Information

B-3

CALENDAR OF PUBLIC HEARING

Those listed below appeared as witnesses at the United States International Trade Commission’s

hearing:

Subject: Stainless Steel Plate from Belgium, Italy, Korea, South Africa and

Taiwan

Inv. Nos.: 701-TA-379 and 731-TA-788, 790-793

(Second Review)

Date and Time: May 26, 2011 - 9:30 a.m.

Sessions were held in connection with these reviews in the Main Hearing Room (room 101), 500 E

Street, SW, Washington, D.C.

OPENING STATEMENTS:

In Support of Continuation of Orders (David A. Hartquist,

Kelley Drye & Warren LLP)

In Opposition to Continuation of Orders (Lewis E. Leibowitz,

Hogan Lovells US LLP)

In Support of the Continuation of

 the Countervailing Duty Order

 and Antidumping Duty Orders:

Kelley Drye & Warren LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Domestic Industry

Terrence L. Hartford, Vice President, Sales and General

Manager, Sheet, Allegheny Ludlum Corporation

Mark Carson, General Manager, Field Sales,

Allegheny Ludlum Corporation

Patrick Feeley, Vice President Commercial, North

American Stainless
Contains Business Proprietary Information

B-4

In Support of the Continuation of

 the Countervailing Duty Order

 and Antidumping Duty Orders:

Edward Blot, President, Ed Blot Associates

Jason R. Suslak, Senior Attorney, Allegheny 

Technologies, Inc.

Brad Hudgens, Economist, Georgetown Economic

Services

David A. Hartquist )

Kathleen W. Cannon ) – OF COUNSEL

R. Alan Luberda )

In Opposition to the Continuation of

 the Countervailing Duty Order

 and Antidumping Duty Orders:

Hogan Lovells US LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

ThyssenKrupp Acciai Speciali Terni S.p.A. (“TKAST”)

ThyssenKrupp Acciai Speciali Terni USA, Inc. (“TKAST USA”)

ThyssenKrupp Stainless USA LLC (“SL-USA”)

Jose-Ramon Salas, Vice President for Operative Planning,

ThyssenKrupp Stainless USA LLC

Stephan Lacor, Vice President for Sales and Marketing,

ThyssenKrupp Stainless USA LLC

Bruce Malashevich, President, ECS Consulting

Service LLC

Lewis E. Leibowitz )

) – OF COUNSEL

Brian S. Janovitz )

REBUTTAL/CLOSING REMARKS:

In Support of Continuation of Orders (David A. Hartquist,

Kelley Drye & Warren LLP)

In Opposition to Continuation of Orders (Lewis E. Leibowitz,

Hogan Lovells US LLP)
Contains Business Proprietary Information

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA

C-1

Table C-1

Stainless steel plate: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2005-10

(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

Item 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2005-10 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122,928 188,868 143,887 84,758 85,046 107,512 -12.5 53.6 -23.8 -41.1 0.3 26.4

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers' share (1):

 Belgium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 South Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal (subject) . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321,113 584,026 688,479 353,285 187,337 346,755 8.0 81.9 17.9 -48.7 -47.0 85.1

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers' share (1):

 Belgium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 South Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal (subject) . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments of imports from:

 Belgium:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Italy:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Korea:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 South Africa:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341 1,320 1,176 34 2 69 -79.7 287.4 -10.9 -97.1 -93.7 3136.2

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 922 2,357 2,783 102 14 125 -86.4 155.6 18.1 -96.3 -86.2 796.3

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2,707 $1,786 $2,367 $2,986 $6,544 $1,812 -33.1 -34.0 32.5 26.1 119.2 -72.3

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Taiwan:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373 96 101 18 0 3 -99.3 -74.3 4.9 -81.8 -100.0 (2)

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 967 269 454 87 0 11 -98.9 -72.2 69.2 -80.8 -100.0 (2)

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2,595 $2,804 $4,520 $4,756 (2) $4,015 54.7 8.1 61.2 5.2 (2) (2)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal (subject):

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on next page.

C-3
Table C-1--Continued

Stainless steel plate: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2005-10

(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

Item 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2005-10 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

U.S. shipments of imports from:

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . 6,962 1,862 5,088 5,511 2,234 1,857 -73.3 -73.3 173.3 8.3 -59.5 -16.9

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Inventories/total shipments (1) . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Productivity (tons/1,000 hours) . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss) . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit operating income or (loss) . $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Not applicable.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding, figures may not add to the tota

Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Note.--Official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce are used for imports from South Africa and Taiwan.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

C-4
APPENDIX D

RESPONSES OF U.S. PRODUCERS, U.S. IMPORTERS, 

U.S. PURCHASERS, AND FOREIGN PRODUCERS 

CONCERNING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ANTIDUMPING DUTY

 AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY ORDERS AND THE LIKELY 

EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

D-1

This section is confidential in its entirety.

D-3
 
APPENDIX E

EXCHANGE RATES FOR SUBJECT COUNTRIES

E-1

Figure E-1

Exchange rates: Indices of the nominal and real exchange rates between the Euro, Korean won,

South African rand, and the Taiwan new dollar and the U.S. dollar, by quarters, January 2005-

March 2011

Figure continued on next page.

E-3
Figure E-1--Continued

Exchange rates: Indices of the nominal and real exchange rates between the Euro, Korean won,

South African rand, and the Taiwan new dollar and the U.S. dollar, by quarters, January 2005-

March 2011

Note: Real exchange rate data are not available for Taiwan.

Source: International Financial Statistics, International Monetary Fund, retrieved June 8, 2011, and St. Louis Federal

Reserve, retrieved June 8, 2011.

E-4