The U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission or USITC) today released a report on the competitiveness of the rice industries in the United States and other major producing and exporting countries. 

The report, Rice: Global Competitiveness and Impacts on Trade and the U.S. Industry (Inv. No. 332-603), was requested by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means (Committee) in a letter received on February 5, 2024. The Committee requested that the Commission conduct an investigation and produce a report that updates the findings of a USITC report on rice submitted to the Committee in 2015.

The new report, focused primarily on changes to the rice industry during from 2018 through 2023, provides information on recent developments in the rice industry in the United States, as well as Bangladesh, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Paraguay, Thailand, Uruguay and Vietnam. In addition, the report:

• Compares the competitive strengths and weaknesses of the major exporters.
• Provides a qualitative and quantitative assessment of the impact of government policies and programs on the U.S. rice industry and food security in developing countries.
• Describes the effects of exports from major producing and exporting countries on the U.S. industry.

Major Findings of the Investigation

• A small share of rice production is traded internationally, and rice exports are concentrated among a small number of exporters. India is the largest exporter. The United States supplies 1 percent of global production and 5 percent of global exports.
   
• Rice is a staple food for more than half of the world’s population and plays an important cultural, economic and food security role for many countries. As a result, there is significant government intervention in the rice industry, including public stockholding, consumer and producer subsidies, policies that encourage production and trade policies.
   
• Global events between 2018 and 2023 triggered price fluctuations in the rice industry. These events include:
  • The COVID-19 pandemic.
  • India’s export restrictions.
  • Spikes in transportation and input costs.
  • Climate- and weather-related disruptions such as droughts, floods and saltwater intrusion.
     
• Differences in production costs across countries affect the competitiveness of major rice producers. Producers with low production costs can offer lower prices, which makes their exports more competitive. Producers with high production costs often cannot compete in price-sensitive markets if they do not have other advantages such as product differentiation or tariff preferences. India, Pakistan and Vietnam had some of the lowest production costs; the United States, Brazil, China and Indonesia had some of the highest.
   
• According to the Commission’s economic modeling, greater market access would increase U.S. rice exports. Simulations show that the removal of all import tariffs, both U.S. and foreign, would have a net positive effect on U.S. rice production and exports. The removal of such tariffs would cause U.S. exports to rise more than 40 percent from their baseline 2023 level. The Commission’s economic modeling also shows potential gains to U.S. rice exports from other policies modeled, such as an increase in Japan’s tariff-rate quota. 

Rice: Global Competitiveness and Impacts on Trade and the U.S. Industry (Inv. No. 332-603, USITC Publication 5600, March 2025) is available on the USITC website at https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub5600.pdf.

About Factfinding Investigations

USITC general factfinding investigations, such as this one, cover matters related to tariffs, trade and competitiveness and are generally conducted under section 332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930 at the request of the U.S. Trade Representative, the House Committee on Ways and Means or the Senate Committee on Finance. The resulting reports convey the Commission’s objective findings and independent analyses on the subjects investigated. The Commission makes no recommendations on policy or other matters in its general factfinding reports. Upon completion of each investigation, the USITC submits its findings and analyses to the requester. General factfinding investigation reports are subsequently released to the public unless they are classified by the requester for national security reasons. 

The U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission or USITC) voted to institute an investigation of certain glass substrates for liquid crystal displays, products containing the same, and methods for manufacturing the same. The products at issue in the investigation are described in the Commission’s notice of investigation.

The investigation is based on a complaint filed on behalf of Corning Incorporated of Corning, N.Y., on January 31, 2025. A supplement was filed on February 3, 2025. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States and sale of certain glass substrates for liquid crystal displays, products containing the same, and methods for manufacturing he same that infringe patents asserted by the complainant. The complainant requests that the USITC issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders. 

The USITC has identified the following respondents in this investigation:

• Caihong Display Devices Co., Ltd., d/b/a Irico Display Devices Co., Ltd., Xianyang City, China
• HKC Corporation Ltd., Shenzhen City, China
• HKC Overseas Ltd., Hong Kong
• Hisense USA Corporation., Suwanee, Ga.
• LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
• TCL China Star Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd.., Shenzhen City, China
• TTE Technology, Inc. d/b/a TCL America, Irvine, Calif.
• VIZIO, Inc., Irvine, Calif.
• Xianyang CaiHong Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd., Xianyang City, China

By instituting this investigation (337-TA-1441), the USITC has not yet made any decision on the merits of the case. The USITC’s Chief Administrative Law Judge will assign the case to one of the USITC’s administrative law judges (ALJ), who will schedule and hold an evidentiary hearing. The ALJ will make an initial determination as to whether there is a violation of section 337; that initial determination is subject to review by the Commission. 

The USITC will make a final determination in the investigation at the earliest practicable time. Within 45 days after institution of the investigation, the USITC will set a target date for completing the investigation. USITC remedial orders in section 337 cases are effective when issued and become final 60 days after issuance unless disapproved for policy reasons by the U.S. Trade Representative within that 60-day period.

 

The U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission or USITC) today released a U.S. Trade Representative (USTR)-requested report that calculates the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions intensities of U.S. steel and aluminum industries. The report, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensities of the U.S. Steel and Aluminum Industries at the Product Level, was requested by the USTR in a letter received on June 5, 2023. 

USTR’s request letter asked the USITC to:

• Calculate the GHG emissions intensity of steel and aluminum produced in the United States by product category in 2022, with data on scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions. 
• Describe the methodologies the USITC used to collect relevant information and calculate the emissions intensity estimates.
• Identify where emissions occur during manufacturing, with respect to the production stages and sourcing location of inputs. 

To gather data for the calculation of product-level emissions intensity estimates, the USITC surveyed all U.S. facilities that produced the steel and aluminum products covered under the section 232 investigation in 2022.

This report conveys the Commission’s factual findings and analyses. The Commission makes no recommendations on policy or other matters in this report. 

Major Findings of the Investigation

The processes and inputs used in U.S. steel and aluminum production drive their emission intensities.

Semifinished Steel

The average emissions intensity estimate for U.S. carbon and other alloy semifinished steel was 1.02 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per metric ton of steel (mt CO2e/mt steel) in 2022.

• The emissions intensities estimates of U.S. carbon and alloy steel products are primarily influenced by two factors: 
  • The production pathway (the more emissions-intensive blast furnace and basic oxygen furnace, or BF-BOF, pathway, versus the electric arc furnace, or EAF, pathway) used to produce the semifinished steel, which is used as substrate in mill products.
  • The relative use of emissions-intensive upstream material inputs like pig iron and direct reduced iron.
• The average emissions intensity for U.S. stainless steel semifinished steel was 2.23 mt CO2e/mt steel in 2022. The emissions intensity of U.S. stainless steel products is mainly influenced by the reliance on emissions-intensive ferroalloy (an alloy of iron with a significant amount of one or more other elements, like chromium or nickel) inputs. All U.S. stainless semifinished steel-producing facilities reported operating an EAF. Therefore, variation in the production pathway does not drive emissions intensities for stainless steel.

Steel Mill Products

Average emissions intensities among carbon and alloy steel mill products ranged between 0.67 mt CO2e/mt steel for hot-worked long products and 2.17 mt CO2e/mt steel for coated flat products. Average emissions intensities among stainless steel mill products ranged between 2.31 mt CO2e/mt steel for hot-rolled flat and 4.55 mt CO2e/mt steel for wire.

• Further downstream steel products generally had higher emissions intensities than less-processed steel products. This is because each subsequent process in steel production involves more steps and therefore more opportunities for emissions.
• For carbon and alloy steel mill products, the most emissions-intensive processes in the U.S. steel industry occur during the upstream production of pig iron and semifinished steel. The additional subprocesses used to produce downstream products are also significant, however, leading to meaningful differences in emissions intensities across the carbon and alloy steel product categories.
• Stainless steel mill products are more emissions intensive than their carbon and alloy steel counterparts. This is due to the heavier use of energy and ferroalloys associated with stainless steel production.

Unwrought Aluminum

The average emissions intensity for all U.S. unwrought aluminum is 3.46 mt CO2e/mt aluminum. U.S. unwrought aluminum includes primary aluminum, which is produced from alumina at smelters using electrolysis, and secondary aluminum, which is produced by remelting primary aluminum and scrap-based inputs. Most U.S. unwrought production, in terms of volume and number of facilities, is of secondary unwrought aluminum.

• The average emissions intensity for U.S. primary unwrought aluminum is 14.52 mt CO2e/mt aluminum. The main drivers of the emissions intensity of primary unwrought aluminum are:
  • The large quantities of electricity needed for electrolysis. 
  • The fuel mix used to generate high quantities of the necessary electricity.
• The average emissions intensity for U.S. secondary unwrought aluminum is 2.46 mt CO2e/mt aluminum. Production of secondary unwrought aluminum is much less energy intensive, using a fraction of the electricity of primary unwrought production. The emissions intensity of secondary unwrought aluminum is influenced by the amount of primary unwrought aluminum versus scrap used as inputs and, to a lesser extent, by the efficiency of the furnaces used to heat the metal.

Wrought Aluminum

The average emissions intensities for U.S. wrought aluminum products ranged from 4.97 mt CO2e/mt aluminum for plates, sheets and strip, to 8.66 mt CO2e/mt aluminum for foil. The two main factors that drive the differences in emissions intensities between wrought product categories are the:

• Amount of primary versus secondary unwrought aluminum used. 
• Energy intensity of the various manufacturing processes.

Note: The Commission’s emissions intensity estimates for both steel and aluminum are calculated assuming that scrap inputs have zero embedded emissions.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensities of the U.S. Steel and Aluminum Industries at the Product Level (Investigation No. 332-598, USITC Publication 5584, February 2025) is available on the USITC website.

About Factfinding Investigations

USITC general factfinding investigations culminating in a report, such as this one, cover matters related to tariffs, trade and competitiveness and are generally conducted under section 332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930 at the request of the U.S. Trade Representative, the House Committee on Ways and Means or the Senate Committee on Finance. The resulting reports convey the Commission’s objective findings and independent analyses on the subjects investigated. The Commission makes no recommendations on policy or other matters in its general factfinding reports. Upon completion of each investigation, the USITC submits its findings and analyses to the requester. General factfinding investigation reports are subsequently released to the public unless they are classified by the requester for national security reasons.

The U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission or USITC) voted to institute an investigation of certain motorized self-balancing vehicles. The products at issue in the investigation are described in the Commission’s notice of investigation.

The investigation is based on a complaint filed on behalf of Razor USA LLC of Cerritos, Calif., and Shane Chen of Camas, Wash., on January 3, 2025. An amended complaint was filed on January 21, 2025. The complaint, as amended, alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States and sale of certain motorized self-balancing vehicles that infringe patents asserted by the complainants. The complainants request that the USITC issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders. 

The USITC has identified the following respondents in this investigation:

• Dongguan Saibotan Nengyuan Keji Co., Ltd. d/b/a “Gyroor US,” Guangdong, China
• Golabs Inc. d/b/a Gotrax, Carrollton, Tex.
• Gyroor Technology (CHINA) Co., Ltd. d/b/a Gyroor, Guangdong, China
• Shenzhen Chitado Technology Co., Ltd. d/b/a Gyroor, Guangdong, China 
• Unicorn Network, LLC. d/b/a/ Sisigad, Dover, Del.

By instituting this investigation (337-TA-1440), the USITC has not yet made any decision on the merits of the case. The USITC’s Chief Administrative Law Judge will assign the case to one of the USITC’s administrative law judges (ALJ), who will schedule and hold an evidentiary hearing. The ALJ will make an initial determination as to whether there is a violation of section 337; that initial determination is subject to review by the Commission. 

The USITC will make a final determination in the investigation at the earliest practicable time. Within 45 days after institution of the investigation, the USITC will set a target date for completing the investigation. USITC remedial orders in section 337 cases are effective when issued and become final 60 days after issuance unless disapproved for policy reasons by the U.S. Trade Representative within that 60-day period.

The U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission or USITC) voted to institute an investigation of certain polyvinylidene fluoride resins. The products at issue in the investigation are described in the Commission’s notice of investigation.

The investigation is based on a complaint filed on behalf of Solvay Specialty Polymers, USA LLC of Alpharetta, Ga.; Syensqo SA of Brussels, Belgium; and Solvay Specialty Polymers Italy S.P.A. of Bollate, Italy, on January 13, 2025, and supplemented on February 3, 2025. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States and sale of certain polyvinylidene fluoride resins that infringe a patent asserted by the complainants. The complainants request that the USITC issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders. 

The USITC has identified the following respondents in this investigation:

• Sinochem Lantian Co., Ltd., Hangzhou, China
• Inner Mongolia 3F Wanhao Fluorochemical Industry Co. Ltd., Fengzhen, China
• Zhejiang Juhua Co., Ltd, Quzhou, China
• Zhejiang Fluorine Chemical New Material Co. Ltd., Shaoxing, China 
• Hubei Fluorine New Materials Co., Ltd., Qianjiang, China

By instituting this investigation (337-TA-1439), the USITC has not yet made any decision on the merits of the case. The USITC’s Chief Administrative Law Judge will assign the case to one of the USITC’s administrative law judges (ALJ), who will schedule and hold an evidentiary hearing. The ALJ will make an initial determination as to whether there is a violation of section 337; that initial determination is subject to review by the Commission. 

The USITC will make a final determination in the investigation at the earliest practicable time. Within 45 days after institution of the investigation, the USITC will set a target date for completing the investigation. USITC remedial orders in section 337 cases are effective when issued and become final 60 days after issuance unless disapproved for policy reasons by the U.S. Trade Representative within that 60-day period.

The U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission or USITC) voted to institute an investigation of certain shapewear garments and components thereof. The products at issue in the investigation are described in the Commission’s notice of investigation.

The investigation is based on a complaint filed on behalf of Spanx, LLC of Atlanta, Ga., on December 31, 2024. A supplement to the complaint was filed on January 22, 2025. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States and sale of certain shapewear that infringe patents asserted by the complainant. The complainant requests that the USITC issue a general exclusion order, or in the alternative a limited exclusion order, and cease and desist orders. 

The USITC has identified the following respondents in this investigation:

• Guangzhoushi Cedong Shangmao Youxiangongsi, Guangzhou, China
• Bingrong Co., Ltd Shenzhen Shi, China
• Dolce Vita Intimates LLC, Harrison, N.J.
• Honeylove Sculptwear, Inc., Los Angeles, Calif.
• Guangzhoushi Chiping Dianzi Maoyi Co. Ltd., Guangzhou, China
• Daerwene Inc., Boulder, Colo.

By instituting this investigation (337-TA-1436), the USITC has not yet made any decision on the merits of the case. The USITC’s Chief Administrative Law Judge will assign the case to one of the USITC’s administrative law judges (ALJ), who will schedule and hold an evidentiary hearing. The ALJ will make an initial determination as to whether there is a violation of section 337; that initial determination is subject to review by the Commission. 

The USITC will make a final determination in the investigation at the earliest practicable time. Within 45 days after institution of the investigation, the USITC will set a target date for completing the investigation. USITC remedial orders in section 337 cases are effective when issued and become final 60 days after issuance unless disapproved for policy reasons by the U.S. Trade Representative within that 60-day period.

The U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission or USITC) voted to institute an investigation of certain electrolyte containing beverages and labeling and packaging thereof. The products at issue in the investigation are described in the Commission’s notice of investigation.

The investigation is based on a complaint filed on behalf of Sueros y Bebidas Rehidratantes S.A. de C.V. of Guadalajara, Mexico; CAB Enterprises, Inc, of Houston, Tex.; Brazos River Ventures LLC of Albany, N.Y.; and Electrolit Manufacturing USA Inc. of Albany, N.Y. on December 27, 2024, and supplemented on January 15, 2025. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States and sale of certain electrolyte containing beverages and labeling and packaging thereof that infringe trademarks asserted by the complainants. The complainants request that the USITC issue a general exclusion order, or in the alternative a limited exclusion order, and cease and desist orders. 

The USITC has identified the following respondents in this investigation:

• Empacadora Torres Mora, S. de R.L. de C.V., Monterrey, Mexico
• Version Expotaciones, S.R.L. de C.V., Tijuana, Mexico
• Mabed Distribuciones, S.A. de C.V., Matamoros, Mexico,
• Salfe International Trade, S. de R.L. de C.V., Garza Garcia, Mexico
• Exportadora de Abarrotes del Pacifico, S.A. de C.V., Torreon, Mexico
• Centro de Distribucion de Carbon Allende, S.A. de C.V., Allende, Mexico
• Wenceslao Colunga Ruiz, Camargo, Mexico
• Distribuidora de Productos Heres, S.A. de C.V., Allende, Mexico

By instituting this investigation (337-TA-1435), the USITC has not yet made any decision on the merits of the case. The USITC’s Chief Administrative Law Judge will assign the case to one of the USITC’s administrative law judges (ALJ), who will schedule and hold an evidentiary hearing. The ALJ will make an initial determination as to whether there is a violation of section 337; that initial determination is subject to review by the Commission. 

The USITC will make a final determination in the investigation at the earliest practicable time. Within 45 days after institution of the investigation, the USITC will set a target date for completing the investigation. USITC remedial orders in section 337 cases are effective when issued and become final 60 days after issuance unless disapproved for policy reasons by the U.S. Trade Representative within that 60-day period.

The U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission or USITC) today determined that revoking the existing antidumping and countervailing duty orders on sodium nitrite from China and the antidumping duty order on sodium nitrite from Germany would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. 

As a result of the Commission’s affirmative determinations, the existing orders on imports of these products from China and Germany will remain in place. 

Chair Amy A. Karpel and Commissioners David S. Johanson and Jason E. Kearns voted in the affirmative. Commissioner Rhonda K. Schmidtlein did not participate in the vote.

Today’s action comes under the five-year (sunset) review process required by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. See the below for background on these five-year (sunset) reviews.

The Commission’s public report on Sodium Nitrite from China and Germany (Inv. Nos. 701-TA-453 and 731-TA-1136-1137 (Third Review), USITC Publication 5582, January 2025) will contain the views of the Commission and information developed during the reviews.

The report will be available by February 28, 2025; when available, it may be accessed on the USITC website at https://www.usitc.gov/commission_publications_library. 

BACKGROUND

The Uruguay Round Agreements Act requires the Department of Commerce to revoke an antidumping or countervailing duty order, or terminate a suspension agreement, after five years unless the Department of Commerce and the USITC determine that revoking the order or terminating the suspension agreement would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or subsidies (Commerce) and of material injury (USITC) within a reasonably foreseeable time. 

The Commission’s institution notice in five-year reviews requests that interested parties file responses with the Commission concerning the likely effects of revoking the order under review as well as other information. Generally, within 95 days from institution, the Commission will determine whether the responses it has received reflect an adequate or inadequate level of interest in a full review. If responses to the USITC’s notice of institution are adequate, or if other circumstances warrant a full review, the Commission conducts a full review, which includes a public hearing and issuance of questionnaires.

The Commission generally does not hold a hearing or conduct further investigative activities in expedited reviews.  Commissioners base their injury determination in expedited reviews on the facts available, including the Commission’s prior injury and review determinations, responses received to its notice of institution, data collected by staff in connection with the reviews, and information provided by the Department of Commerce.

The five-year (sunset) reviews concerning Sodium Nitrite from China and Germany were instituted on July 1, 2024.

On October 4, 2024, the Commission determined to conduct expedited five-year reviews. Chair Amy A. Karpel and Commissioners Rhonda K. Schmidtlein and Jason E. Kearns concluded that the domestic interested party group response was adequate, and the respondent interested party group response was inadequate and voted for expedited reviews. Commissioner David S. Johanson concluded that the domestic interested party group response was adequate, and the respondent interested party group response was inadequate and voted for full reviews. 

A record of the Commission’s vote to conduct expedited reviews is available on the investigations page for Sodium Nitrite from China and Germany; Inv. No.701-TA-453 and 731-TA-1136-1137 (Third Review). 

The U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission or USITC) voted to institute an investigation of certain composite intermediate bulk containers. The products at issue in the investigation are described in the Commission’s notice of investigation.

The investigation is based on a complaint filed on behalf of Schütz Container Systems, Inc. of North Branch, N.J., and Protechna S.A. of Fribourg, Switzerland, on December 5, 2024. The complaint was supplemented on December 20, 2024. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States and sale of certain composite intermediate bulk containers that infringe patents asserted by the complainants. The complainants request that the USITC issue a general exclusion order, or in the alternative a limited exclusion order, and cease and desist orders. 

The USITC has identified the following respondents in this investigation:

• Shandong Jinshan Jieyuan Container Co., Ltd, Zhengjiang City, China
• Zibo Jielin Plastic Pipe Manufacture Co. Ltd., Zibo City, China
• Shanghai Sakura Plastic Products Co., Ltd. (d/b/a Shanghai Yinghua Plastic Products Co., LTD), Shanghai, China
• Hebei Shijiheng Plastics, Co., Ltd., Huanghua, China

By instituting this investigation (337-TA-1434), the USITC has not yet made any decision on the merits of the case. The USITC’s Chief Administrative Law Judge will assign the case to one of the USITC’s administrative law judges (ALJ), who will schedule and hold an evidentiary hearing. The ALJ will make an initial determination as to whether there is a violation of section 337; that initial determination is subject to review by the Commission. 

The USITC will make a final determination in the investigation at the earliest practicable time. Within 45 days after institution of the investigation, the USITC will set a target date for completing the investigation. USITC remedial orders in section 337 cases are effective when issued and become final 60 days after issuance unless disapproved for policy reasons by the U.S. Trade Representative within that 60-day period.

Subscribe to United States International Trade Commission