Environmental and Legal Contingencies

Environmental Contingencies

AK Steel and its predecessors have been conducting steel manufacturing and related operations since 1900. Although the Company believes its operating practices have been consistent with prevailing industry standards during this time, hazardous materials may have been released in the past at one or more operating sites or third-party sites, including operating sites that the Company no longer owns. To the extent reasonably estimable, the Company has estimated potential remediation expenditures for those sites where future remediation efforts are probable based on identified conditions, regulatory requirements or contractual obligations arising from the sale of a business or facility. In the case of sites involving governmentally-required investigations, an estimate of potential remediation expenditures is typically made only after the investigation is complete and the nature and scope of the remediation is better understood. In general, the material components of these accruals include the costs associated with investigations, delineations, risk assessments, remedial work, governmental response and oversight costs, site monitoring, and preparation of reports to the appropriate environmental agencies. Liabilities recorded on the Company’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets for such estimated probable costs relating to environmental matters are presented below:



	June 30, 2014		December 31, 2013
Accrued liabilities	$	9.0	$	9.5
Other non-current liabilities	33.9		34.1

The ultimate costs to the Company with respect to each site cannot be predicted with certainty because of the evolving nature of the investigation and remediation process. Rather, to develop the estimates of the probable costs, the Company must make certain assumptions. The most significant of these assumptions relate to the nature and scope of the work that will be necessary to investigate and remediate a particular site and the cost of that work. Other significant assumptions include the cleanup technology that will be used, whether and to what extent any other parties will participate in paying the investigation and remediation costs, reimbursement of past response and future oversight costs by governmental agencies, and the reaction of the governing environmental agencies to the proposed work plans. Costs of future expenditures are not discounted to their present value. To the extent that the Company has been able to reasonably estimate its future liabilities, the Company does not believe that there is a reasonable possibility that a loss or losses exceeding the amounts accrued will be incurred in connection with the environmental matters discussed below that would, either individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. However, since amounts recognized in the consolidated financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States exclude potential losses that are not probable or that may not be currently estimable, the ultimate costs of these environmental proceedings may be higher than those currently recorded in the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

Except as expressly noted below, the Company does not currently anticipate any material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows as a result of its compliance with current environmental regulations. Moreover, because all domestic steel producers operate under the same set of federal environmental regulations, the Company does not believe that it is disadvantaged relative to its domestic competitors by the need to comply with these regulations. Some foreign competitors may benefit from less stringent environmental requirements in the countries in which they produce, resulting in lower compliance costs and providing those foreign competitors with a cost advantage on their products.

Pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), which governs the treatment, handling and disposal of hazardous waste, the EPA and authorized state environmental agencies may conduct inspections of RCRA-regulated facilities to identify areas where there have been releases of hazardous waste or hazardous constituents into the environment and may order the facilities to take corrective action to remediate such releases. AK Steel’s major steelmaking facilities are subject to RCRA inspections by environmental regulators. While the Company cannot predict the future actions of these regulators, it is possible that they may identify conditions in future inspections of these facilities which they believe require corrective action.

Under authority conferred by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), the EPA and state environmental authorities have conducted site investigations at certain of AK Steel’s facilities and other third-party facilities, portions of which previously may have been used for disposal of materials that are currently subject to regulation. The results of these investigations are still pending, and AK Steel could be directed to expend funds for remedial activities at the former disposal areas. Because of the uncertain status of these investigations, however, the Company cannot reliably predict whether or when such expenditures might be required, their magnitude or the timeframe during which these potential costs would be incurred.

As previously reported, on July 27, 2001, AK Steel received a Special Notice Letter from the EPA requesting that AK Steel agree to conduct a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (“RI/FS”) and enter into an administrative order on consent pursuant to Section 122 of CERCLA regarding the former Hamilton Plant located in New Miami, Ohio. The Hamilton Plant ceased operations in 1990, and all of its former structures have been demolished and removed. Although AK Steel did not believe that a site-wide RI/FS was necessary or appropriate, in April 2002 it entered into a mutually agreed-upon administrative order on consent to perform such an investigation and study of the Hamilton Plant site. The site-wide investigation portion of the RI/FS has been submitted. A supplemental study is projected to be completed in 2014. AK Steel currently has accrued $0.7 for the remaining cost of the RI/FS. Until the RI/FS is completed, AK Steel cannot reliably estimate the additional costs, if any, associated with any potentially required remediation of the site or the timeframe during which these potential costs would be incurred.

As previously reported, on September 30, 1998, AK Steel’s predecessor, Armco Inc., received an order from the EPA under Section 3013 of RCRA requiring it to develop a plan for investigation of eight areas of Mansfield Works that allegedly could be sources of contamination. A site investigation began in November 2000 and is continuing. AK Steel cannot reliably estimate at this time how long it will take to complete this site investigation. AK Steel currently has accrued approximately $1.1 for the projected cost of the study at Mansfield Works. Until the site investigation is completed, AK Steel cannot reliably estimate the additional costs, if any, associated with any potentially required remediation of the site or the timeframe during which these potential costs would be incurred.

As previously noted, on September 26, 2012, the EPA issued an order under Section 3013 of RCRA requiring the Company to develop a plan for investigation of four areas at AK Steel’s Ashland Works Coke Plant. A site investigation plan was submitted to the EPA on October 25, 2012, revised most recently on May 29, 2014 and approved by the EPA on June 27, 2014. AK Steel cannot reliably estimate at this time how long it will take to complete the site investigation. AK Steel currently has accrued approximately $0.5 for the projected cost of the investigation. Until the site investigation is completed, AK Steel cannot reliably estimate the additional costs, if any, associated with any potentially required remediation of the site or the timeframe during which these potential costs would be incurred.

As previously reported, on August 3, 2011, September 29, 2011, and June 28, 2012, the EPA issued Notice of Violations (“NOV”) with respect to the coke plant at AK Steel’s Middletown Works alleging violations of pushing and combustion stack limits. The Company is investigating these claims and is working with the EPA to attempt to resolve them. AK Steel believes it will reach a settlement in this matter, but it cannot be certain that a settlement will be reached and cannot reliably estimate at this time how long it will take to reach a settlement or what all of its terms might be. AK Steel will vigorously contest any claims which cannot be resolved through a settlement. Until it has reached a settlement with the EPA or the claims that are the subject of the NOVs are otherwise resolved, AK Steel cannot reliably estimate the costs, if any, associated with any potentially required operational changes at the battery or the timeframe over which any potential costs would be incurred.

As previously reported, on July 15, 2009, AK Steel and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (“PADEP”) entered into a Consent Order and Agreement (the “Consent Order”) to resolve an alleged unpermitted discharge of wastewater from the closed Hillside Landfill at the former Ambridge Works. Under the terms of the Consent Order, AK Steel paid a penalty and also agreed to implement various corrective actions, including an investigation of the area where activities were conducted regarding the landfill, submission of a plan to collect and treat surface waters and seep discharges, and upon approval from PADEP, implementation of that plan. The Company has accrued approximately $2.2 for the current phase of remedial work required under the Consent Order. However, the design plan for this phase has not yet been developed or approved. Until that design plan is approved, the Company cannot reliably determine the actual cost of this phase, but it is expected to be at least the amount of the current accrual. The Company currently estimates that the remaining work required for this phase will be completed in 2015, but that estimated timeframe is subject to the potential for delays, such as delays due to work plan approval and/or permitting delays. Additional work in the form of monitoring likely will be required after completion of the current phase, but the Company cannot reliably determine the cost of that work or the timeframe for its completion until the design phase has been approved.

As previously reported, on June 29, 2000, the United States filed a complaint on behalf of the EPA against AK Steel in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (the “Court”), Case No. C-1-00530, for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and RCRA at the Middletown Works. Subsequently, the State of Ohio, the Sierra Club and the National Resources Defense Council intervened. On May 15, 2006, a Consent Decree in Partial Resolution of Pending Claims (the “Consent Decree”) was entered by the Court. Under the Consent Decree, the Company paid a civil penalty and performed a supplemental environmental project to remove ozone-depleting refrigerants from certain equipment. The Company further agreed to undertake a comprehensive RCRA facility investigation at its Middletown Works and, as appropriate, complete a corrective measures study. In accordance with the Consent Decree, the Company also was required to implement certain RCRA corrective action interim measures to address polychlorinated biphenyls (“PCBs”) in sediments and soils relating to Dicks Creek and certain other specified surface waters, adjacent floodplain areas and other previously identified geographic areas. The Company has completed the remedial activity at Dicks Creek, but continues to work on the RCRA facility investigation and certain interim measures. The Company currently has accrued approximately $13.8 for the cost of known work required under the Consent Decree for the RCRA facility investigation and remaining interim measures.

As previously reported, on October 17, 2012, the EPA issued an NOV and Notice of Intent to File a Civil Administrative Complaint to AK Steel’s Mansfield Works alleging violations of RCRA primarily relating to the Company’s management of electric arc furnace dust at the facility. The Company is investigating these claims and is working with the EPA to attempt to resolve them. The NOV proposed a civil penalty of approximately $0.3. AK Steel believes it will reach a settlement in this matter, but it cannot be certain that a settlement will be reached and cannot reliably estimate at this time how long it will take to reach a settlement or what all of its terms might be. AK Steel will vigorously contest any claims which cannot be resolved through a settlement.

In addition to the foregoing matters, AK Steel is or may be involved in proceedings with various regulatory authorities that may require AK Steel to pay fines, comply with more rigorous standards or other requirements or incur capital and operating expenses for environmental compliance. The Company believes that the ultimate disposition of the proceedings will not have, individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Legal Contingencies

As previously reported, since 1990, AK Steel (or its predecessor, Armco Inc.) has been named as a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. The great majority of these lawsuits have been filed on behalf of people who claim to have been exposed to asbestos while visiting the premises of a current or former AK Steel facility. The majority of asbestos cases pending in which AK Steel is a defendant do not include a specific dollar claim for damages. In the cases that do include specific dollar claims for damages, the complaint typically includes a monetary claim for compensatory damages and a separate monetary claim in an equal amount for punitive damages, and does not attempt to allocate the total monetary claim among the various defendants.

Information on asbestos cases pending at June 30, 2014 is presented below:



		Asbestos Cases Pending at
		June 30, 2014
Cases with specific dollar claims for damages:
Claims up to $0.2		116
Claims above $0.2 to $5.0		6
Claims above $5.0 to $15.0		2
Claims above $15.0 to $20.0		2
Total claims with specific dollar claims for damages (a)		126
Cases without a specific dollar claim for damages		306
Total asbestos cases pending		432


(a)	Involve a total of 2,334 plaintiffs and 16,864 defendants

In each case, the amount described is per plaintiff against all of the defendants, collectively. Thus, it usually is not possible at the outset of a case to determine the specific dollar amount of a claim against AK Steel. In fact, it usually is not even possible at the outset to determine which of the plaintiffs actually will pursue a claim against AK Steel. Typically, that can only be determined through written interrogatories or other discovery after a case has been filed. Thus, in a case involving multiple plaintiffs and multiple defendants, AK Steel initially only accounts for the lawsuit as one claim against it. After AK Steel has determined through discovery whether a particular plaintiff will pursue a claim against it, it makes an appropriate adjustment to statistically account for that specific claim. It has been AK Steel’s experience to date that only a small percentage of asbestos plaintiffs ultimately identify AK Steel as a target defendant from whom they actually seek damages and most of these claims ultimately are either dismissed or settled for a small fraction of the damages initially claimed. Set forth below is a chart showing the number of new claims filed (accounted for as described above), the number of pending claims disposed of (i.e., settled or otherwise dismissed), and the approximate net amount of dollars paid on behalf of AK Steel in settlement of asbestos-related claims in the three and six months ended June 30, 2014 and 2013.



	Three Months Ended June 30,				Six Months Ended June 30,
	2014		2013		2014		2013
New Claims Filed	11		13		24		24
Pending Claims Disposed Of	14		5		28		25
Total Amount Paid in Settlements	$	0.2	$	0.2	$	0.5	$	0.9

Since the onset of asbestos claims against AK Steel in 1990, five asbestos claims against it have proceeded to trial in four separate cases. All five concluded with a verdict in favor of AK Steel. AK Steel intends to continue to vigorously defend the asbestos claims asserted against it. Based upon its present knowledge, and the factors set forth above, the Company believes it is unlikely that the resolution in the aggregate of the asbestos claims against AK Steel will have a materially adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial condition. However, predictions as to the outcome of pending litigation, particularly claims alleging asbestos exposure, are subject to substantial uncertainties. These uncertainties include (1) the significantly variable rate at which new claims may be filed, (2) the effect of bankruptcies of other companies currently or historically defending asbestos claims, (3) the uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, (4) the type and severity of the disease alleged to be suffered by each claimant, and (5) the potential for enactment of legislation affecting asbestos litigation.

As previously reported, in September and October 2008, several companies filed purported class actions in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against nine steel manufacturers, including AK Holding. The case numbers for these actions are 08CV5214, 08CV5371, 08CV5468, 08CV5633, 08CV5700, 08CV5942 and 08CV6197. An additional action, case number 10CV04236, was filed in the same federal district court on July 8, 2010. On December 28, 2010, another action, case number 32,321, was filed in state court in the Circuit Court for Cocke County, Tennessee. The defendants removed the Tennessee case to federal court and filed a motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of Illinois. That motion was granted on March 28, 2012. The plaintiffs in the various pending actions are companies which claim to have purchased steel products, directly or indirectly, from one or more of the defendants and they purport to file the actions on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased steel products for delivery or pickup in the United States from any of the named defendants at any time from at least as early as January 2005. The complaints allege that the defendant steel producers have conspired in violation of antitrust laws to restrict output and to fix, raise, stabilize and maintain artificially high prices with respect to steel products in the United States. Discovery has commenced but only with respect to issues relating to class certification. On May 24, 2012, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. On February 28, 2013, the defendants filed a memorandum in opposition to the motion for class certification and motions to exclude the opinions of the plaintiffs’ experts. An evidentiary hearing on the motion for class certification and the motions to exclude the opinions of the plaintiffs’ experts was held commencing on March 15, 2014. No trial date has been set. Prior to that hearing, AK Holding reached an agreement with the direct purchaser plaintiffs to tentatively settle the claims asserted against AK Holding, subject to certain court approvals set forth below. Pursuant to that settlement, AK Holding agreed to pay $5.8 to the plaintiff class of direct purchasers in exchange for a complete release of all claims from the members of that class. AK Holding continues to believe that the claims asserted against it lack any merit, but it elected to enter into the settlement in order to avoid the ongoing expense of defending itself in this protracted and expensive antitrust litigation. The tentative settlement received preliminary approval by the court on April 11, 2014. Following such preliminary approval, notice of the proposed settlement was provided to members of the settlement class. After receipt of such notice, several class members elected to opt out of the class settlement. In order to become final, the settlement must receive a second approval by the court following a fairness hearing. No order granting such approval has been issued yet. The Company recorded a charge during the first quarter of 2014 in the amount of the tentative settlement with the direct purchaser plaintiff class. At this stage, the Company does not have adequate information available to determine that a loss is probable or to reliably or accurately estimate its potential loss, if any, with respect to the remaining indirect purchaser plaintiff class members and any direct purchaser class members that have opted out of the class (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Remaining Plaintiff Class Members.”). Because the Company has been unable to determine that a potential loss in this case with respect to the Remaining Plaintiff Class Members is probable or estimable, it has not recorded an accrual related to this matter for them. In the event that the Company’s assumptions used to evaluate whether a loss in this matter is either probable or estimable with respect to the Remaining Plaintiff Class Members prove to be incorrect or change in future periods, the Company may be required to record a charge for their claims at a later date. Moreover, in the event that the settlement with the direct purchaser class does not receive final approval from the court, the settlement with that putative class of plaintiffs would be void and the parties then would continue to litigate the direct purchaser claims. Under such circumstances, the Company would continue to contest this matter vigorously and the potential liability of the Company in this matter could be more or less than the amount of the current accrual relating to the direct purchaser plaintiffs.

As previously reported, on January 20, 2010, ArcelorMittal France and ArcelorMittal Atlantique et Lorraine (collectively “ArcelorMittal”) filed an action against AK Steel (and two other steel manufacturers) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Case No. 10-050-SLR. The complaint alleges that AK Steel is infringing the claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,296,805 (the “Patent”) in making pre-coated cold-rolled boron steel sheet and seeks injunctive relief and unspecified compensatory damages. On March 4, 2010, AK Steel filed an answer in which it denied ArcelorMittal’s claims and raised various affirmative defenses. On that date, AK Steel also filed counterclaims against ArcelorMittal for a declaratory judgment that AK Steel is not infringing the Patent and that the Patent is invalid. Subsequently, the trial court bifurcated the issues of liability and damages. The case proceeded with a trial to a jury on the issue of liability during the week of January 15, 2011. The jury returned a verdict that AK Steel did not infringe the Patent and that the Patent was invalid. Judgment subsequently was entered in favor of AK Steel and ArcelorMittal filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On November 30, 2012, the Court of Appeals issued a decision confirming that AK Steel had prevailed on the key claim related to patent infringement and affirming the basis for the jury finding of no infringement. The Court of Appeals reversed, however, certain findings related to the validity of the Patent and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. On January 30, 2013, ArcelorMittal filed a motion for rehearing with the Court of Appeals. On March 20, 2013, the Court of Appeals denied ArcelorMittal’s motion for rehearing. The case then was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. On April 16, 2013, pursuant to a petition previously filed by ArcelorMittal and ArcelorMittal USA LLC, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office reissued the Patent as U.S. Reissue Patent RE44,153 (the “Reissued Patent”). Also on April 16, 2013, ArcelorMittal filed a second action against AK Steel in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Case No. 1:13-cv-00685 (the “Second Action”). The complaint filed in the Second Action alleges that AK Steel is infringing the claims of the Reissued Patent and seeks injunctive relief and unspecified compensatory damages. On April 23, 2013, AK Steel filed a motion to dismiss key elements of the complaint filed in the Second Action. In addition, the parties briefed related non-infringement and claims construction issues in the original action. On October 25, 2013, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of AK Steel, confirming that AK Steel’s product does not infringe the original Patent or the Reissued Patent. The Court further ruled that ArcelorMittal’s Reissued Patent was invalid due to ArcelarMittal’s deliberate violation of a statutory prohibition on broadening a patent through reissue more than two years after the original Patent was granted and that the original Patent had been surrendered when the Reissued Patent was issued and thus is no longer in effect. Final Judgment was entered on October 31, 2013. On November 6, 2013, ArcelorMittal filed a motion to clarify or, in the alternative, to alter or amend the October 31, 2013 judgment. The defendants opposed the motion. On December 5, 2013, the court issued a memorandum and order denying the motion and entering final judgment in favor of defendants, including AK Steel, and against ArcelorMittal, specifically ruling that all claims of ArcelorMittal’s Reissued Patent are invalid as violative of 35 U.S.C. §251(d). On December 30, 2013, ArcelorMittal filed notices of appeal to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals and the parties are in the process of preparing and submitting briefs to the appellate court. AK Steel intends to continue to contest this matter vigorously. At this time, the Company has not made a determination that a loss is probable and it does not have adequate information to reliably or accurately estimate its potential loss in the event that ArcelorMittal were to prevail in its appeal in this dispute. Because the Company has been unable to determine that the potential loss in this case is probable or estimable, it has not recorded an accrual related to this matter. In the event that the Company’s assumptions used to evaluate whether a loss in this matter is either probable or estimable prove to be incorrect or change in future periods, the Company may be required to record a liability for an adverse outcome.

Trade Cases

As previously reported, on June 1, 2009, the Chinese Ministry of Commerce (“MOFCOM”) initiated antidumping and countervailing duty investigations of imports of grain-oriented electrical steel (“GOES”) from Russia and the United States. China initiated the investigations based on a petition filed by two Chinese steelmakers. These two steelmakers alleged that AK Steel and Allegheny Technologies Inc. of the United States and Novolipetsk Steel of Russia exported GOES to China at less than fair value, and that the production of GOES in the United States has been subsidized by the U.S. government. On December 9, 2009, MOFCOM issued its preliminary determination that GOES producers in the United States and Russia had been dumping in the China market and that GOES producers in the United States had received subsidies from the U.S. government. The Chinese authorities imposed provisional additional duties on future imports of GOES from Russia and/or the United States to China. On or about April 10, 2010, MOFCOM issued a final determination of dumping and subsidization against GOES producers in the United States and Russia. On September 16, 2010, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization (the “WTO”) against China for violating the WTO’s rules by imposing antidumping and countervailing duties against imports of GOES from the United States. After conducting several rounds of hearings, on June 15, 2012, a panel (the “Panel”) composed by the WTO to decide the case issued its final decision in the case. In its decision, the Panel concluded that MOFCOM imposed antidumping and countervailing duties on imports of GOES from the United States in a manner that was inconsistent with China’s WTO obligations. On July 20, 2012, China filed an appeal of the Panel’s decision to the WTO Appellate Body. On October 18, 2012, the Appellate Body upheld the decisions of the Panel. On November 16, 2012, the WTO Dispute Settlement Body adopted the decisions of the Panel. Subsequently, a WTO Arbitrator determined that China should implement the WTO decision by July 31, 2013. In its final determination issued on July 31, 2013, MOFCOM reduced the countervailing duty rate applicable to AK Steel from 11.7 percent to 3.4 percent and determined that the antidumping duty rate applicable to AK Steel will remain at 7.8 percent, for a total of 11.2 percent. AK Steel does not believe that China has remedied the flaws that the WTO identified in MOFCOM’s material injury finding. In late February, 2014, at USTR’s request, the WTO Dispute Settlement Body announced its decision to form a compliance panel to investigate China's failure to implement the WTO’s recommendations and rulings. Proceedings before the compliance panel are underway. AK Steel also has urged USTR to ask that WTO Dispute Settlement Body for permission to impose trade sanctions. AK Steel intends to continue to fully support the USTR in this matter.

On September 18, 2013, AK Steel, along with another domestic producer and the United Steelworkers, filed trade cases against imports of GOES from seven countries. Antidumping (“AD”) petitions were filed against China, the Czech Republic, Germany, Japan, Poland, Russia and South Korea and a countervailing duty (“CVD”) petition was filed against China charging that unfairly traded imports of GOES from those seven countries are causing material injury to the domestic industry. The United States Department of Commerce (“DOC”) initiated the cases on October 24, 2013. On November 19, 2013, the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) made a preliminary determination that there is a reasonable indication that GOES imports caused or threaten to cause material injury. On March 5, 2014, the DOC preliminarily determined that GOES imports from China benefit from subsidies by the Government of China, resulting in a preliminary CVD rate of 49.15 percent of the value of the GOES imports. As a result of the preliminary affirmative CVD determination, importers are required to post cash deposits with U.S. Customs and Border Protection on imports of GOES from China based on the CVD preliminary rate. On May 5, 2014, the DOC issued preliminary determinations that imports of GOES from China, the Czech Republic, Germany, Japan, Poland, Russia and South Korea are being dumped in the United States. On July 17, 2014, the DOC issued final dumping determinations with respect to imports of GOES from Germany, Japan, and Poland, affirming the preliminary dumping margins for these three countries. As a result of the preliminary dumping determinations on China, the Czech Republic, Russia, and South Korea, and final dumping determinations on Germany, Japan and Poland, importers are required to post cash deposits with U.S. Customs and Border Protection on imports of GOES from these seven countries (in addition to any deposits required by the preliminary affirmative CVD determinations) as follows:



Country		GOES Dumping Margins
China		159.21%
Czech Republic		10.35% — 11.45%
Germany		133.70% — 241.91%
Japan		93.36% — 172.30%
Poland		78.10% — 99.51%
Russia		68.98% — 119.88%
South Korea		5.34%

The DOC also reached affirmative preliminary critical circumstances findings with respect to Poland and Russia. Preliminary duties will remain in effect until final determinations are issued. Final determinations by the DOC with respect to China, the Czech Republic, Russia and South Korea, as well as final determinations of injury by the ITC with respect to all seven subject countries, are expected in September 2014.

On September 30, 2013, AK Steel filed trade cases against imports of non-oriented electrical steel (“NOES”) from six countries. AD petitions were filed against China, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Sweden and Taiwan and CVD petitions were filed against China, South Korea and Taiwan charging that unfairly traded imports of NOES from those six countries are causing material injury to the domestic industry. The DOC initiated the cases on November 7, 2013. On December 3, 2013, the ITC made a preliminary determination that there is a reasonable indication that NOES imports caused or threaten to cause material injury. On March 19, 2014, the DOC issued preliminary determinations with respect to AK Steel’s CVD petitions against China, South Korea and Taiwan. The DOC preliminarily determined that NOES imports from China benefit from subsidies by the Government of China, resulting in a preliminary CVD rate of 125.83 percent of the value of the NOES imports. With respect to South Korea, the DOC calculated a de minimis preliminary CVD rate, resulting in a preliminary negative determination for South Korea. With respect to Taiwan, the DOC preliminarily determined that certain NOES imports from Taiwan benefit from subsidies by the Government of Taiwan, resulting in (a) a preliminary CVD rate of 12.82 percent for Leicong Industrial Company, Ltd., (b) a de minimis preliminary CVD rate for China Steel Corporation and certain of its affiliates, and (c) a preliminary CVD rate of 6.41 percent for all other producers in Taiwan. As a result of the preliminary affirmative CVD determinations for China and Taiwan, importers of NOES are required to post cash deposits with U.S. Customs and Border Protection on imports of NOES from these countries based on the preliminary CVD rates. On May 16, 2014, the DOC issued preliminary determinations that imports of NOES from China, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Sweden and Taiwan are being dumped in the United States. As a result of the preliminary dumping determinations, importers are required to post cash deposits with U.S. Customs and Border Protection on imports of NOES from these six countries (in addition to any deposits required by the preliminary affirmative CVD determinations) as follows:



Country		NOES Dumping Margins
China		407.52%
Germany		86.29% — 98.84%
Japan		135.59% — 204.79%
South Korea		6.91%
Sweden		98.46% — 126.72%
Taiwan		28.14% — 52.23%

The DOC also reached affirmative preliminary critical circumstances findings with respect to China, Germany, Japan and Sweden. These preliminary duties will remain in effect until final determinations are issued. Those final determinations likely will occur in the fall of 2014.

Other Contingencies

In addition to the matters discussed above, there are various pending and potential claims against AK Steel and its subsidiaries involving product liability, commercial, employee benefits and other matters arising in the ordinary course of business. Because of the considerable uncertainties which exist with respect to any claim, it is difficult to reliably or accurately estimate what would be the amount of a loss in the event that a claimant(s) were to prevail. In the event that material assumptions or factual understandings relied upon by the Company to evaluate its exposure with respect to these contingencies prove to be inaccurate or otherwise change in the future, the Company may be required to record a liability for an adverse outcome. To the extent, however, that the Company has been able to reasonably evaluate its potential future liabilities with respect to all of these contingencies, including those described more specifically above, it is the Company’s opinion, unless otherwise noted, that the ultimate liability resulting from these contingencies, individually and in the aggregate, should not have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.