Paper/Verso division.20 Production of CFS paper rose on an overall basis by 7.6 percent from 2003 to 2005 and by 2.6 percent from January-September 2005 to January-September 2006. U.S. producers’ capacity utilization was 90 percent in 2003 and 2004 and then rose to 95 percent in 2005. Interim capacity utilization in interim 2006 was, however, 4 percentage points lower than that reported during the interim 2005 period.21
The Chinese respondents and Unisource argue in their postconference brief that the U.S. industry does not have sufficient capacity to meet demand.22 Petitioner asserts that lost capacity could be brought back on line “if adequate relief were imposed as a result of these investigations.”23 Allocations or “reservations” have been imposed within the CFS industry during the period examined, although parties disagree as to their extent and impact. Unisource testified at the Commission’s conference that it was were placed on allocation by “a number” of its CFS suppliers. In its case, the actual allocations depended upon the mill and product (i.e., web, web within a range of specific basis weights and/or sheets).24 Petitioner stated in its postconference brief that it “***.”25 Attached as exhibits 1 and 3 to Chinese respondents and Unisource's postconference brief are ***.26
As shown in table III-4, capacity utilization on the same machinery and equipment used in the production of CFS paper is within the general range for that reported for subject CFS paper alone.
***. See the notes to table III-3.
21 NewPage states that, due to their high operating costs, a paper mill “requires very high capacity utilization to achieve profitability and an adequate return on investment. Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 9.
Chinese respondents and Unisource’s postconference brief, p. 13.
23 Petitioner’s postconference brief, exh. 1, p. 16. They add that NewPage “could shift production from coated groundwood paper to coated free sheet at its Escanaba, MI and Rumford, ME plants if market conditions improved.” Ibid.
Conference transcript, pp. 112 and 146-147 (Dragone). Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 39. Chinese respondents and Unisource's postconference brief, pp. 15-17. ***