U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4496 October 2014

Washington, DC 20436

Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from 

Mexico and Turkey

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-502 and 731-TA-1227 (Final)
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS 

 

Meredith M. Broadbent, Chairman 

Dean A. Pinkert, Vice Chairman 

Irving A. Williamson 

David S. Johanson 

F. Scott Kieff 

Rhonda K. Schmidtlein

Karen Laney

Staff assigned

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

Acting Director of Operations

Alan Treat, Investigator and Industry Analyst 

Amelia Preece, Economist 

David Boyland, Accountant 

Maureen Letostak, Statistician 

Mara Alexander, Statistician Assistant 

John Henderson, Attorney 

Douglas Corkran, Supervisory Investigator
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4496 October 2014

Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from 

Mexico and Turkey

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-502 and 731-TA-1227 (Final)

  

CONTENTS

Page

i

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

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

Part I: Introduction................................................................................................................ I‐1

Background................................................................................................................................ I‐1

Statutory criteria and organization of the report..................................................................... I‐2

Statutory criteria ................................................................................................................... I‐2

Organization of report........................................................................................................... I‐3

Market summary....................................................................................................................... I‐3

Summary data and data sources............................................................................................... I‐4

Previous and related investigations.......................................................................................... I‐5

Previous and related global safeguard investigations.............................................................. I‐7

Nature and extent of subsidies and sales at LTFV .................................................................... I‐8

Nature of the subsidies ......................................................................................................... I‐8

Sales at LTFV.......................................................................................................................... I‐9

The subject merchandise ........................................................................................................ I‐10

Commerce’s scope .............................................................................................................. I‐10

Tariff treatment................................................................................................................... I‐10

The product............................................................................................................................. I‐11

Description and applications............................................................................................... I‐11

Manufacturing processes.................................................................................................... I‐14

Domestic like product ............................................................................................................. I‐16

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

U.S. market characteristics....................................................................................................... II‐1

U.S. purchasers......................................................................................................................... II‐1

Channels of distribution........................................................................................................... II‐2

Purchasers’ major customers............................................................................................... II‐6

Regional sales....................................................................................................................... II‐8

Shipping distances................................................................................................................ II‐9

   
  

CONTENTS

Page

ii

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

Supply and demand considerations......................................................................................... II‐9

U.S. supply ............................................................................................................................ II‐9

U.S. demand ....................................................................................................................... II‐13

Substitutability issues............................................................................................................. II‐18

Lead times .......................................................................................................................... II‐18

Knowledge of country sources........................................................................................... II‐19

Factors affecting purchasing decisions............................................................................... II‐19

Comparisons of domestic products, subject imports, and nonsubject imports................ II‐25

Comparison of U.S.‐produced and imported rebar ........................................................... II‐28

Elasticity estimates................................................................................................................. II‐30

U.S. supply elasticity........................................................................................................... II‐30

U.S. demand elasticity ........................................................................................................ II‐31

Substitution elasticity ......................................................................................................... II‐31

Part III: U.S. producers’ production, shipments, and employment....................................... III‐1

U.S. producers......................................................................................................................... III‐1

U.S. production, capacity, and capacity utilization................................................................. III‐4

Alternative products............................................................................................................ III‐4

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments and exports........................................................................... III‐6

U.S. producers’ inventories..................................................................................................... III‐8

U.S. producers’ imports and purchases.................................................................................. III‐9

U.S. employment, wages, and productivity ............................................................................ III‐9

Part IV: U.S. imports, apparent U.S. consumption, and market shares ................................IV‐1

U.S. importers..........................................................................................................................IV‐1

U.S. imports............................................................................................................................. IV‐2

Critical circumstances..............................................................................................................IV‐6

Negligibility.............................................................................................................................. IV‐9

Cumulation considerations .....................................................................................................IV‐9

   
  

CONTENTS

Page

iii

Part IV: U.S. imports, apparent consumption, and market shares‐‐Continued ...........................

Fungibility ............................................................................................................................ IV‐9

Presence in the market .....................................................................................................IV‐13

Geographical markets .......................................................................................................IV‐16

Apparent U.S. consumption ..................................................................................................IV‐17

U.S. market shares ................................................................................................................IV‐17

Ratio of imports to U.S. production ......................................................................................IV‐20

Part V: Pricing data...............................................................................................................V‐1

Factors affecting prices............................................................................................................V‐1

Raw material costs ...............................................................................................................V‐1

U.S. inland transportation costs...........................................................................................V‐2

Pricing practices .......................................................................................................................V‐3

Pricing methods....................................................................................................................V‐3

Sales terms and discounts....................................................................................................V‐4

Independent Steel Alliance...................................................................................................V‐5

Purchases from related fabricators......................................................................................V‐6

Price leadership ....................................................................................................................V‐6

Price data..................................................................................................................................V‐9

Price trends.........................................................................................................................V‐17

Price comparisons ..............................................................................................................V‐19

Lost sales and lost revenue ....................................................................................................V‐19

Part VI: Financial experience of U.S. producers....................................................................VI‐1

Background..............................................................................................................................VI‐1

Operations on rebar................................................................................................................VI‐2

Revenue...............................................................................................................................VI‐6

Cost of goods sold and gross profit.....................................................................................VI‐6

SG&A expenses and operating income or (loss) .................................................................VI‐8

Capital expenditures and research and development expenses............................................VI‐9

   
  

CONTENTS

Page

iv

Part VI: Financial experience of U.S. producers‐‐Continued .......................................................

Capital and investment ...........................................................................................................VI‐9

Actual negative effects........................................................................................................VI‐9

Anticipated negative effects................................................................................................VI‐9

Part VII: Threat considerations and information on nonsubject countries..........................VII‐1

The industry in Mexico...........................................................................................................VII‐2

Operations on rebar...........................................................................................................VII‐4

Alternative products...........................................................................................................VII‐5

The industry in Turkey............................................................................................................VII‐6

Operations on rebar...........................................................................................................VII‐7

Alternative products...........................................................................................................VII‐8

Subject countries combined...................................................................................................VII‐8

U.S. inventories of imported merchandise ............................................................................VII‐9

U.S. importers’ outstanding orders......................................................................................VII‐10

Trade remedy measures in third‐country markets..............................................................VII‐11

Information on nonsubject sources.....................................................................................VII‐12

Nonsubject Turkish producer Habas................................................................................VII‐13

Ukraine .............................................................................................................................VII‐14

Spain .................................................................................................................................VII‐16

Belarus..............................................................................................................................VII‐18

Portugal ............................................................................................................................VII‐20

Latvia ................................................................................................................................VII‐22

Korea.................................................................................................................................VII‐24

Dominican Republic..........................................................................................................VII‐26

   
  

CONTENTS

Page

v

Appendixes

A. Federal Register notices.................................................................................................... A‐1

B. List of hearing witnesses................................................................................................... B‐1

C. Summary data................................................................................................................... C‐1

D. Domestic like product issues and information on deformed steel wire ..........................D‐1

E. U.S. producer commercial and transfer sales: average per short ton value.................... E‐1

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

be published and therefore has been deleted.  Such deletions are indicated by asterisks.

1

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation Nos. 701‐TA‐502 and 731‐TA‐1227 (Final)

STEEL CONCRETE REINFORCING BAR FROM MEXICO AND TURKEY

DETERMINATIONS

On the basis of the record1 developed in the subject investigations, the United States

International Trade Commission (“Commission”) determines, pursuant to sections 705(b) and

735(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1671d(b)) and (19 U.S.C. § 1673d(b)) (“the Act”),

that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports from Mexico of

steel concrete reinforcing bar (“rebar”) that have been found by the Department of Commerce

(“Commerce”) to be sold in the United States at less than fair value, and by reason of imports

from Turkey of rebar that have been found by Commerce to be subsidized by the government

of Turkey. The subject merchandise is provided for primarily in subheadings 7213.10.00 and

7214.20.00 and statistical reporting number 7228.30.8010 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of

the United States.2

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted these investigations effective September 4, 2013, following

receipt of a petition filed with the Commission and Commerce by the Rebar Trade Action

Coalition and its individual members: Nucor Corporation, Charlotte, NC; Gerdau Ameristeel U.S.

Inc., Tampa; FL; Commercial Metals Company, Irving, TX; Cascade Steel Rolling Mills, Inc.,

McMinnville, OR; and Byer Steel Corporation, Cincinnati, OH.  The final phase of the

investigations was scheduled by the Commission following notification of preliminary

determinations by Commerce regarding imports of rebar from Mexico and Turkey.3 Notice of

                                                      

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 All six Commissioners voted in the affirmative.  The Commission also finds that imports subject to

Commerce's affirmative critical circumstances determinations are not likely to undermine seriously the

remedial effect of the antidumping duty order on rebar from Mexico and the countervailing duty order

on rebar from Turkey.

3 On February 26, 2014, Commerce preliminarily determined that imports of rebar from Turkey

were not subsidized within the meaning of section 703(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1671b(b)) (79 F.R.

10771). On April 24, 2014, Commerce preliminarily determined that imports of rebar from Mexico and

Turkey were dumped within the meaning of 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1673b(b)) (79 F.R. 22802–

22804). On September 15, 2014, Commerce published notice of its final affirmative determination of

countervailable subsidies for producers and exporters of rebar from Turkey (79 F.R. 54963), its final

affirmative determination of sales at less than fair value with respect to imports from Mexico (79 F.R.

(continued...)
2

the scheduling of the final phase of the Commission’s investigations 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 May 30, 2014 (79 F.R. 31136).  The hearing was held in Washington,

DC, on September 15, 2014, and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to

appear in person or by counsel.

                                                      

(...continued)

54967), and its final negative determination of sales at less than fair value with respect to imports from

Turkey (79 F.R. 54965).
3

Views of the Commission

Based on the record in the final phase of these investigations, we find that an industry in

the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of steel concrete reinforcing bar

(“rebar”) from Mexico found by the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) to be sold in

the United States at less than fair value, and by reason of imports of rebar from Turkey found

by Commerce to have been subsidized by the government of Turkey.  We also find that critical

circumstances do not exist with respect to imports of rebar from Mexico and Turkey that are

covered by Commerce’s final affirmative critical circumstances determinations.

I. Background

The petitions in these investigations were filed on September 4, 2013, by the Rebar

Trade Action Coalition (“RTAC” or “Petitioner”), whose individual members are Byer Steel

Corporation (“Byer”), Cascade Steel Rolling Mills, Inc., Commercial Metals Company (“CMC”),

Gerdau Ameristeel US Inc. (“Gerdau”), and Nucor Corporation (“Nucor”), all U.S. producers of

rebar.  Representatives of four member companies of RTAC (Byer, CMC, Gerdau, and Nucor)

appeared with counsel at the hearing, and Petitioner submitted prehearing and posthearing

briefs.  

Several respondent entities participated in these investigations.  Deacero S.A. de C.V.

and Deacero USA, Inc. (collectively “Deacero”), which respectively produce and import subject

merchandise from Mexico, appeared with counsel at the hearing and submitted prehearing and

posthearing briefs.  Another Mexican producer of subject merchandise, Grupo Simec,

submitted a prehearing brief, while a third Mexican producer of subject merchandise, Grupo

Acerero, S.A. de C.V. (“Grupo Acerero”), appeared with counsel at the hearing, and made a

posthearing submission.1  The Turkish Steel Exporters Association, a trade association, and two

Turkish rebar producers, Icdas Celik Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim Sanayi A.S. (“Icdas”), and

Colakoglu Metalurji A.S. (collectively “Turkish Respondents”), appeared with counsel at the

hearing and submitted prehearing and posthearing briefs.   

U.S. industry data are based on the questionnaire responses from nine domestic

producers that accounted for virtually all domestic production of rebar in 2013.2

  U.S. import

data are based on official Commerce import statistics and ***.3  Usable questionnaire

responses were received from 18 U.S. importers, accounting for virtually all imports of rebar

from Mexico, and 84.2 percent of imports of rebar from Turkey in 2013.4

  Usable questionnaire

responses were received from seven Mexican producers that accounted for virtually all

                                                        1

  A representative from the Embassy of Mexico also participated in the hearing. 2 Confidential Report (“CR”) at III‐1; Public Report (“PR”) at III‐1.    3 CR at IV‐1 n.2; PR at IV‐1 n.2. 4 CR at IV‐1; PR at IV‐1 n.2.
4

production of subject merchandise in Mexico in 2013, and from six Turkish producers that

estimated that they accounted for *** production of subject merchandise in Turkey in 2013.5

II. Domestic Like Product

A. In General

In determining whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or

threatened with material injury by reason of imports of subject merchandise, the Commission

first defines the “domestic like product” and the “industry.”6

  Section 771(4)(A) of the Tariff Act

of 1930, as amended (“the Tariff Act”), defines the relevant domestic industry as the

“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.”7  In turn, the Tariff Act defines “domestic like product” as “a product which is like,

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

investigation.”8

The decision regarding the appropriate domestic like product in an investigation is a

factual determination, and the Commission has applied the statutory standard of “like” or

“most similar in characteristics and uses” on a case‐by‐case basis.9  No single factor is

dispositive, and the Commission may consider other factors it deems relevant based on the

facts of a particular investigation.10  The Commission looks for clear dividing lines among

possible like products and disregards minor variations.11  Although the Commission must accept

                                                        5 CR at VII‐3, VII‐10; PR at VII‐3, VII‐6.  The Turkish producers’ estimate of coverage is likely ***.  

CR at VII‐10 n.17; PR at VII‐6 n.17.  The period of investigation (“POI”) for these investigations was

January 2011 through March 2014, including calendar years 2011, 2012, and 2013, and interim periods

in 2013 and 2014 (January‐March for each year).

6 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). 7 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

8 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10).   9 See, e.g., Cleo Inc. v. United States, 501 F.3d 1291, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2007); NEC Corp. v.

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

States, 19 CIT 450, 455 (1995); Torrington Co. v. United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 749 n.3 (Ct. Int’l Trade

1990), aff’d, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“every like product determination ‘must be made on the

particular record at issue’ and the ‘unique facts of each case’”).  The Commission generally considers a

number of factors, including the following:  (1) physical characteristics and uses; (2) interchangeability;

(3) channels of distribution; (4) customer and producer perceptions of the products; (5) common

manufacturing facilities, production processes, and production employees; and, where appropriate, (6)

price.  See Nippon, 19 CIT at 455 n.4; Timken Co. v. United States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l Trade

1996).

10 See, e.g., S. Rep. No. 96‐249 at 90‐91 (1979). 11 Nippon, 19 CIT at 455; Torrington, 747 F. Supp. at 748‐49; see also S. Rep. No. 96‐249 at 90‐91

(Congress has indicated that the like product standard should not be interpreted in “such a narrow

fashion as to permit minor differences in physical characteristics or uses to lead to the conclusion that

the product and article are not ‘like’ each other, nor should the definition of ‘like product’ be

(Continued...)
5

Commerce’s determination as to the scope of the imported merchandise that is subsidized or

sold at less than fair value,12 the Commission determines what domestic product is like the

imported articles Commerce has identified.13

B. Product Description

Commerce defined the scope of the imported merchandise under investigation as

follows:

The merchandise subject to these investigations is steel

concrete reinforcing bar imported in either straight length or coil

form (“rebar”) regardless of metallurgy, length, diameter, or

grade. The subject merchandise is classifiable in the Harmonized

Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) primarily under

item numbers 7213.10.0000, 7214.20.0000, and 7228.30.8010.  

The subject merchandise may also enter under other

HTSUS numbers including 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.5000,

7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0045, 7222.11.0001,

7222.11.0057, 7222.11.0059, 7222.30.0001, 7227.20.0080,

7227.90.6085, 7228.20.1000, and 7228.60.6000. Specifically

excluded are plain rounds (i.e., non‐deformed or smooth rebar).  

Also excluded from the scope is deformed steel wire meeting

ASTM A1064/A1064M with no bar markings (e.g., mill mark, size,

or grade) and without being subject to an elongation test.  HTSUS

numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes;

however, the written description of the scope remains

dispositive.14

                                                                                                                                                                              

(...Continued)

interpreted in such a fashion as to prevent consideration of an industry adversely affected by the

imports under consideration.”). 12 See, e.g., USEC, Inc. v. United States, 34 Fed. Appx. 725, 730 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“The ITC may not

modify the class or kind of imported merchandise examined by Commerce.”); Algoma Steel Corp. v.

United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1988), aff’d, 865 F.3d 240 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied,

492 U.S. 919 (1989).

13 Hosiden Corp. v. Advanced Display Mfrs., 85 F.3d 1561, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (the Commission

may find a single like product corresponding to several different classes or kinds defined by Commerce);

Cleo, 501 F.3d at 1298 n.1 (“Commerce’s {scope} finding does not control the Commission’s {like

product} determination.”); Torrington, 747 F. Supp. at 748‐52 (affirming the Commission’s

determination defining six like products in investigations in which Commerce found five classes or

kinds). 14 Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico:  Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair

Value and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 79 Fed. Reg. 54967 (Sept. 15, 2014).  

The next‐to‐last sentence in the scope definition, regarding the exclusion of certain deformed steel wire

(Continued...)
6

Rebar is a long‐rolled steel product that is commonly used in construction projects to

provide strength to concrete.15  Rebar sold in the U.S. market is generally manufactured to

conform to the standards of the American Society for Testing and Material International

(“ASTM”), which specify for each bar size the nominal weight, nominal dimensions and

deformation requirements, as well as chemical composition, tensile strength, yield strength

(grade), and elongation tolerances.16  The construction industry is the principal end user of

rebar, and uses it extensively to reinforce concrete structures.17   

Deformed steel wire is a cold‐drawn wire product used for the reinforcement of

concrete, and is often used to produce welded wire mesh for concrete reinforcement.18  Under

Commerce’s scope definition, deformed steel wire meeting ASTM A1064/A1064M, not

containing bar markings, and not subject to an elongation test, is excluded from the scope.  By

contrast, deformed steel wire that meets ASTM A1064/A1064M, contains bar markings, and/or

is subject to an elongation test, is not excluded and is within the scope.  According to petitioner,

deformed steel wire that meets ASTM A1064/A1064M, contains bar markings, and is subject to

an elongation test can be used as rebar, but if it does not meet all three criteria, it cannot be

used as rebar.19  Deacero ***.20  Accordingly, ***.       

While there is some U.S. production of deformed steel wire, the record does not

indicate any reported U.S. production of deformed steel wire meeting ASTM A1064/A1064M,

containing bar markings, and subject to an elongation test ***.21

  

C. Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments.  Petitioner argues that the Commission should find a single

domestic like product that is coextensive with the scope of these investigations, including

deformed steel wire within the scope definition.22   

Respondents’ Arguments. Deacero argues that the Commission should find that

deformed steel wire is a separate like product from rebar, arguing, inter alia, that deformed

                                                                                                                                                                              

(...Continued)

from the scope, was an amendment first included in Commerce’s final determination on September 15,

2014.  Id.  Previously, in April 2014, Commerce had preliminarily determined that two particular

deformed steel wire products produced by Deacero were within the scope.  See Memorandum from

James Doyle to Paul Piquado dated April 18, 2014, entitled Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for

the Preliminary Determination of the Less‐Than‐Fair‐Value Investigation of Steel Concrete Reinforcing

Bar from Mexico (included as Attachment 3 to May 28, 2014 submission by Deacero to the Commission)

(EDIS Document No. 534642) (“April 18, 2014 Commerce Decision Memo”).   15 CR at I‐15; PR at I‐11.

16 CR at I‐16; PR at I‐12. 17 CR at I‐15; PR at I‐11.

18 CR at I‐18 to I‐19; PR at I‐13 to I‐14.

19 Petitioner’s Posthearing Brief, Exh. 1 at 50‐51.

20 See CR/PR at Table IV‐2 n.1. 21 CR at I‐24 to I‐25; PR at I‐17; Petitioner’s Posthearing Brief, Exh. 1 at 51‐52.     22 Petitioner’s Posthearing Brief, Exh. 1 at 52‐54.
7

steel wire has different physical characteristics from rebar and is manufactured through a

different process.23  Deacero states that it is unclear whether there is any domestic production

of deformed steel wire corresponding to the subject imports of deformed steel wire, but argues

that the Commission should find a separate like product even if there is no such domestic

production.24  Turkish Respondents have not objected to the definition of the like product from

the preliminary determinations, but have not otherwise commented.25

  

D. Domestic Like Product Analysis

In the preliminary determinations, the Commission found there was no clear dividing

line between different types of rebar, and defined a single domestic like product consisting of

rebar, whether coiled or straight length, that was coextensive with the scope of the

investigations.26  As previously discussed, Commerce has modified the scope of investigation

since the Commission issued its preliminary determinations.

In the final phase of these investigations, we consider Deacero’s argument, made with

respect to the modified scope definition, that the Commission should consider rebar and

deformed steel wire within the scope as separate domestic like products.27  Deacero does not

indicate that its proposed deformed steel wire domestic like product would encompass

domestically produced articles outside the scope definition, and we do not construe it in that

manner.  For purposes of our discussion below, we assume arguendo that there is or could be

domestic production of those deformed steel wire products within the scope, although the

record does not indicate that there is any such production.28  Based on the record, we define a

single domestic like product that is coextensive with the scope.

In our analysis below, we examine domestically produced articles that are like the

articles described in the scope, using the Commission’s usual six‐factor analysis to guide the

inquiry.29  The articles described in the scope include rebar (imported in either straight length

                                                       23 Deacero’s Prehearing Brief at 3‐10; Deacero’s Posthearing Brief, Answers to Commissioner

Questions at 59‐60.  Deacero’s argument is not entirely clear, in that it repeatedly uses “non‐scope

deformed steel wire” to mean, read in context, imported deformed steel wire that is not within the

exclusion to the scope, and thus is subject merchandise (and any corresponding domestic production).  

See Deacero’s Posthearing Brief, Answers to Commissioner Questions at 59‐60.

24 Deacero’s Posthearing Brief, Answers to Commissioner Questions at 59‐60.

25 Turkish Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at 16.

26 Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico and Turkey, Inv. Nos. 701‐TA‐502 and 731‐TA‐

1227‐1228 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 4432 (Nov. 2013) at 4‐7.

27 See Deacero’s Prehearing Brief at 3‐10; Deacero’s Posthearing Brief, Answers to Commissioner

Questions at 59‐60.   28 See CR at I‐24 to I‐25, PR at I‐17; Petitioner’s Posthearing Brief, ex. 1 at 52.  The Commission’s

practice in original investigations is not to define a domestic like product that is not produced

domestically.  See, e.g., Grain‐Oriented Electrical Steel from Germany, Japan, and Poland, Inv. Nos. 731‐

TA‐1233, 1234, and 1236 (Final), USITC Pub. 4491 at 10 & n.49 (Sept. 2014). 29 See 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10) (the domestic like product is “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 title”); Cleo, 501 F.3d at 1295.
8

or coil form, but not including plain rounds) and deformed steel wire meeting ASTM

A1064/A1064M, containing bar markings, and/or being subject to an elongation test.       

Physical Characteristics and Uses.  A principal characteristic of the articles included

within the scope definition is that they can be used for construction applications, in particular

the reinforcement of concrete.  This is a characteristic of rebar.  The record indicates that this is

also true of the specified deformed steel wire within the scope.30   

Channels of Distribution.  The information supplied by petitioner suggests that in‐scope

deformed steel wire when used for rebar will likely be sold in the same channels of distribution

as those for rebar.31  Domestically produced rebar is sold to distributors, end users, and firms

that are both distributors and end users.32  Over *** percent of subject imports from Mexico in

each year of the POI were reported to be sold to firms that were strictly distributors.33   

Interchangeability.  In‐scope deformed steel wire meeting ASTM A1064/A1064M,

containing bar markings, and subject to an elongation test, can be used interchangeably with

rebar in a number of construction applications.34  Commerce’s preliminary decision

memorandum noted that Deacero had stated that its deformed steel wire products in question

could be used as substitutes for rebar.35      

Manufacturing Facilities, Production Processes, and Employees.  The record indicates

that deformed steel wire is usually produced on different equipment than rebar with a different

process, in that rebar is hot‐rolled, while deformed steel wire is cold‐drawn.36  Petitioner states

that in‐scope deformed steel wire can be manufactured in the same facilities with rebar using

the same employees, and that Nucor could produce both products in its Connecticut facility

using the same equipment, although it does not currently produce in‐scope deformed steel

wire.37    

Producer and Customer Perceptions.  The limited record indicates that both U.S.

producers and U.S. purchasers perceive that in‐scope deformed steel wire and rebar can be

used as substitutes for each other under certain circumstances (e.g., in concrete reinforcement

applications).38  In addition, petitioner states that Deacero markets its in‐scope deformed steel

wire as rebar, using a Spanish word, “Varilla,” which is understood in the steel industry to mean

“rebar.”39   

                                                       30 Petitioner’s Posthearing Brief, Exh. 1 at 50‐51; see April 18, 2014 Commerce Decision Memo at

2.

31 Petitioner’s Posthearing Brief, Exh. 1 at 53.

32 CR/PR at Table II‐1.

33 CR/PR at Table II‐1.  ***.   34 Petitioner’s Posthearing Brief, Exh. 1 at 53; see CR at D‐7 to D‐9; PR at D‐4.

35 April 18, 2014 Commerce Decision Memo at 2.

36 CR at D‐5 to D‐6; PR at D‐3 to D‐4.

37 Petitioner’s Posthearing Brief, Exh. 1 at 53.

38 CR at D‐10 to D‐12; PR at D‐4 to D‐5.

39 Petitioner’s Posthearing Brief, Exh. 1 at 53 and Exh. 9; see April 18, 2014 Commerce Decision

Memo at 2; see EDIS Document No. 543610 (Deacero marketing brochure).
9

Price.  Both Petitioner and Deacero agree that deformed steel wire can be more

expensive to produce than rebar, although they differ as to how much more.40  

Conclusion.  Based on the information available, we find that domestically produced

rebar is like the subject merchandise.  The record further indicates that domestically produced

deformed steel wire within the scope, to the extent such a product exists, would be like both

the subject merchandise and domestically produced rebar, given similarities in characteristics

and end uses, as well as in terms of channels of distribution, interchangeability, and customer

and producer perceptions.  Consequently, we define a single domestic like product that is

coextensive with the scope of these investigations.

III. Domestic Industry  

The domestic industry is defined 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.”41  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.  

We must determine whether any producer of the domestic like product should be

excluded from the domestic industry pursuant to section 771(4)(B) of the Tariff Act.42  This

provision 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.43  Exclusion of such a producer is within the Commission’s

discretion based upon the facts presented in each investigation.44

We first identify which domestic producers may be subject to exclusion pursuant to the

statutory related parties provision.  One U.S. producer, ***, directly imported subject

                                                        40 See CR at D‐15; PR at D‐5 to D‐6. 41 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

42 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B).

43 See Torrington Co. v. United States, 790 F. Supp. 1161, 1168 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1992), aff’d

without opinion, 991 F.2d 809 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Sandvik AB v. United States, 721 F. Supp. 1322, 1331‐32

(Ct. Int’l Trade 1989), aff’d mem., 904 F.2d 46 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Empire Plow Co. v. United States, 675 F.

Supp. 1348, 1352 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1987). 44 The primary factors the Commission has examined in deciding whether appropriate

circumstances exist to exclude a related party include the following:

(1) the percentage of domestic production attributable to the importing producer;

(2) the reason the U.S. producer has decided to import the product subject to investigation, i.e.,

whether the firm benefits from the LTFV sales or subsidies or whether the firm must import in order to

enable it to continue production and compete in the U.S. market; and

(3) the position of the related producer vis‐à‐vis the rest of the industry, i.e., whether inclusion

or exclusion of the related party will skew the data for the rest of the industry.  See, e.g., Torrington Co.

v. United States, 790 F. Supp. at 1168.
10

merchandise from both Mexico and Turkey during the POI,45 and is therefore a related party

under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B)(i).  Two U.S. rebar producers have corporate affiliations with

Mexican rebar producers.  U.S. producer ArcelorMittal USA and subject producer and exporter

Arcelor Mittal Las Truchas are both subsidiaries of the same corporate parent, ArcelorMittal

S.A. (Luxembourg).46  Therefore, ArcelorMittal USA is a related party under 19 U.S.C. §

1677(4)(B)(ii)(III).  U.S. producer Gerdau is affiliated with subject producer Sidertul SA de CV

(“Sidertul”),47 which produces rebar (***).48  Since Gerdau *** and Sidertul *** subject

merchandise during the POI, Gerdau is not a related party.  

We next discuss whether there are appropriate circumstances to exclude either *** or

ArcelorMittal USA from the domestic industry.   

***. *** stated that ***.49  *** imported *** short tons of subject merchandise in

2011, *** short tons in 2012, *** short tons in 2013, *** short tons in January‐March

(“interim”) 2013, and *** short tons in interim 2014.50  By contrast, *** domestic production

was *** short tons in 2011, *** short tons in 2012, *** short tons in 2013, *** short tons in

interim 2013, and *** short tons in interim 2014.51  The ratio of *** imports of subject

merchandise to its domestic production was *** percent in 2011, *** percent in 2012, ***

percent in 2013, *** percent in interim 2013, and *** percent in interim 2014.   

*** is a member of RTAC, which brought the petition.  It was the *** U.S. producer of

rebar in 2013, accounting for *** percent of domestic production.52  *** ratio of operating

income to net sales was *** than the industry average ***.53  Nevertheless, this financial

performance *** of subject imports.54    

In light of its *** domestic production than importation of subject merchandise, ***

primary interest clearly appears to be in domestic production and not in the importation of

subject merchandise.  Accordingly, we find that appropriate circumstances do not exist to

exclude this firm from the domestic industry.            

                                                       45 CR/PR at Table III‐10; CR at III‐14; PR at III‐9.

46 CR/PR at Table III‐1 and n.1; ArcelorMittal USA questionnaire response (EDIS Document No.

538183).47 U.S. producer Gerdau Ameristeel US Inc. is owned by Gerdau Ameristeel Corp. (Canada),

which is in turn owned by Gerdau S.A. (Brazil), which has a subsidiary in Mexico, Sidertul.  CR/PR at Table

III‐1 n.3.

48 CR at VII‐7 n.13; PR at VII‐5 n.13.

49 ***.

50 CR/PR at Table III‐10.

51 ***.

52 CR/PR at Table III‐1.

53 CR/PR at Table VI‐2.

54 As he has done in other investigations, Vice Chairman Pinkert has not relied upon related

parties’ financial performance on their U.S. manufacturing operations as a factor in determining

whether there are appropriate circumstances to exclude them from the domestic industry and has

instead relied on the other information set forth in the text.
11

Arcelor Mittal U.S.A.  ArcelorMittal Las Truchas exported *** short tons of rebar to the

United States in ***, but *** to the United States in ***, *** and ***.55  ArcelorMittal Las

Truchas’s share of total Mexican rebar exports to the United States was approximately ***

percent in *** and *** percent in ***, *** and ***.56   

Arcelor Mittal USA *** the petition.57  ArcelorMittal USA produced *** short tons of

rebar in ***, *** short tons in ***, *** short tons in ***, *** short tons in ***, and *** short

tons in ***.58  Its share of U.S. production was *** percent in ***.59  Arcelor Mittal’s ratio of

operating income to net sales was *** than the industry average in ***.60   

Because the record indicates that ArcelorMittal USA’s domestic production is *** the

exports of ArcelorMittal Las Truchas, its principal interest appears to be in domestic production.  

Moreover, *** financial benefit from its affiliation with Arcelor Mittal Las Truchas.  Accordingly,

we find that appropriate circumstances do not exist to exclude it from the domestic industry.            

In light of our domestic like product definition, we define the domestic industry to

include all domestic producers of the domestic like product.

Cumulation61 IV.

For purposes of evaluating the volume and price effects for a determination of material

injury by reason of subject imports, section 771(7)(G)(i) of the Tariff Act requires the

Commission to cumulate subject imports from all countries as to which petitions were filed

and/or investigations self‐initiated by Commerce on the same day, if such imports compete

with each other and with the domestic like product in the U.S. market.  In assessing whether

                                                        55 CR at VII‐7 n.13; PR at VII‐5 n.13.

56 CR/PR at Table VII‐1. 57 CR/PR at Table III‐1.

58 *** (EDIS Document No. 538183).

59 CR/PR at Table III‐1.

60 CR/PR at Table VI‐2.

61 Pursuant to Section 771(24) of the Tariff Act, imports from a subject country of merchandise

corresponding to a domestic like product that account for less than 3 percent of all such merchandise

imported into the United States during the most recent 12 months for which data are available

preceding the filing of the petition shall be deemed negligible.  19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a), 1673b(a),

1677(24)(A)(i), 1677(24)(B); see also 15 C.F.R. § 2013.1 (developing countries for purposes of 19 U.S.C. §

1677(36)).  Negligibility is not an issue in these investigations.  Based on official import statistics and ***,

subject imports from Mexico and Turkey exceeded the requisite statutory negligibility threshold for the

most recent 12‐month period preceding the filing of the petition for which data are available.  Subject

imports from Mexico accounted for 30.3 percent of total U.S. rebar imports by quantity during the

period September 2012 – August 2013, the most recent 12‐month period prior to the filing of the

petition on September 4, 2013.  Imports from subject producers and exporters from Turkey accounted

for *** percent of total U.S. rebar imports by quantity during the period September 2012 – August 2013.  

CR at IV‐11; PR at IV‐9.   

   
12

subject imports compete with each other and with the domestic like product, the Commission

generally has considered four factors:

(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 geographic markets of

subject 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 the subject imports are simultaneously present in the market.62

While no single factor is necessarily determinative, and the list of factors is not

exclusive, these factors are intended to provide the Commission with a framework for

determining whether the subject imports compete with each other and with the domestic like

product.63  Only a “reasonable overlap” of competition is required.64

The threshold requirement for cumulation is satisfied because Petitioner filed the

antidumping petition on imports from Mexico and the countervailing duty petition on imports

from Turkey on the same day, September 4, 2013.65  Petitioner argues that the Commission

should cumulate subject imports for its present material injury analysis, because all of the

factors that the Commission examines in assessing the existence of a reasonable overlap of

competition are satisfied.66  Deacero argues that neither the World Trade Organization (WTO)

Antidumping Agreement nor the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures

(SCM) permits cross‐cumulation of dumped imports from Mexico with subsidized imports from

                                                       62 See Certain Cast‐Iron Pipe Fittings from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan, Inv. Nos.

731‐TA‐278‐280 (Final), USITC Pub. 1845 (May 1986), aff’d, Fundicao Tupy, S.A. v. United States, 678 F.

Supp. 898 (Ct. Int’l Trade), aff’d, 859 F.2d 915 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

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

64 The Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) to the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA),

expressly states that “the new section will not affect current Commission practice under which the

statutory requirement is satisfied if there is a reasonable overlap of competition.”  H.R. Rep. No. 103‐

316, Vol. I at 848 (1994) (citing Fundicao Tupy, S.A. v. United States, 678 F. Supp. at 902; see Goss

Graphic Sys., Inc. v. United States, 33 F. Supp. 2d 1082, 1087 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998) (“cumulation does not

require two products to be highly fungible”); Wieland Werke, AG, 718 F. Supp. at 52 (“Completely

overlapping markets are not required.”).

65 CR at I‐1; PR at I‐1.  None of the statutory exceptions to cumulation applies.

66 Petitioner’s Prehearing Brief at 31 and Exh. 1 at 1‐6; Petitioner’s Posthearing Brief at 2‐3 and

Exh. 1 at 1‐3 (response to Vice Chairman Pinkert and Commissioner Kieff).
13

Turkey.67  Deacero does not argue, however, that there is no reasonable overlap of competition

for cumulation purposes.  Turkish Respondents do not address cumulation for purposes of a

present injury analysis.      

With respect to Deacero’s argument, the Commission’s long‐standing practice of “cross‐

cumulating” imports subject to Commerce’s affirmative subsidy determinations with imports

subject to Commerce’s affirmative dumping determinations, when the conditions for

cumulation are otherwise met, is consistent with U.S. law.68  We recognize that a WTO dispute

resolution panel recently found this practice to be inconsistent with Article 15 of the SCM

Agreement, and we note that this panel report has not been adopted by the WTO Dispute

Settlement Body and that the United States has appealed the panel report.69

As discussed below, there appears to be a reasonable overlap of competition between

subject imports from Mexico and Turkey, and between subject imports from each source and

the domestic like product.

Fungibility.  Almost all responding U.S. producers reported that U.S.‐produced rebar was

always interchangeable with subject imports from Mexico and subject imports from Turkey,

and that subject imports from Mexico were likewise always interchangeable with subject

imports from Turkey.70  Similarly, the vast majority of responding U.S. purchasers reported that

U.S.‐produced rebar was always or frequently interchangeable with subject imports from

Mexico and subject imports from Turkey, and that subject imports from Mexico were likewise

always or frequently interchangeable with subject imports from Turkey.71  In addition, a

substantial majority of responding U.S. importers reported that U.S.‐produced rebar was always

or frequently interchangeable with subject imports from Mexico and subject imports from

                                                       67 Deacero’s  Posthearing Brief, Answers to Commissioner Questions, at 40‐44 (response to

Commissioner Kieff and Vice Chairman Pinkert).

68 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(G).  E.g., Circular Welded Carbon‐Quality Steel Pipe from India, Oman, the

United Arab Emirates, and Vietnam, Inv. Nos. 701‐TA‐482‐484 and 731‐TA‐1191‐1194 (Final), USITC Pub.

4362 at 12 n.59 (Dec. 2012); Softwood Lumber from Canada, Inv. Nos. 701‐TA‐414 and 731‐TA‐928

(Final), USITC Pub. 3509 at 29‐31 (May 2009); Bingham & Taylor v. United States, 815 F.2d 1482 (Fed.

Cir. 1987).

69 www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds436_e.htm.

70 CR/PR at Table II‐14.  Eight of nine responding U.S. producers reported that domestically

produced rebar was always interchangeable with subject imports from Mexico and subject imports from

Turkey.  Six of seven responding U.S. producers reported that subject imports from Mexico were always

interchangeable with subject imports from Turkey.  Id. 71 CR/PR at Table II‐14.  Six of 18 responding U.S. purchasers reported that domestically

produced rebar was always interchangeable with subject imports from Mexico and ten purchasers

reported that domestically produced rebar was frequently interchangeable with subject imports from

Mexico.  Six of 18 responding U.S. purchasers reported that domestically produced rebar was always

interchangeable with subject imports from Turkey and nine purchasers reported that domestically

produced rebar was frequently interchangeable with subject imports from Turkey.  Eleven of 17

responding U.S. purchasers reported that subject imports from Mexico were always interchangeable

with subject imports from Turkey, and five U.S. purchasers reported that subject imports from Mexico

were frequently interchangeable with subject imports from Turkey.  Id.
14

Turkey, and almost all responding U.S. importers reported that subject imports from Mexico

were always or frequently interchangeable with subject imports from Turkey.72

There is also an overlap between domestically produced rebar and subject imports from

Mexico and Turkey with respect to lengths, sizes, and grades offered.73  A majority of

purchasers reported that domestically produced rebar and subject imports from Mexico were

comparable in 13 of 14 non‐price factors, that domestically produced rebar and subject imports

from Turkey were comparable in 9 of 14 non‐price factors, and that subject imports from

Mexico and Turkey were comparable in 14 of 14 non‐price factors.74  Accordingly, the record

indicates fungibility between and among the domestic like product, subject imports from

Mexico, and subject imports from Turkey.

Channels of Distribution.  A large majority of U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of subject

rebar from Turkey during the POI went to firms that were strictly distributors during 2011‐

2013.75  Similarly, a large majority of U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of rebar from Mexico

likewise went to firms that were strictly distributors during each year of the POI.76  U.S.

producers’ reported U.S. shipments during the POI primarily went to firms that were end users

(including firms that were both distributors and end users).77  The record indicates that during

each year from 2011 to 2013, appreciable percentages of the domestic like product, subject

imports from Mexico, and subject imports from Turkey were sold to distributors.

                                                       72 CR/PR at Table II‐14.  Five of 13 responding U.S. importers reported that domestically

produced rebar was always interchangeable with subject imports from Mexico, and four importers

reported that that domestically produced rebar was frequently interchangeable with subject imports

from Mexico.  Six of 17 responding U.S. importers reported that domestically produced rebar was

always interchangeable with subject imports from Turkey, and four importers reported that

domestically produced rebar was frequently interchangeable with subject imports from Turkey.  Six of

ten responding U.S. importers reported that subject imports from Mexico were always interchangeable

with subject imports from Turkey, and three importers reported that subject imports from Mexico were

frequently interchangeable with subject imports from Turkey.  Id. 73 CR/PR at Tables IV‐5 to IV‐7. 74 CR/PR at Table II‐12.  Majorities of purchasers found the domestic product superior to subject

imports from Mexico and Turkey in terms of delivery time, and pluralities or majorities of purchasers

additionally found the domestic product superior to subject imports from Turkey in terms of availability,

delivery terms, and reliability of supply.  Id. 75 The percentage of U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of subject rebar from Turkey that went to

firms that were strictly distributors was *** percent in 2011, *** percent in 2012, and *** percent in

2013.  CR/PR at Table II‐1.    76 The percentage of U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of subject rebar from Mexico that went to

firms that were strictly distributors was *** percent in 2011, *** percent in 2012, and *** percent in

2013.  CR/PR at Table II‐1.  As the notes to Tables II‐1 through II‐3 indicate, ***.

77 During 2011‐2013, the percentage of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of rebar to firms that

that went to firms that were strictly distributors ranged between a low of 18.7 percent in 2012 and a

high of 19.7 percent in 2013, while the percentage that went to firms that were strictly end users ranged

between a low of 28.5 percent in 2013 and a high of 29.2 percent in 2012, and the percentage that went

to firms that were both distributors and end users ranged between a low of 51.8 percent in 2013 to a

high of 52.2 percent in 2012.  CR/PR at Table II‐1.  
15

Geographic Overlap.  U.S. producers reported selling rebar in all regions of the

contiguous United States.78  Importers of rebar from Mexico reported serving all geographic

areas of the United States except the Northeast, while importers of rebar from Turkey reported

serving all geographic areas except the Mountain and Pacific Coast regions.79  Questionnaire

data indicate that U.S. producers, subject imports from Mexico, and subject imports from

Turkey all served the Midwest, Southeast, and Central Southwest geographical market areas in

the United States.80  Thus, there is substantial geographic overlap between and among subject

imports and the domestic like product.

Simultaneous Presence in Market.  Subject imports from Mexico were present in the

U.S. market in all 39 months during the POI, while subject imports from Turkey were present in

*** of 39 months during the POI.81  The domestic like product was present in the U.S. market

throughout the POI.82

Conclusion.  The record indicates that there is a reasonable overlap of competition

between and among subject imports and the domestic like product.  Accordingly, we cumulate

subject imports from Mexico and Turkey for our analysis of whether there is material injury by

reason of subject imports.

      

V. Material Injury by Reason of Subject Imports

Based on the record in the final phase of these investigations, we find that an industry in

the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of rebar from Mexico  that

Commerce has found to be sold in the United States at less than fair value and imports from

Turkey that Commerce has found to be subsidized.

A. Legal Standards

In the final phase of antidumping and countervailing duty investigations, the

Commission determines whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or

threatened with material injury by reason of the imports under investigation.83  In making this

determination, the Commission must consider the volume of subject imports, their effect on

prices for the domestic like product, and their impact on domestic producers of the domestic

like product, but only in the context of U.S. production operations.84  The statute defines

“material injury” as “harm which is not inconsequential, immaterial, or unimportant.”85  In

                                                        78 CR/PR at Table II‐5; CR at II‐11; PR at II‐8.

79 CR/PR at Table II‐5.

80 CR/PR at Table II‐5.

81 CR/PR at Table IV‐8.

82 CR/PR at Tables V‐3 through V‐8.

83 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(b), 1673d(b).

84 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B).  The Commission “may consider such other economic factors as are

relevant to the determination” but shall “identify each {such} factor ... and explain in full its relevance to

the determination.”  19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B).

85 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(A).
16

assessing whether the domestic industry is materially injured by reason of subject imports, we

consider all relevant economic factors that bear on the state of the industry in the United

States.86  No single factor is dispositive, and all relevant factors are considered “within the

context of the business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected

industry.”87

Although the statute requires the Commission to determine whether the domestic

industry is “materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of” unfairly traded

imports,88 it does not define the phrase “by reason of,” indicating that this aspect of the injury

analysis is left to the Commission’s reasonable exercise of its discretion.89  In identifying a

causal link, if any, between subject imports and material injury to the domestic industry, the

Commission examines the facts of record that relate to the significance of the volume and price

effects of the subject imports and any impact of those imports on the condition of the domestic

industry.  This evaluation under the “by reason of” standard must ensure that subject imports

are more than a minimal or tangential cause of injury and that there is a sufficient causal, not

merely a temporal, nexus between subject imports and material injury.90

In many investigations, there are other economic factors at work, some or all of which

may also be having adverse effects on the domestic industry.  Such economic factors might

include nonsubject imports; changes in technology, demand, or consumer tastes; competition

among domestic producers; or management decisions by domestic producers.  The legislative

history explains that the Commission must examine factors other than subject imports to

ensure that it is not attributing injury from other factors to the subject imports, thereby

inflating an otherwise tangential cause of injury into one that satisfies the statutory material

injury threshold.91  In performing its examination, however, the Commission need not isolate

                                                       86 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

87 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

88 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(a), 1673d(a).

89 Angus Chemical Co. v. United States, 140 F.3d 1478, 1484‐85 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“{T}he statute

does not ‘compel the commissioners’ to employ {a particular methodology}.”), aff’g, 944 F. Supp. 943,

951 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996).

90 The Federal Circuit, in addressing the causation standard of the statute, observed that “{a}s

long as its effects are not merely incidental, tangential, or trivial, the foreign product sold at less than

fair value meets the causation requirement.”  Nippon Steel Corp. v. USITC, 345 F.3d 1379, 1384 (Fed. Cir.

2003).  This was further ratified in Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States, 542 F.3d 867, 873 (Fed.

Cir. 2008), where the Federal Circuit, quoting Gerald Metals, Inc. v. United States, 132 F.3d 716, 722

(Fed. Cir. 1997), stated that “this court requires evidence in the record ‘to show that the harm occurred

“by reason of” the LTFV imports, not by reason of a minimal or tangential contribution to material harm

caused by LTFV goods.’”  See also Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345, 1357 (Fed. Cir.

2006); Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Ass’n v. USITC, 266 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

91 SAA at 851‐52 (“{T}he Commission must examine other factors to ensure that it is not

attributing injury from other sources to the subject imports.”); S. Rep. 96‐249 at 75 (1979) (the

Commission “will consider information which indicates that harm is caused by factors other than less‐

than‐fair‐value imports.”); H.R. Rep. 96‐317 at 47 (1979) (“in examining the overall injury being

experienced by a domestic industry, the ITC will take into account evidence presented to it which

demonstrates that the harm attributed by the petitioner to the subsidized or dumped imports is

(Continued...)
17

the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by unfairly traded imports.92  Nor does the

“by reason of” standard require that unfairly traded imports be the “principal” cause of injury

or contemplate that injury from unfairly traded imports be weighed against other factors, such

as nonsubject imports, which may be contributing to overall injury to an industry.93  It is clear

that the existence of injury caused by other factors does not compel a negative

determination.94

Assessment of whether material injury to the domestic industry is “by reason of” subject

imports “does not require the Commission to address the causation issue in any particular way”

as long as “the injury to the domestic industry can reasonably be attributed to the subject

imports” and the Commission “ensure{s} that it is not attributing injury from other sources to

the subject imports.”95 96  Indeed, the Federal Circuit has examined and affirmed various

Commission methodologies and has disavowed “rigid adherence to a specific formula.”97

                                                                                                                                                                              

(...Continued)

attributable to such other factors;” those factors include “the volume and prices of nonsubsidized

imports or imports sold at fair value, contraction in demand or changes in patterns of consumption,

trade restrictive practices of and competition between the foreign and domestic producers,

developments in technology and the export performance and productivity of the domestic industry”);

accord Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 877.

92 SAA at 851‐52 (“{T}he Commission need not isolate the injury caused by other factors from

injury caused by unfair imports.”); Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Ass’n, 266 F.3d at 1345 (“{T}he

Commission need not isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by unfair imports ... .  

Rather, the Commission must examine other factors to ensure that it is not attributing injury from other

sources to the subject imports.” (emphasis in original)); Asociacion de Productores de Salmon y Trucha

de Chile AG v. United States, 180 F. Supp. 2d 1360, 1375 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002) (“{t}he Commission is not

required to isolate the effects of subject imports from other factors contributing to injury” or make

“bright‐line distinctions” between the effects of subject imports and other causes.); see also Softwood

Lumber from Canada, Inv. Nos. 701‐TA‐414 and 731‐TA‐928 (Remand), USITC Pub. 3658 at 100‐01 (Dec.

2003) (Commission recognized that “{i}f an alleged other factor is found not to have or threaten to have

injurious effects to the domestic industry, i.e., it is not an ‘other causal factor,’ then there is nothing to

further examine regarding attribution to injury”), citing Gerald Metals, 132 F.3d at 722 (the statute

“does not suggest that an importer of LTFV goods can escape countervailing duties by finding some

tangential or minor cause unrelated to the LTFV goods that contributed to the harmful effects on

domestic market prices.”).

93 S. Rep. 96‐249 at 74‐75; H.R. Rep. 96‐317 at 47.    94 See Nippon Steel Corp., 345 F.3d at 1381 (“an affirmative material‐injury determination under

the statute requires no more than a substantial‐factor showing.  That is, the ‘dumping’ need not be the

sole or principal cause of injury.”).

95 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 877‐78; see also id. at 873 (“While the Commission may not enter an

affirmative determination unless it finds that a domestic industry is materially injured ‘by reason of’

subject imports, the Commission is not required to follow a single methodology for making that

determination ... {and has} broad discretion with respect to its choice of methodology.”) citing United

States Steel Group v. United States, 96 F.3d 1352, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1996) and S. Rep. 96‐249 at 75.   96 Vice Chairman Pinkert does not join this paragraph or the following three paragraphs.  He

points out that the Federal Circuit, in Bratsk, 444 F.3d 1369, and Mittal Steel, held that the Commission

is required, in certain circumstances when considering present material injury, to undertake a particular

(Continued...)
18

The Federal Circuit’s decisions in Gerald Metals, Bratsk, and Mittal Steel all involved

cases where the relevant “other factor” was the presence in the market of significant volumes

of price‐competitive nonsubject imports.  The Commission interpreted the Federal Circuit’s

guidance in Bratsk as requiring it to apply a particular additional methodology following its

finding of material injury in cases involving commodity products and a significant market

presence of price‐competitive nonsubject imports.98  The additional “replacement/benefit” test

looked at whether nonsubject imports might have replaced subject imports without any benefit

to the U.S. industry.  The Commission applied that specific additional test in subsequent cases,

including the Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago determination

that underlies the Mittal Steel litigation.

Mittal Steel clarifies that the Commission’s interpretation of Bratsk was too rigid and

makes clear that the Federal Circuit does not require the Commission to apply an additional

test nor any one specific methodology; instead, the court requires the Commission to have

“evidence in the record” to “show that the harm occurred ‘by reason of’ the LTFV imports,” and

requires that the Commission not attribute injury from nonsubject imports or other factors to

subject imports.99  Accordingly, we do not consider ourselves required to apply the

replacement/benefit test that was included in Commission opinions subsequent to Bratsk.

The progression of Gerald Metals, Bratsk, and Mittal Steel clarifies that, in cases

involving commodity products where price‐competitive nonsubject imports are a significant

factor in the U.S. market, the Court will require the Commission to give full consideration, with

adequate explanation, to non‐attribution issues when it performs its causation analysis.100

                                                                                                                                                                              

(...Continued)

kind of analysis of non‐subject imports, albeit without reliance upon presumptions or rigid formulas.  

Mittal Steel explains as follows:

What Bratsk held is that “where commodity products are at issue and fairly traded, price

competitive, non‐subject imports are in the market,” the Commission would not fulfill its

obligation to consider an important aspect of the problem if it failed to consider whether non‐

subject or non‐LTFV imports would have replaced LTFV subject imports during the period of

investigation without a continuing benefit to the domestic industry.  444 F.3d at 1369.  Under

those circumstances, Bratsk requires the Commission to consider whether replacement of the

LTFV subject imports might have occurred during the period of investigation, and it requires the

Commission to provide an explanation of its conclusion with respect to that factor.   

542 F.3d at 878.   97 Nucor Corp. v. United States, 414 F.3d 1331, 1336, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also Mittal Steel,

542 F.3d at 879 (“Bratsk did not read into the antidumping statute a Procrustean formula for

determining whether a domestic injury was ‘by reason’ of subject imports.”).

98 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 875‐79.

99 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 873 (quoting from Gerald Metals, 132 F.3d at 722), 875‐79 & n.2

(recognizing the Commission’s alternative interpretation of Bratsk as a reminder to conduct a non‐

attribution analysis).

100 To that end, after the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Bratsk, the Commission began to

present published information or send out information requests in final phase investigations to

producers in nonsubject countries that accounted for substantial shares of U.S. imports of subject

merchandise (if, in fact, there were large nonsubject import suppliers).  In order to provide a more

(Continued...)
19

The question of whether the material injury threshold for subject imports is satisfied

notwithstanding any injury from other factors is factual, subject to review under the substantial

evidence standard.101  Congress has delegated this factual finding to the Commission because

of the agency’s institutional expertise in resolving injury issues.102

B. Conditions of Competition and the Business Cycle  

The following conditions of competition inform our analysis of whether there is material

injury by reason of subject imports.

1. Demand Conditions

Rebar is primarily used by the construction industry to reinforce concrete structures,

and the U.S market for rebar is tied closely to construction activity.103  U.S. demand for rebar

typically follows trends in the overall U.S. economy ‐‐ in particular for nonresidential

construction spending, and, to a lesser extent, residential construction spending.104  Although

nonresidential construction accounts for a significantly larger share of total construction

spending than residential construction, spending on residential construction increased to a

greater degree than spending on nonresidential construction during the POI.105  Since

construction activity is seasonal, and is at its lowest at the end of each year and the beginning

of the following year, demand for rebar tends to be lower in the fall and winter, and can be

affected by weather conditions, such as the severe winter of early 2014.106          

There are limited substitutes for rebar.107  Rebar generally accounts for a small share of

the total cost of the applications in which it is used.108  As such, changes in the price of rebar

have a relatively small effect on total demand for rebar.109    

                                                                                                                                                                              

(...Continued)

complete record for the Commission’s causation analysis, these requests typically seek information on

capacity, production, and shipments of the product under investigation in the major source countries

that export to the United States.  The Commission plans to continue utilizing published or requested

information in final phase investigations in which there are substantial levels of nonsubject imports.

101 We provide in our respective discussions of volume, price effects, and impact a full analysis of

other factors alleged to have caused any material injury experienced by the domestic industry.

102 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 873; Nippon Steel Corp., 458 F.3d at 1350, citing U.S. Steel Group, 96

F.3d at 1357; S. Rep. 96‐249 at 75 (“The determination of the ITC with respect to causation is ... complex

and difficult, and is a matter for the judgment of the ITC.”).    103 CR at I‐15, II‐1, II‐19; PR at I‐11; II‐1, II‐13; see Transcript of September 15, 2014 Hearing

(“Hearing Tr.”) at 49 (Kerkvliet).

104 CR at II‐19; PR at II‐13.

105 CR/PR at Figure II‐2.

106 CR/PR at Figure II‐3; CR at II‐19, II‐21; PR at II‐13 to II‐14.    107 CR at II‐24 to II‐25; PR at II‐17 to II‐18.   108 CR at II‐25; PR at II‐18.

109 See CR at II‐46; PR at II‐31.
20

While some manufactured rebar is used in construction applications with no further

processing, a large share is sold to fabricators that further process the rebar, using it to create

forms used in construction.110  The three largest U.S. producers, CMC, Gerdau, and Nucor, as

well as Byer, own purchasing firms that operate as fabricators and/or distributors.111  These

purchasing firms obtain a significant share of the rebar for fabrication or distribution from their

parent companies and the remainder from other producers and import suppliers.112   

The record, however, shows that a significant number of purchasers (41 of 66) bought

rebar from both U.S. producers and importers of subject merchandise.  Moreover, 13

purchasers were listed by both one (or more) U.S. producer and one (or more) importer as

among their ten largest purchasers.113     

By the same token, the questionnaire data from purchasers indicate that the

distribution channels were varied and overlapping.  Some distributors are also end users, some

are affiliated with domestic producers, and some are independent.114  End users reported

selling to, inter alia, various contractors and sub‐contractors, home builders, and the general

public.  Distributors reported selling to, inter alia, fabricators, lumber yards, wholesalers,

distributors, some end users, and national home retail centers.  Independent end

                                                       110 CR at II‐1; PR at II‐1.  The Independent Steel Alliance (ISA), a purchasing cooperative, was

created in 2013 by independent fabricators seeking to increase negotiating leverage when making

purchases from steel suppliers, to earn rebates based on purchase volumes, and to respond to the

growth of fabricators affiliated with the largest U.S. producers.  The ISA also provides its suppliers

(including Deacero) with an avenue to reach new purchasers and increase sales.  The ISA is still relatively

new, and questionnaire responses from U.S. producers, importers and purchasers indicate that it has

thus far had little or no effect on price or purchaser patterns.  CR at V‐6 to V‐8; PR at V‐5 to V‐6; see

Hearing Tr. at 58 (Byer), 216 (Barzan). 111 CR at II‐1; PR at II‐1.    112 CR/PR at Table II‐4; CR at II‐1; PR at II‐1; Hearing Tr. at 40 (Darsey); 43 (Alvarado).  The largest

purchasers of rebar were ***. CR at II‐1; PR at II‐1. During 2013, *** percent of the combined rebar

sales of CMC, Gerdau, Nucor and Byer were to related purchasers.  CR/PR at Tables VI‐1, VI‐2.

The domestic industry sells to independent fabricators and distributors, as well as to domestic

producers’ affiliates.  CR/PR at Table II‐4; Hearing Tr. at 39, 82 (Darsey); 50 (Kerkvliet).  Deacero has

presented evidence from an independent purchaser asserting that the domestic industry was unwilling

or unable to meet this purchaser’s supply requests.  See, e.g., Deacero’s Posthearing Brief, Answers to

Commissioner Questions at 3‐8 (response to Vice Chairman Pinkert and Commissioner Williamson);

Hearing Tr. at 162‐164 (Bergren).  Petitioner has presented contrary evidence that there were various

commercial considerations affecting sales by domestic producers to this purchaser.  See Hearing Tr. at

50 (Kerkvliet); Petitioner’s Posthearing Brief, Exh. 1 at 22‐26 (response to Chairman Broadbent and Vice

Chairman Pinkert), Exh. 11 (Declaration of ***, and Exh. 15 (Declaration of ***.  We note that several

independent fabricators and distributors provided testimony that they had historically been able to

meet their supply needs from the domestic industry, although some of these noted that the domestic

industry had recently been unable to meet the lower price of subject imports in some instances.  

Hearing Tr. at 60‐61 (Melvin); 62‐64, 87 (Webb); 64‐65 (Crowe); 84‐85 (Byer).    113 CR at II‐11; PR at II‐8.    114 See CR/PR at Table II‐4; CR at II‐9; PR at II‐7; Hearing Tr. at 44‐45, 144 (Alvarado); 97 (Porter);

143 (Kerkvliet).
21

users/distributors reported selling to, inter alia, fabricators, contractors, lumber yards, building

material dealers, and other distributors.  Related end users/distributors reported selling to,

inter alia, small contractors, local lumber yards, rebar fabrication companies, and other

distributors.115  These data demonstrate that distributors of all kinds, as well as domestic

producers, sell to fabricators.  Thus, there is no distinct channel of distribution associated with

any market segment; we find that there is instead an overlap among various broad

categories.116

Most responding U.S producers, importers, and purchasers reported that U.S. demand

for rebar has increased since 2011.117  Apparent U.S. consumption increased from 6.5 million

short tons 2011 to 7.4 million short tons in 2012, and then to 7.7 million short tons in 2013.118  

Overall, apparent U.S. consumption was 18.2 percent higher in 2013 than in 2011.119

2. Supply Conditions

The domestic industry supplied the predominant share of the U.S. market throughout

the POI.  Its share of apparent U.S. consumption declined from 90.0 percent in 2011 to 84.4

percent in 2013.120 The three largest U.S. producers, CMC, Gerdau, and Nucor, accounted for

*** percent of total domestic production in 2013.121  The domestic industry’s capacity

utilization in 2013 was 68.4 percent.122   

Cumulated subject imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption during the POI

increased throughout the POI from *** percent in 2011 to *** percent in 2013.123 Cumulated

subject imports accounted for *** percent of the quantity of all U.S. imports of rebar in

2013.124  During the POI, volumes of subject imports from Turkey were typically *** in the first

half of the year.125

                                                       115 CR at II‐9 to II‐10; PR at II‐7.

116 See Hearing Tr. at 39, 82 (Darsey); 44‐45, 144 (Alvarado); 60‐61 (Melvin); 63 (Webb); 84

(Byer); 97 (Porter); 143 (Kerkvliet). 117 CR/PR at Table II‐7.    118 CR/PR at Tables IV‐9, C‐1, C‐3.  Apparent consumption was 1.8 million short tons in interim

2013 and 2.0 million short tons in interim 2014.  Id.

119 CR/PR at Table C‐1, C‐3.

120 The domestic industry’s share of apparent U.S. consumption declined from 90.0 percent in

2011 to 86.7 percent in 2012 and to 84.4 percent in 2013, and was 80.5 percent in interim 2013 and

77.1 percent in interim 2014.  CR/PR at Tables IV‐10, C‐1, C‐3. 121 CR/PR at Table III‐1. 122 CR/PR at Tables III‐3, C‐1.         123 Cumulated subject imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption increased from *** percent

in 2011 to *** percent in 2012 and to *** percent in 2013, and was *** percent in interim 2013 and ***

percent in interim 2014.  CR/PR at Tables IV‐10, C‐1, C‐3.

124 CR at IV‐2; PR at IV‐2.

125 During 2011‐2013, *** percent of total subject imports from Turkey were imported during

January through June.  By contrast, imports during January through June accounted for 46.4 percent of

total subject imports from Mexico during 2011‐2013.  See CR/PR at Table IV‐8.      
22

Nonsubject imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption increased from *** percent in

2011 to *** percent in 2013.126  The largest source of nonsubject imports was Turkish

producer/exporter Habas, which accounted for *** percent of total U.S imports in 2013.127  

Other sources of nonsubject imports during the POI included Spain, the Dominican Republic,

Japan, Korea, and Peru.128  Imports of rebar from seven nonsubject countries are currently

subject to antidumping duty orders, and were throughout the POI.  These countries are Belarus,

China, Indonesia, Latvia, Moldova, Poland, and Ukraine.129

3. Substitutability  

Rebar sold in the U.S. market is generally manufactured to conform to ASTM

specifications, and rebar of the same grade and dimension is generally interchangeable and

substitutable regardless of origin.130  As previously discussed, almost all responding U.S.

producers and purchasers and most responding U.S. importers reported that the domestic like

product, subject imports from Mexico, and subject imports from Turkey are always or

frequently interchangeable.131   

Purchasers ranked price as by far the most important factor that they consider in their

purchasing decisions, with all 28 responding purchasers listing it as among their three most

important factors, and 20 purchasers listing it as their most important factor.132  Twenty‐five of

28 responding purchasers listed price as a very important factor in purchasing decisions, and

price and quality meets industry standards were the two factors listed by the largest number of

purchasers as very important.133

Respondents have raised a number of factors that they claim limit substitutability

between the domestic like product and subject imports, including differences in length, size,

                                                       126 Nonsubject imports as a share of apparent U.S. consumption increased from *** percent in

2011 to *** percent in 2012, and then to *** percent in 2013.  They were *** percent in interim 2013

and *** percent in interim 2014.  CR/PR at Tables IV‐10, C‐1, C‐3.

127 CR/PR at Table IV‐2.  Because imports from Habas received de minimis dumping margins and

subsidy rates from Commerce, for purposes of these final determinations, we treat imports from Habas

as nonsubject imports.       128 CR at IV‐3; PR at IV‐2.

129 CR at I‐7 to I‐9; PR at I‐6 to I‐7.  See generally Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Belarus,

China, Indonesia, Latvia, Moldova, Poland, and Ukraine, Inv. Nos. 731‐TA‐873‐874, 878‐880 and 882

(Second Review), USITC Pub. 4409 (July 2013).    130 CR at 1‐16, II‐26; PR at I‐12, II‐18; Hearing Tr. at 38, 82, 86‐87, 142 (Darsey); 42 (Alvarado); 47

(Kerkvliet); 62 (Webb).    131 CR/PR at Table II‐14.      132 CR/PR at Table II‐9.  The other factors most often ranked by purchasers among their top

three factors in purchasing decisions were availability, quality, and credit/payment terms.  Id.

133 CR/PR at Table II‐10.  The other factors most often listed by purchasers as very important

were availability, delivery time, reliability of supply, and product consistency.  Id.
23

and grade, affiliations of U.S. producers with downstream entities that purchase rebar from

their parent, and Buy America(n) and other domestic preference programs.134

We find that there is significant overlap between the domestic like product and subject

imports by length, size, and grade.135  Subject imports are concentrated primarily in lengths of  

20 feet up to 40 feet, and 40 feet up to 60 feet, and domestic producers compete head‐to‐head

with subject imports in those length ranges.  While the domestic industry also supplies lengths

of 60 feet and above, where subject import volumes have been more limited, the record overall

indicates significant overlap by rebar length.136  Similarly, subject imports are concentrated in

rebar sizes 3, 4, 5, and 6, and U.S. producers compete head‐to‐head with subject imports in

those sizes.  Again, the record indicates that subject import volumes have been somewhat

lower for sizes 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, but there remains competition between subject imports and

the domestic like product in those larger sizes as well, again indicating significant overall

overlap by rebar size.137  Subject imports are concentrated in grades 40 and 60, and U.S.

producers compete head‐to‐head with them in those grades.  Subject imports also compete

with the domestic like product in grade 75 and “other”, although subject import volumes in

those grades are relatively small.  Thus, there is significant overall overlap by rebar grade.138                 

The record indicates that ***, and downstream affiliated purchasers reported that

***.139  However, the record also indicates that downstream affiliates of the principal U.S.

producers *** purchase not only from their parent companies, but also from non‐affiliated

sources, including subject imports.140  ***,141 indicating that subject imports were able to

compete directly with the domestic like product in this part of the market.

Buy America preferences apply to the procurement of iron and steel products, including

rebar, for certain Federal‐aid highway construction programs, while Buy American preferences

                                                       134 Deacero’s Posthearing Brief, Answers to Commissioner Questions at 10‐25; Turkish

Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at 12‐16; Turkish Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at 13‐14.  Respondents

also argue that longer lead times for imported product are a major factor limiting substitutability

Deacero’s Prehearing Brief at 30‐31.  As noted, the record indicates that delivery time is important to

many purchasers, see CR/PR at Table II‐10, but lead times were ranked by very few purchasers (only four

of 28) as among their three most important factors in making purchasing decisions.  CR/PR at Table II‐9.  

The record indicates that lead times from U.S. mills and Mexican mills are shorter than lead times for

subject imports from Turkey, and that lead times from inventories are somewhat longer for subject

producers than for domestic producers.  CR at II‐26; PR at II‐18 to II‐19.  Thus, while there appear to be

some differences in lead time between product from different sources, the record does not indicate that

lead times play a major role in purchasing decisions.     135 See Hearing Tr. at 44 (Alvarado); 61 (Melvin).

136 CR/PR at Table IV‐5.    137 CR/PR at Table IV‐6.    138 CR/PR at Table IV‐7.

139 CR at II‐8; PR at II‐6; see Purchasers’ Questionnaire responses of CMC (EDIS Document No.

538081); Gastrich Rebar (EDIS Document No. 538077); Gerdau (EDIS Document No. 538075); and Harris

Steel Inc. & Harris Supply Solutions Inc. (EDIS Document No. 538079).

140 CR/PR at Table II‐4; Hearing Tr. at 40 (Darsey); 43 (Alvarado). 141 CR at III‐14 and n.8; PR at III‐9 and n.8.
24

apply to Federal Government procurement of certain goods and services.142 Buy America(n)

requirements may impose limits on substitutability, but projects subject to such preferences

account for only a limited portion of U.S. shipments, and the record shows that the percentage

of the market covered by public construction projects with Buy American requirements

declined during the POI as federal stimulus spending declined.143    

Another program that respondents claim provides a preference to domestic producers

is a voluntary program under which building projects may seek to qualify for LEED (Leadership

in Energy and Environmental Design) certification, which encourages sourcing of local and

regional materials made within 500 miles of the project.144  However, there appears to be some

flexibility for a project in meeting the LEED certification requirements by using a certain

percentage of locally produced materials, and it is not clear that locally produced rebar is

necessarily required to meet the local materials credit for a particular project.145  There is

insufficient information in the record to draw any conclusion that LEED certification programs

have resulted in a significant preference in the U.S. market for U.S. rebar producers.  

    Accordingly, given the substantial competition between the domestic like product and

subject imports in every part of the market in which subject imports compete, we do not find

that any of the factors raised by respondents significantly affect the substitutability of subject

imports and the domestic like product.  Based on the record, we find that rebar from different

sources is highly substitutable, and that price is an important factor in purchasing decisions.146

4. Other Conditions

The primary raw material input for rebar production is steel scrap.  Raw material costs

accounted for approximately two‐thirds of domestic producers’ cost of goods sold (“COGS”)

between January 2011 and March 2014, ranging between a high of 70.7 percent in 2011 and a

low of 65.4 percent in 2013.147  Prices for steel scrap in the United States fluctuated between

January 2011 and March 2014.  They declined by 14.3 percent overall, with the highest price in

the beginning of 2012 ($415 per short ton) and the lowest price in mid‐2012 ($299 per short

                                                       142 CR at II‐35; PR at II‐23 to II‐24.    143 CR at II‐36; PR at II‐24; Hearing Tr. at 39, 142 (Darsey); 48 (Kerkvliet); 141 (Crowe); see

Deacero’s Prehearing Brief at 39‐40.  The Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute estimated that projects

subject to Buy America(n) requirements are expected to account for approximately 10.6 percent of total

U.S. rebar demand.  CR at II‐36; PR at II‐24.     144 CR at II‐37 to II‐38; PR at II‐25.  While most building projects in the continental United States

are within 500 miles of a domestic rebar production facility, the production facilities of subject

producers from Mexico and Turkey are reported to be more than 500 miles from the United States.  CR

at II‐38; PR at II‐25.

145 CR/PR at II‐38; PR at II‐25.    146 See CR at II‐26; PR at II‐18. 147 CR at V‐1, VI‐15; PR at V‐1; VI‐6 to VI‐7.
25

ton).148 Several U.S. producers, including CMC, Gerdau, and Nucor, have upstream affiliates

that process and supply steel scrap.149

   

C. Volume of Subject Imports

Section 771(7)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act provides that the “Commission shall consider

whether the volume of imports of the merchandise, or any increase in that volume, either in

absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States, is significant.”150

The volume of cumulated subject imports increased from *** short tons in 2011 to ***

short tons in 2012, and then to *** short tons in 2013.151  The share of apparent U.S.

consumption held by cumulated subject imports, by quantity, increased from *** percent in

2011 to *** percent in 2012, and then to *** percent in 2013.152   

Subject imports increased during a time of rising apparent U.S. consumption, but the

volume of subject imports increased at a much greater rate.  Subject imports increased by ***

percent from 2011 to 2013, while apparent U.S. consumption increased by 18.2 percent during

the same period.153  As a result of their rapid increase, subject imports took market share from

the domestic industry:  subject imports gained *** percentage points of market share from

2011 to 2013, and the domestic industry’s market share declined by 5.6 percentage points

during this period.154     

We find that the volume of cumulated subject imports, and the increase in that volume,

are significant both in absolute terms and relative to consumption in the United States.

D. Price Effects of the Subject Imports

Section 771(7)(C)(ii) of the Tariff Act provides that evaluating the price effects of the

subject imports, the Commission shall consider whether  

                                                       148 CR/PR at Figure V‐1; CR at V‐1; PR at V‐1; see EDIS Document No. 543307.    149 CR at VI‐2; PR at VI‐1 to VI‐2.

150 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(i).

151 CR/PR at Table IV‐2.  The volume of cumulated subject imports was *** short tons in interim

2013, and *** short tons in interim 2014.  Id.

152 CR/PR at Tables IV‐10, C‐1, C‐3.  The share of apparent U.S. consumption held by cumulated

subject imports, by quantity, was *** percent in interim 2013 and *** percent in interim 2014. Id.

153 CR/PR at Table C‐1.

154 CR/PR at Tables IV‐10, C‐1.  We reject respondents’ argument that the decline in domestic

industry market share during the POI should be given limited weight on the basis that imports have

historically occupied an equal or greater share of the U.S. market than they did over the POI.  See

Turkish Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at 20‐22.  The record does not indicate that the domestic industry

market share level in 2011 was an anomaly.  To the contrary, the record in the preliminary phase

investigations indicated that the domestic industry’s market share was even higher in 2010 than it was

in 2011.  INV‐LL‐085 at Table IV‐7 (Oct. 28, 2013) (EDIS Document No. 532415).  Nor does the record

indicate that the domestic industry could not supply growing U.S. demand during the POI.  To the

contrary, throughout the POI the domestic industry’s capacity exceeded apparent U.S. consumption.  

See CR/PR at Tables III‐3, IV‐9.  
26

(I) there has been significant price underselling by the imported

merchandise as compared with the price of domestic like

products of the United States, and

(II) the effect of imports of such merchandise otherwise depresses

prices to a significant degree or prevents price increases, which

otherwise would have occurred, to a significant degree.155

As discussed above, the record in these investigations indicates that subject imports and

domestically produced rebar are made to ASTM specifications and are highly substitutable, and

that price is an important factor in purchasing decisions.    

In the final phase of these investigations, the Commission collected pricing data on six

different products.156  The reported pricing data accounted for 81.0 percent of U.S. shipments

of subject imports from Mexico, *** percent of U.S. shipments of subject imports from Turkey,

and approximately 32.5 percent of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments during the POI.157

We have used the pricing data without adjustment and find that the data provide

meaningful comparisons between the prices for the domestic like product and the subject

imports.  We first observe that the Commission collected data on the f.o.b. value of the six

products, in accordance with our usual practice.158  There is no indication in the available data

that U.S. freight costs accounted for a significant distinction between subject imports and the

domestic like product, since U.S. producers reported that their U.S. inland transportation costs

ranged from 5 to 10 percent, while importers reported transportation costs ranging from 1 to 7

percent.159  We consequently disagree with respondents that the pricing data should be

adjusted to account for higher freight expenses that may have been incurred for shipments of

subject imports.160

                                                       155 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(ii).

156 Four of the products concern straight ASTM A615, grade 60 rebar, as to which separate

pricing data were collected for no. 3, no. 4, no. 5, and no. 6 sizes.  CR at V‐12 to V‐13; PR at V‐9.  Two of

the products concern straight ASTM A615, grade 40 rebar, as to which separate pricing data were

collected for no. 3 and no. 5 sizes.  Id.

157 CR at V‐13; PR at V‐9.  The pricing data accounted for approximately 57.2 percent of U.S.

producers’ commercial shipments.  CR at V‐13 n.28; PR at V‐9 n.28.  As noted above, a significant share

of the domestic industry’s sales was to related purchasers and, consequently, was not included in these

pricing data.    158 CR at V‐12; PR at V‐9.  The Commission received no comments on the draft questionnaires

from any party suggesting that the Commission should collect pricing data on a basis other than the

f.o.b. value.  See Deacero’s Comments on Draft Questionnaires, May 27, 2014 (EDIS Document No.

534545); Turkish Respondents’ Comments on Draft Questionnaires, May 27, 2014 (EDIS Document No.

534518).

159 CR at V‐3; PR at V‐2 to V‐3; see Hearing Tr. at 48, 103‐104 (Kerkvliet).     160 Deacero’s Posthearing Brief at 5 and Answers to Commissioner Questions at 49‐51 (response

to Commissioner Johanson).
27

We also followed our usual practice of examining arms’ length transactions between

unaffiliated parties in our pricing data, and not including transfers between affiliates.  The

pricing data collected by the Commission reflects a substantial share (approximately 32.5

percent) of U.S. producers’ domestic shipments.  Moreover, the information available in the

record indicates that the transfers by domestic producers to their downstream affiliates were,

on average, ***.161  As compared to relevant average commercial sales values, average transfer

values ***.162  We observe that *** would be consistent with a volume discount that producers

give to purchasers of large volumes.163  Furthermore, *** would be less than the average

margin of underselling by subject imports, as described below.  Because we view the pricing

data reported by the domestic industry as reliable and representative, and do not believe the

method proposed would yield results different from those in the record based on our

traditional approach, we disagree with respondents that transfers of rebar from the three

largest producers to their affiliates should be included in these data.164  

Just as with our data requests in prior investigations and reviews with respect to rebar

that the Commission has conducted since 1997, the Commission collected pricing data for

products in which the grade and size of rebar were specified, but did not collect data for

particular lengths of rebar, including 60‐foot rebar.165  No party suggested in their comments on

the draft questionnaires that the Commission collect pricing data by length of rebar, or that the

Commission specifically collect pricing data for 60‐foot rebar.166  We note that subject import

volumes are significantly lower for this length than for shorter lengths.167  Accordingly, we

reject respondents’ contention that the pricing data are unrepresentative because they do not

include specific data for 60‐foot rebar, and do not account for a price premium that

respondents claim exists with respect to domestically produced 60‐foot rebar.168       

The subject imports undersold the domestic like product in 155 out of 156 pricing

quarterly comparisons during this period, by margins ranging from 0.6 percent to 17.5 percent,

and an average margin of underselling of 9.7 percent.169  We find this underselling to be

significant in the light of the importance of price in purchasing decisions.  Indeed, subject

                                                       161 See Petitioner’s Posthearing Brief, Exh. 8 (Declaration of ***) at Attachment A; Exh. 11

(Declaration of ***) at Attachment A; Exh. 15 (Declaration of ***) at Attachment A.

162 CR/PR at Table E‐1.

163 CR at V‐6; PR at V‐4.

164 Deacero’s Posthearing Brief at 5 and Answers to Commissioner Questions at 52‐53 (response

to Commissioner Johanson); see Turkish Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at 13‐14.

165 CR at V‐12 n.27; PR at V‐9 n.27.

166 See Deacero’s Comments on Draft Questionnaires, May 27, 2014 (EDIS Document No.

534545); Turkish Respondents’ Comments on Draft Questionnaires, May 27, 2014 (EDIS Document No.

534518).

167 CR/PR at Table IV‐5.    168 Deacero’s Posthearing Brief at 5 and Answers to Commissioner Questions at 52 (response to

Commissioner Johanson); Deacero’s Final Comments at 2‐3.

169 CR/PR at Table V‐10.  
28

imports gained market share at the expense of the domestic industry while this pervasive

underselling was taking place.170 171  

We do not agree with respondents’ contention that the underselling data should be

accorded little weight because of a domestic price premium reflecting purchaser preferences

for domestically produced rebar over the subject imports.172  In light of the material in the

record indicating the high interchangeability and substitutability of the domestic and subject

products, that programs requiring use of domestically produced product account for only a

small and declining percentage of the market, and that price is the most important factor in

purchasing decisions, there is no basis for finding that domestically produced product

commands a price premium.  As previously stated, the record shows that the domestic industry

competes in the same segments in which subject imports compete.  

We do not find that subject imports depressed U.S. producers’ prices to a significant

degree.  The record indicates that prices declined between January 2011 and March 2014 for

each of the pricing products for the domestic like product and subject imports from both

Mexico and Turkey, with one exception.173  The decline in U.S. producers’ prices during the POI

for the six pricing products ranged from 2.0 percent to 7.0 percent.174  However, the record

indicates that rebar prices are affected by changes in prices of steel scrap, the primary raw

material input for rebar production.175  Steel scrap prices declined by 14.3 percent between

January 2011 and March 2014.176  Although we acknowledge that other factory costs of the

domestic producers rose, and that apparent U.S. consumption increased during the POI,177 in

light of the magnitude of the decline in raw materials costs we cannot conclude that the subject

imports depressed prices to a significant degree.

                                                       170 We additionally note that there were a limited number of confirmed lost sales or lost

revenues due to competition from subject imports.  CR/PR at Table V‐11 to V‐12; CR at V‐29‐36; PR at V‐

19 to V‐20.     171 We acknowledge that Nucor was identified as the price leader by a majority of responding

purchasers.  CR at V‐9 to V‐12; PR at V‐6 to V‐9.  We do not find this inconsistent with or detracting from

our finding of significant underselling by subject imports.  The identification of Nucor as price leader

reflects its size, as the U.S producer *** in 2013.  CR/PR at Tables III‐1, VI‐2.  U.S. rebar prices are

affected by steel scrap prices and other conditions in the market, see CR/PR at Figure V‐2, and price

changes announced by Nucor tend to reflect those conditions.  See Hearing Tr. at 108, 123‐ 124

(Darsey); 109, 124‐125 (Alvarado).      172 Deacero’s Prehearing Brief at 32‐34; Deacero’s Posthearing Brief, Answers to Commissioner

Questions, at 17‐26; Turkish Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at 14‐16; Turkish Respondents’ Posthearing

Brief at 14‐15.    173 CR at V‐26; PR at V‐17.  The one exception was that prices for product *** from Mexico rose

during the period.  Id. at V‐26 n.34; PR at V‐17 n.34. 174 CR at V‐26; PR at V‐17.  The decline in prices for subject imports from Mexico for *** ranged

from *** to *** percent, while prices for product *** increased by *** percent.  The decline in prices

for subject imports from Turkey ranged between *** and *** percent.  Id.      175 CR/PR at Figure V‐2; CR at V‐1; PR at V‐1.

176 See EDIS Document No. 543307.    177 CR/PR at Tables IV‐9, VI‐1; CR at VI‐16 to VI‐17; PR at VI‐5.
29

We also do not find that subject imports prevented price increases for the domestic like

product that otherwise would have occurred.  The domestic industry’s ratio of COGS to net

sales was relatively flat during the POI, declining from 91.3 percent in 2011 to 90.5 percent in

2012, but then increasing to 92.1 percent in 2013, less than one percentage point higher than

its 2011 level.178  We note that the increase in the COGS to net sales ratio between 2012 and

2013 was affected by an increase in other factory costs.179  Consequently, the record does not

indicate that the domestic producers’ ability to recover their costs changed appreciably during

the POI.

For the foregoing reasons, we find that the prices of the subject imports, which were

pervasively lower than those of the domestic like product, caused the subject imports to gain

market share at the expense of the domestic industry.

                                                       178 CR/PR at Tables VI‐1, C‐1.  The ratio of COGS to net sales was 92.3 percent in interim 2013

and 95.6 percent in interim 2014. Id.   179 Other factory costs as a percentage of net sales increased from 20.3 percent in 2011 to 20.9

percent in 2012, and then to 24.8 percent in 2013; they were 23.4 percent in interim 2013 and 23.9

percent in interim 2014.  CR/PR at Table VI‐1.  See CR at VI‐16 to VI‐17; PR at VI‐5.
30

E. Impact of the Subject Imports180

Section 771(7)(C)(iii) of the Tariff Act provides that examining the impact of subject

imports, the Commission “shall evaluate all relevant economic factors which have a bearing on

the state of the industry.”181  These factors include output, sales, inventories, capacity

utilization, market share, employment, wages, productivity, profits, cash flow, return on

investment, ability to raise capital, research and development, and factors affecting domestic

prices.  No single factor is dispositive and all relevant factors are considered “within the context

of the business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected

industry.”

Many of the indicators of the domestic industry’s performance, including production,

capacity utilization, net sales, U.S. shipments, and net sales value, showed some improvements

                                                       180 The statute instructs the Commission to consider the “magnitude of the dumping margin” in

an antidumping proceeding as part of its consideration of the impact of imports.  19 U.S.C. §

1677(7)(C)(iii)(V).  In its final determination of sales at less than fair value with respect to subject imports

from Mexico, Commerce found antidumping duty margins of 20.58 percent for Deacero, 66.70 percent

for Grupo Acerero, 66.70 percent for Grupo Simec, and 20.58 percent for All Others.  Steel Concrete

Reinforcing Bar from Mexico:  Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value and Final Affirmative

Determination of Critical Circumstances, 79 Fed. Reg. 54967, 54968 (Sept. 15, 2014).   

In Commerce’s final countervailing duty determination with respect to subject imports from

Turkey, it determined the following subsidy rates for Turkish companies:  0.74 percent (de minimis) for

Habas; 1.25 percent for Icdas; 1.25 percent for all others.  Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Turkey,

Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination Final Affirmative Determination of Critical

Circumstances, 79 Fed. Reg. 54963 (Sept. 15, 2014).  While the statute requires the Commission to

consider the magnitude of the dumping margin, it contains no similar provision concerning subsidy

rates.  According to the SAA, “the Commission will not be required to consider the rate of subsidization.”  

H. Conf. Rep. 103‐316, vol. I at 850 (1994).  The SAA consequently expressly rebuts any argument by

respondents that the Commission’s impact analysis must take into account the subsidy rates that

Commerce found for subject imports from Turkey.   

Pursuant to our usual practice, we have considered the impact of subject imports on a

cumulated basis.  Deacero’s argument that this is not consistent with the statute, Deacero Posthearing

Brief, Answers to Commissioner Questions at 39‐40, is incorrect.  The statute states that “. . . the

Commission shall cumulatively assess the volume and effect of imports of the subject merchandise from

all countries. . .” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(G).  Thus, the statute references effects generally; it is not

specifically limited, as Deacero suggests, to price effects.  The impact analysis prescribed by the statute

encompasses any analysis of such “effects” as “actual and potential negative effects on cash flow,

inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to raise capital, and investment,” 19 U.S.C. §

1677(7)(C)(iii)(III), and “actual and potential effects on the existing development and production efforts

of the domestic industry.  .  .” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii)(IV).  Consequently, the Commission’s practice of

analyzing impact cumulatively is fully consistent with the statute.

181 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii); see also SAA at 851 and 885 (“In material injury determinations,

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 also

may demonstrate that an industry is facing difficulties from a variety of sources and is vulnerable to

dumped or subsidized imports.”).
31

during the POI as U.S. demand increased.  However, as cumulated subject import volumes

increased significantly and took market share at the expense of the domestic industry through

significant and pervasive underselling, these indicators failed to rise commensurately with the

increase in apparent U.S. consumption between 2011 and 2013.  Indeed, as the industry’s

declining market share prevented it from fully benefiting from the increased demand, a number

of key performance indicators declined between 2012 and 2013, including production, capacity

utilization, productivity, net sales quantity and value, net operating income and operating

margin, while end‐of‐period inventories increased.  As the domestic industry’s market share

declined by 5.6 percentage points between 2011 and 2013, its profitability likewise declined,

with net operating income declining by 11 percent over the same period, and its operating

margin similarly declining.182       

Capacity increased from 9.6 million short tons in 2011 to 9.8 million short tons in 2012,

and then increased to 9.9 million short tons in 2013, an overall increase of 2.9 percent.183  

Production increased from 6.3 million short tons in 2011 to 6.8 million short tons in 2012, and

then declined to 6.8 million short tons in 2013, an overall increase of 7.1 percent.184  Capacity

utilization increased from 65.7 percent in 2011 to 69.6 percent in 2012, and then declined to

68.4 percent in 2013.185   

Net sales increased from 6.3 million short tons in 2011 to 6.8 million short tons in 2012,

and although they declined very slightly they remained at 6.8 million short tons in 2013, an

overall increase of 8.2 percent.186  U.S. shipments increased from 5.9 million short tons in 2011

to 6.4 million short tons in 2012, and to 6.5 million short tons in 2013, an overall increase of

10.8 percent.187  U.S. producers’ end‐of‐period inventories increased from 484,796 short tons in

2011 to 545,398 short tons in 2012, and then to 550,880 short tons in 2013, an overall increase

of 13.6 percent; end‐of‐period inventories as a share of total shipments increased from ***

percent in in 2011 to *** percent in 2012 and 2013.188

As the volume and market share of subject imports rose, the domestic industry’s share

of apparent U.S. consumption fell.  The domestic industry’s share of apparent U.S. consumption

                                                       182 CR/PR at Table C‐1.

183 CR/PR at Tables III‐3; C‐1.  Capacity was 2.5 million short tons in both interim 2013 and

interim 2014.  Id.

184 CR/PR at Tables III‐3; C‐1.  Production was 1.56 million short tons in interim 2013, and 1.67

million short tons in interim 2014.  Id.

185 CR/PR at Tables III‐3; C‐1.  Capacity utilization was 61.8 percent in interim 2013, and 66.0

percent in interim 2014.  Id.

186 CR/PR at Tables VI‐1; C‐1.  Net sales were 1.5 million short tons in interim 2013, and 1.6

million short tons in interim 2014. Id.

187 CR/PR at Tables  IV‐10; C‐1.  U.S. shipments were 1.5 million short tons in interim 2013, and

1.6 million short tons in interim 2014.  Id.    188 CR/PR at Tables III‐9, C‐1.  End‐of‐period inventories were 562,035 short tons in interim 2013,

and 605,110 short tons in interim 2014.  End‐of‐period inventories as a share of total shipments were

*** percent in interim 2013 and *** percent in interim 2014.  Id.
32

declined from 90.0 percent in 2011 to 86.7 percent in 2012 and then to 84.4 percent in 2013, a

loss of 5.6 percentage points.189

The industry’s employment indicators increased during the POI, but productivity

declined between 2012 and 2013.190   

Net sales revenues increased from $4.1 billion in 2011 to $4.4 billion in 2012, and then

declined to $4.3 billion in 2013, an overall increase of 4.1 percent.191  Operating income

increased from $178.0 million in 2011 to $240.6 million in 2012, and then declined to $158.5

million in 2013, an overall decline of 11.0 percent.192  The industry’s operating income margin

increased from 4.3 percent in 2011 to 5.5 percent in 2012, and then declined to 3.7 percent in

2013.193  Capital expenditures increased during the POI, while research and development (R&D)

expenses were relatively modest and declined during the POI.194  

We find that the significant and increasing volumes of subject imports sold at lower

prices than the domestic like product led to declines in the domestic industry’s market share

throughout the POI.  Because of its lost market share, the domestic industry’s production,

capacity utilization, net sales quantities, U.S. shipments, and net sales revenues did not rise

commensurately with the increase in apparent consumption between 2011 and 2013, and its

inventories increased.  Moreover, a number of the industry’s performance indicators declined

between 2012 and 2013.  As set forth above, these included production, capacity utilization,

productivity, net sales quantities, and net sales revenues, operating income, and operating

margin.  We find that the domestic industry’s loss of market share and its inability to benefit

fully from increased demand, both as a result of subject imports, had a direct effect on the

industry’s revenues and consequently its profitability.  In a market in which demand was

                                                       189 CR/PR at Tables IV‐10; C‐1.  The domestic industry’s share of apparent U.S. consumption was

80.5 percent in interim 2013, and 77.1 percent in interim 2014. Id.

190 Employment increased from 3,966 production‐related workers (PRWs) in 2011 to 4,078 in

2012, and then to 4,183 in 2013; there were 4,087 PRWS in interim 2013, and 4,133 PRWS in interim

2014.  CR/PR at Tables III‐11; C‐1.  Hours worked increased from 8.0 million hours in 2011 to 8.3 million

hours in 2012, and then to 8.4 million hours in 2013; they were 2.0 million in interim 2013, and 2.1

million in interim 2014.  CR/PR at Tables III‐11; C‐1.  Wages paid increased from $283.8 million in 2011 to

$309.5 million in 2012, and then to $321.5 million in 2013; they were $76.1 million in interim 2013, and

$81.6 million in interim 2014.190  CR/PR at Tables III‐11; C‐1.  Productivity (in short tons per 1,000 hours)

increased from 793 in 2011 to 828 in 2012, and then declined to 810 in 2013; it was 781 in interim 2013,

and 780 in interim 2014.  CR/PR at Tables III‐11; C‐1.    191 CR/PR at Tables VI‐1; C‐1.  Net sales value was $994.6 million in interim 2013, and $1.0 billion

in interim 2014.  Id.   192 CR/PR at Tables VI‐1; C‐1.  Operating income was $33.2 million in interim 2013, and $1.7

million in interim 2014.  Id.

193 CR/PR at Tables VI‐1; C‐1.  The operating income margin was 3.3 percent in interim 2013, and

0.2 percent in interim 2014.  Id.

194 Capital expenditures increased from $54.2 million in 2011 to $83.3 million in 2012, and then

to $126.3 million in 2013; they were $21.0 million in interim 2013, and $17.0 million in interim 2014.  

CR/PR at Tables VI‐4, C‐1.  R&D expenses increased from $*** in 2011 to $*** in 2012, and then

declined to $*** in 2013; they were $*** in interim 2013, and $*** in interim 2014.  CR/PR at Table VI‐

4.   
33

increasing, the industry’s operating income declined by 11.0 percent from 2011 to 2013, and its

operating margin similarly declined.195  We accordingly find that the significant volume of

cumulated subject imports, which gained market share at the expense of the domestic industry

through significant and pervasive underselling, had a significant impact on the domestic

industry.   

In our analysis of the impact of subject imports on the domestic industry, we have taken

into account whether there are other factors that may have had an adverse impact on the

domestic industry during the POI to ensure that we are not attributing injury from other factors

to the subject imports.  Respondents have argued that the decline in steel scrap raw material

prices during the POI was responsible for any declines in domestic producers’ prices during the

POI and any adverse price effects for the domestic industry.196  However, the decline in steel

scrap raw material prices during the POI cannot explain the domestic industry’s loss of market

share to subject imports and its consequent loss of revenues.    

We have also considered the role of nonsubject imports in these investigations.  The

record indicates that subject imports gained more market share during the POI than did

nonsubject imports.  Subject imports gained *** percentage points of market share between

2011 and 2013, while nonsubject imports gained only *** percentage points in the same

period.197  Moreover, subject imports were sold at lower prices than nonsubject imports.  As

previously noted, the largest supplier of nonsubject imports during the POI was Turkish

producer/exporter Habas.  The Commission collected pricing data for Habas, which show that

product from Habas was priced higher than subject product from Turkey in 71 of 75

comparisons, and was priced higher than subject product from Mexico in 67 of 75

comparisons.198 199  Since subject imports gained more market share and were sold at lower

                                                       195 CR/PR at Table C‐1.

196 Deacero’s Prehearing Brief at 54; Deacero’s Posthearing Brief at 6‐7; Turkish Respondents’

Prehearing Brief at 22‐23; Turkish Respondents’ Posthearing Brief, Exh. 1 at 5 (response to

Commissioner Kieff).  As previously discussed, steel scrap prices declined by 14.3 percent between

January 2011 and March 2014.  See EDIS Document No. 543307.    197 Cumulated subject imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption increased from *** percent

in 2011 to *** percent in 2012, and then to *** percent in 2013. Nonsubject imports’ share of apparent

U.S. consumption increased from *** percent in 2011 to *** percent in 2012, and then to *** percent

in 2013.  CR/PR at Tables IV‐10, C‐1.   198 CR at V‐28 n.35; PR at V‐19 n.35.

199 Based on the evidence in these investigations, Vice Chairman Pinkert finds that rebar is a

commodity product for purposes of a Bratsk/Mittal Steel analysis and that price‐competitive nonsubject

imports were a significant factor in the U.S. market for rebar during the period of investigation.  He also

finds, however, that nonsubject imports would not have replaced the subject imports without benefit to

the domestic industry had the subject imports exited the market during the period.  As stated in the

text, the largest supplier of nonsubject imports during the POI was Turkish producer/exporter Habas,

and imports from Habas were priced higher than subject product in most comparisons.  Thus, any

replacement of the subject imports by nonsubject imports would generally have been at higher prices,

which would have benefited the domestic industry.
34

prices than nonsubject imports, we find that subject imports had injurious effects on the

domestic industry distinct from any effects from nonsubject imports.    

We therefore conclude, for purposes of these final determinations, that the cumulated

subject imports have had a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry.

VI. Critical Circumstances

A. Legal Standards and Party Arguments

In its final antidumping duty determination concerning rebar from Mexico200 and its final

countervailing duty determination concerning rebar from Turkey,201 Commerce found that

critical circumstances exist with respect to certain subject producers/exporters.  Because we

have determined that the domestic industry is materially injured by reason of subject imports

from Mexico and Turkey, we must further determine "whether the imports subject to the

affirmative {Commerce critical circumstances} determination ... are likely to undermine

seriously the remedial effect of the antidumping {and/or countervailing duty} order{s} to be

issued."202   

The SAA indicates that the Commission is to determine "whether, by massively

increasing imports prior to the effective date of relief, the importers have seriously undermined

the remedial effect of the order" and specifically "whether the surge in imports prior to the

suspension of liquidation, rather than the failure to provide retroactive relief, is likely to

seriously undermine the remedial effect of the order."203  The legislative history for the critical

circumstances provision indicates that the provision was designed "to deter exporters whose

merchandise is subject to an investigation from circumventing the intent of the law by

increasing their exports to the United States during the period between initiation of an

investigation and a preliminary determination by {Commerce}."204  An affirmative critical

                                                        200 On September 15, 2014, Commerce issued its final affirmative antidumping duty

determination concerning imports of rebar from Mexico, and found that critical circumstances exist with

respect to imports from the three exporters subject to separate rates and the Mexican firms subject to

the all others rate.  Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico:  Final Determination of Sales at Less

than Fair Value and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 79 Fed. Reg. 54967 (Sept.

15, 2014).  Thus, all subject imports from Mexico are subject to Commerce’s affirmative critical

circumstances determination.    201 On September 15, 2014, Commerce issued its final affirmative countervailing duty

determination concerning imports of rebar from Turkey, and found that critical circumstances did not

exist for Habas and Icdas, but did exist for all companies subject to the all others rate. Steel Concrete

Reinforcing Bar from Turkey, Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination Final Affirmative

Determination of Critical Circumstances, 79 Fed. Reg. 54963 (Sept. 15, 2014).

202 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(b)(4)(A)(ii), 1673d(b)(4)(A)(ii).

203 SAA at 877.

204 ICC Industries, Inc. v United States, 812 F.2d 694, 700 (Fed. Cir. 1987), quoting H.R. Rep. No.

96‐317 at 63 (1979), aff’g 632 F. Supp. 36 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1986). See 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(e)(2),

1673b(e)(2).
35

circumstances determination by the Commission, in conjunction with an affirmative

determination of material injury by reason of subject imports, would normally result in the

retroactive imposition of duties for those imports subject to the affirmative Commerce critical

circumstances determination for a period 90 days prior to the suspension of liquidation.

The statute provides that, in making this determination, the Commission shall consider,

among other factors it considers relevant,  

(I) the timing and the volume of the imports,

(II) a rapid increase in inventories of the imports, and

(III) any other circumstances indicating that the remedial effect of

the {order} will be seriously undermined.205

In considering the timing and volume of subject imports, the Commission's practice is to

consider import quantities prior to the filing of the petition with those subsequent to the filing

of the petition using monthly statistics on the record regarding those firms for which Commerce

has made an affirmative critical circumstances determination.206

Because the petitions were filed on September 4, 2013, we have considered data for the

six months prior to the month in which the petitions were filed (September 2013) and data for

the six months including and following that month.

    

B. Analysis

1. Mexico

Petitioner argues that the Commission should find critical circumstances with respect to

subject imports from Mexico, because subject imports from Mexico continued to increase

during the six‐month period following the filing of the petition, and there was a significant

increase in end‐of‐period inventories of subject imports from Mexico in interim 2014 relative to

interim 2013.207   

Deacero argues that the Commission should not find critical circumstances with respect

to subject imports from Mexico, which increased by only 9 percent from the six‐month period

before the filing of the petition to the six‐month period after the filing of the petition.  It states

                                                       205 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(b)(4)(A)(ii), 1673d(b)(4)(A)(ii).

206 See Lined Paper School Supplies from China, India, and Indonesia, Inv. Nos. 701‐TA‐442‐43,

731‐TA‐1095‐97,USITC Pub. 3884 at 46‐48 (Sept. 2006); Carbazole Violet Pigment from China and India,

Inv. Nos. 701‐TA‐437 and 731‐TA‐1060‐61 (Final), USITC Pub. 3744 at 26 (Dec. 2004); Certain Frozen Fish

Fillets from Vietnam, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐1012 (Final), USITC Pub. 3617 at 20‐22 (Aug. 2003).

207 Petitioner’s Prehearing Brief at 55‐56.  Petitioner states that a review of absolute import

volumes before and after the filing of the petition in September 2013 is of limited utility, since demand

for rebar is at its lowest in the fall and winter months, but does not propose an alternative time period

for analysis.  Id.
36

that the ratios of U.S. inventories of imports from Mexico to imports and to U.S. shipments

remained low and consistent with those of prior years.208    

The monthly data for subject import volume from Mexico for the six‐month periods

before and after the filing of the petition on September 4, 2013, show a small increase in

imports from Mexico subject to Commerce’s affirmative critical circumstances

determination.209  These subject imports were 170,896 short tons in the six months preceding

the filing of the petition and 186,342 short tons in the six months following the filing of the

petition, an increase of 15,446 short tons, or 9.0 percent.210  We find that this increase in

subject imports covered by Commerce’s affirmative critical circumstances determination is

insufficient to undermine seriously the remedial effect of the antidumping duty order.211   

Taken as a whole, the data on record do not show a sudden and significant increase in

imports from Mexico subject to Commerce’s critical circumstances determination subsequent

to the filing of the petition that would seriously undermine the remedial effect of the

antidumping duty order to be issued on rebar from Mexico.  We therefore make a negative

critical circumstances determination with respect to subject imports from Mexico.  

  

2. Turkey

Petitioner argues that the Commission should find critical circumstances with respect to

subject imports from Turkey.  It emphasizes that subject imports from Turkey remained

substantial in the six months following the filing of the petition, and that there was a significant

increase in end‐of‐period inventories of subject imports from Turkey in interim 2014 relative to

interim 2013.212   

Turkish Respondents assert that the volume of Turkish imports subject to the

affirmative critical circumstances determination declined in the six months after the filing of the

petition as compared to the six‐month period before the filing of the petition, and thus there

                                                       208 Deacero’s Prehearing Brief at 85‐87; Deacero’s Posthearing Brief at 11.

209 The periods considered are March‐August 2013 and September 2013‐February 2014.  CR/PR

at Tables IV‐3.   210 CR/PR at Table IV‐3.  The available data do not include monthly data for imports of subject

deformed steel wire from Mexico.  ***, id. at Table IV‐3 n.1, the availability of data for deformed steel

wire would not materially change our analysis.    211 The only available data with respect to  U.S. importers’ end‐of‐period inventories of subject

merchandise from Mexico subject to the affirmative Commerce critical circumstances determination

indicate that such inventories were *** short tons at the end of March 2013, *** short tons at year end

2013 and *** short tons at the end of March 2014. CR/PR at Tables IV‐3, VII‐9.  Inventories at the end of

March 2014 were greater by *** short tons than inventories at the end of March 2013, but this

difference was *** in relation to apparent U.S. consumption, which was 1.8 million short tons in interim

2013 and 2.0 million short tons in interim 2014.  CR/PR at Tables C‐1, C‐3.  Moreover, inventory levels

were not significantly above those reported at year end 2012.  CR/PR at Table VII‐9. 212 Petitioner’s Prehearing Brief at 55‐56.  Again, while Petitioner stated that a comparison of

import volumes before and after the filing of the petition is of limited utility, it did not propose an

alternative time period for its analysis.  Id.
37

was no surge in imports after the filing of the petition.  They also contend that there was no

rapid increase in inventories.213

The monthly data for subject imports from Turkey for the six‐month periods before and

after the filing of the petition on September 4, 2013, show that there were fewer such imports

in the six month period after the filing of the petition than in the six months prior to the filing of

the petition.214  These subject imports were *** short tons in the six months preceding the

filing of the petition and *** short tons in the six months following the filing of the petition.215

Since subject imports declined between these two periods, we do not find a massive increase in

subject imports prior to the effective date of relief.216   

Taken as a whole, the data on record do not show a sudden and significant increase in

imports from Turkey subject to Commerce’s critical circumstances determination subsequent to

the filing of the petition that would seriously undermine the remedial effect of the

countervailing duty order to be issued on rebar from Turkey.  We therefore make a negative

critical circumstances determination with respect to subject imports from Turkey.  

  

VII. Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, we determine that an industry in the United States is

materially injured by reason of subject imports of rebar from Mexico that are sold in the United

States at less than fair value and subject imports from Turkey that are subsidized by the

government of Turkey.  We also determine that critical circumstances do not exist with respect

to subject imports from Mexico and Turkey covered by Commerce’s affirmative critical

circumstances determinations.

                                                        213 Turkish Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at 38‐43; Turkish Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at

15.

214 We have used our normal method of comparing six‐month periods before and after the filing

of the petition; as previously stated, no party proposed use of any different periods.

215 CR/PR at Table IV‐4.

216 The only available data with respect to U.S. importers’ end‐of‐period inventories of subject

merchandise from Turkey subject to the affirmative Commerce critical circumstances determination

indicate that such inventories were *** short tons at the end of March 2013 and *** short tons at the

end of March 2014.  CR/PR at Table IV‐4.  Inventories at the end of March 2014 were greater by ***

short tons than inventories at the end of March 2013, but this difference was *** in relation to apparent

U.S. consumption, which was 1.8 million short tons in interim 2013 and 2.0 million short tons in interim

2014.  CR/PR at Tables C‐1, C‐3.    

I‐1

PART I: INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

These investigations result from petitions filed with the U.S. Department of Commerce

(“Commerce”) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (“USITC” or “Commission”) by the

Rebar Trade Action Coalition (“RTAC”) and its individual members: Nucor Corporation

(“Nucor”), Charlotte, North Carolina; Gerdau Ameristeel U.S. Inc. (“Gerdau”), Tampa, Florida;

Commercial Metals Company (“CMC”), Irving, Texas; Cascade Steel Rolling Mills, Inc.

(“Cascade”), McMinnville, Oregon; and Byer Steel Corporation (“Byer Steel”), Cincinnati, Ohio,

on September 4, 2013, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured and

threatened with material injury by reason of subsidized imports of steel concrete reinforcing

bar (“rebar”) 1 from Turkey, and less‐than‐fair value (“LTFV”) imports of rebar from Mexico and

Turkey. The following tabulation provides information relating to the background of these

investigations.2

   

                                                      

1 See the section entitled “The Subject Merchandise” in Part I of this report for a complete

description of the merchandise subject to these investigations. 2 Pertinent Federal Register notices are referenced in app. A, and may be found at the Commission’s

website (www.usitc.gov). A list of witnesses appearing at the hearing is presented in app. B of this

report.
I‐2

Effective date Action 

September 4, 2013 Petitions filed with Commerce and the Commission; 

institution of Commission investigation (78 FR 55755, 

September 11, 2013) 

October 2, 2013 Commerce’s notice of initiation of countervailing duty and 

antidumping duty investigations (78 FR 60831 and 78 FR 

60827, October 2, 2013) 

November 6, 2013 Commission’s preliminary determination (78 FR 68090, 

November 13, 2013) 

February 26, 2014 Commerce’s preliminary determination for Turkey CVD 

(79 FR 10771, February 26, 2014) 

April 24, 2014 Commerce’s preliminary determinations for Mexico LTFV 

(79 FR 22802, April 24, 2014) and Turkey LTFV (79 FR 

22804, April 24, 2014) 

April 24, 2014 Scheduling of final phase of Commission’s investigations 

(79 FR 31136, May 30, 2014) 

September 15, 2014 Commission’s hearing 

September 15, 2014 Commerce’s determinations for Turkey CVD (79 FR 

54963, September 15, 2014); Turkey LTFV (79 FR 

54965, September 15, 2014); and Mexico LTFV (79 FR 

54967, September 15, 2014) 

September 15, 2014 Commission’s termination of investigation for Turkey 

LTFV (79 FR 571131, September 24, 2014) 

October 14, 2014 Commission’s vote 

October 28, 2014 Commission’s views 

STATUTORY CRITERIA AND ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

Statutory criteria

Section 771(7)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the “Act”) (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)) provides

that in making its determinations of injury to an industry in the United States, the Commission‐‐ 

shall consider (I) the volume of imports of the subject merchandise, (II) the

effect of imports of that merchandise on prices in the United States for

domestic like products, and (III) the impact of imports of such

merchandise on domestic producers of domestic like products, but only in

the context of production operations within the United States; and. . .

may consider such other economic factors as are relevant to the

determination regarding whether there is material injury by reason of

imports.

Section 771(7)(C) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)) further provides that‐‐ 

In evaluating the volume of imports of merchandise, the Commission shall

consider whether the volume of imports of the merchandise, or any
I‐3

increase in that volume, either in absolute terms or relative to production

or consumption in the United States is significant.

. . .

In evaluating the effect of imports of such merchandise on prices, the

Commission shall consider whether. . .(I) there has been significant price

underselling by the imported merchandise as compared with the price of

domestic like products of the United States, and (II) the effect of imports

of such merchandise otherwise depresses prices to a significant degree or

prevents price increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to a

significant degree.

. . .

In examining the impact required to be considered under subparagraph

(B)(i)(III), the Commission shall evaluate (within the context of the

business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the

affected industry) all relevant economic factors which have a bearing on

the state of the industry in the United States, including, but not limited to

. . . (I) actual and potential decline in output, sales, market share, profits,

productivity, return on investments, and utilization of capacity, (II) factors

affecting domestic prices, (III) actual and potential negative effects on

cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to raise

capital, and investment, (IV) actual and potential negative effects on the

existing development and production efforts of the domestic industry,

including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version of the

domestic like product, and (V) in {an antidumping investigation}, the

magnitude of the margin of dumping.

Organization of report

Part I of this report presents information on the subject merchandise, subsidy/dumping

margins, and domestic like product. Part II of this report presents information on conditions of

competition and other relevant economic factors. Part III presents information on the condition

of the U.S. industry, including data on capacity, production, shipments, inventories, and

employment. Parts IV and V present the volume of subject imports and pricing of domestic and

imported products, respectively. Part VI presents information on the financial experience of

U.S. producers. Part VII presents the statutory requirements and information obtained for use

in the Commission’s consideration of the question of threat of material injury as well as

information regarding nonsubject countries.

MARKET SUMMARY

Rebar generally is used to reinforce concrete structures in construction projects. The

leading U.S. producers of rebar are Nucor, Gerdau, and CMC. The leading producers of rebar in
I‐4

subject countries include Deacero of Mexico and Icdas Celik Enerji Tersane e Ulasim Sanayi A.S.

(“Icdas”) of Turkey.3 Leading producers of rebar in nonsubject countries include the following:

ArcelorMittal Kryviy Rih of Ukraine, Byelorussian Steel Works of Belarus, Dongkuk Steel of

Korea, and Hyundai Steel of Korea. The leading U.S. importer of rebar from Mexico is Deacero,

while the leading U.S. importers of rebar from Turkey are ***, ***, and ***. The leading

nonsubject sources of rebar in 2013 were the Dominican Republic, Habas of Turkey, and Spain.

The leading U.S. importer of rebar from the Dominican Republic is ***. The leading U.S.

importer of rebar from Habas is ***. The leading U.S. importer of rebar from Spain is ***. U.S.

purchasers of product are rebar fabricators, distributors, or fabricators that also function as

distributors in some instances. The largest U.S. purchasers of rebar are ***.

Apparent U.S. consumption of rebar totaled approximately 7.7 million short tons ($4.8

billion) in 2013. Currently, nine firms are known to produce rebar in the United States. U.S.

producers’ U.S. shipments of rebar totaled 6.5 million short tons ($4.1 billion) in 2013, and

accounted for 84.4 percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and 85.6 percent by

value. U.S. imports from subject sources totaled *** short tons ($***) in 2013 and accounted

for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and *** percent by value. U.S.

imports of rebar exported by nonsubject Habas, found to be neither dumped nor subsidized,

totaled *** short tons ($***) in 2013 and accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S.

consumption by quantity and *** percent by value. U.S. imports from all other nonsubject

sources totaled 154,142 short tons ($95.8 million) in 2013 and accounted for 2.0 percent of

apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and by value.  

SUMMARY DATA AND DATA SOURCES

A summary of data collected in these investigations is presented in appendix C, tables C‐

1 through C‐4.4 Except as noted, U.S. industry data are based on questionnaire responses of

nine firms that accounted for virtually all U.S. production of rebar during 2013. U.S. imports are

based on official Commerce import data and ***.5

                                                      

3 In its final determinations, Commerce calculated a zero percent dumping margin and a de minimis

subsidy rate for Habas Sinai Ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisis A.S. (“Habas”) of Turkey. Accordingly,

Habas is treated as a nonsubject source. 4 On April 18, 2014, Commerce preliminarily determined that certain deformed steel wire products

are included in the scope of these investigations. On September 15, 2014, Commerce amended the

scope to exclude certain deformed steel wire, but include other deformed steel wire. There is ***

domestic production of non‐excluded deformed steel wire. Accordingly, summary data on non‐excluded

deformed steel wire are limited to certain imports and foreign production and are presented in app. C,

tables C‐2 through C‐4. 5 Official Commerce statistics presented in this report are for imports entered under Harmonized

Tariff Schedule of the United States (2014) (“HTSUS”) subheadings 7213.10.00 and 7214.20.00 and

statistical reporting number 7228.30.8010. Petitioners and Respondents view official Commerce

(continued...)
I‐5

PREVIOUS AND RELATED INVESTIGATIONS

In March 1964, the U.S. Tariff Commission issued an affirmative determination

concerning LTFV imports of steel reinforcing bars from Canada (investigation No. AA1921‐33).6

In February 1970, the Tariff Commission issued an affirmative determination concerning LTFV

imports of steel bars, reinforcing bars, and shapes from Australia (investigation No. AA1921‐

62).7 There are no outstanding antidumping duty orders as a result of either of these

investigations.  In August 1973, the Tariff Commission issued a negative determination

concerning LTFV imports of deformed concrete reinforcing bars of non‐alloy steel from Mexico

(investigation No. AA1921‐122).8

  

More recently, in 1997 the Commission issued a final affirmative determination

concerning LTFV imports of rebar from Turkey.9 Commerce issued an antidumping duty order

on April 17, 1997.10 In 2003, the Commission determined that revocation of the order would be

likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to a U.S. regional industry

within a reasonably foreseeable time.11 In December 2008, following partial revocation by

Commerce of the antidumping duty order with respect to four Turkish

manufacturers/exporters, the Commission issued a negative determination in its second five‐

                                                      

(...continued)

statistics as representative of U.S. imports. RTAC’s postconference brief, exh. 1, p. 36, and conference

transcript, pp. 221‐222 (Nolan and Bond).

6 Steel Reinforcing Bars from Canada, Investigation No. AA1921‐33, Tariff Commission Publication

122, March 1964. In this investigation, the Tariff Commission focused on a Pacific Northwest industry

consisting of three producers in Washington and Oregon. 7 Steel Bars, Reinforcing Bars, and Shapes from Australia, Investigation No. AA1921‐62, Tariff

Commission Publication 314, February 1970. In this investigation, the Tariff Commission also focused on

a Pacific Northwest industry consisting of three producers in Washington and Oregon.

8 Deformed Concrete Reinforcing Bars of Non‐Alloy Steel from Mexico, Investigation No. AA1921‐122,

Tariff Commission Publication 605, August 1973. In this investigation, the Tariff Commission considered

all U.S. facilities devoted to rebar production, but gave special attention to rebar facilities within and

outside Texas which produced most domestic rebar sold in that state during the years prior to the

investigation.

9 Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐745 (Final), USITC Publication 3034, April

1997. In making its determination, the Commission concluded that appropriate circumstances existed

for a regional industry analysis, with the region consisting of the U.S. producers in the “Eastern Tier.”

This region consisted of 22 contiguous states (Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia,

Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New

York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and

West Virginia), plus Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia.

10 Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey, 62 FR 18748, April

17, 1997.

11 Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐745 (Review), USITC Publication 3577,

February 2003. The Commission again defined the region as the Eastern Tier.
I‐6

year review concerning rebar from Turkey.12 Commerce published its revocation of the

antidumping duty order on rebar from Turkey on January 5, 2009, with an effective date of

March 26, 2008.13

In May and July 2001, the Commission issued affirmative determinations concerning

LTFV imports of rebar from Belarus, China, Indonesia, Korea, Latvia, Moldova, Poland, and

Ukraine.14 Commerce issued an antidumping duty order on April 17, 1997.15 In July 2007,

following affirmative determinations by Commerce,16 the Commission completed full five‐year

reviews of the subject orders.17 The Commission determined that revocation of the

antidumping duty orders on rebar from Belarus, China, Indonesia, Latvia, Moldova, Poland, and

Ukraine would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in

the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time, while revocation of the antidumping

duty order on rebar from Korea 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.18

                                                      

12 Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐745 (Second Review), USITC Publication

4052, December 2008. The Commission revisited its regional industry definition and found that

appropriate circumstances did not exist to conduct a regional industry analysis.

13 Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey, 74 FR

266, January 5, 2009. 14 Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Indonesia, Poland, and Ukraine, Inv. Nos. 731‐TA‐875, 880, and 882

(Final), USITC Publication 3425, May 2001 and Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Belarus, China, Korea,

Latvia, and Moldova, Inv. Nos. 731‐TA‐873‐874 and 877‐879 (Final), USITC Publication 3440, July 2001. In

this determination, the Commission was evenly divided regarding the issue of a regional industry. Three

Commissioners (Koplan, Okun, and Bragg) based their determinations on a regional industry analysis of a

30‐state region consisting of Wisconsin, Illinois, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana, all states east of

these states, as well as Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, and Texas, whereas three Commissioners

(Miller, Hillman, and Devaney) based their determinations on a national industry analysis.

15 Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey, 62 FR 18748, April

17, 1997.

16 Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Moldova, the People’s Republic of China, South Korea,

Indonesia, Poland, and Belarus; Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty

Orders, 71 FR 70509, December 5, 2006; Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Ukraine; Final Results of

the Sunset Review of Antidumping Duty Order, 72 FR 9732, March 5, 2007; and Steel Concrete

Reinforcing Bars from Latvia; Final Results of the Sunset Review of Antidumping Duty Order, 72 FR

16767, April 5, 2007. 17 Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Belarus, China, Indonesia, Korea, Latvia, Moldova, Poland, and

Ukraine, Inv. Nos. 731‐TA‐873‐875, 877‐880, and 882 (Review), USITC Publication 3933, July 2007. In

these first reviews, the Commission found that appropriate circumstances did not exist to conduct a

regional industry analysis, so it based its determinations on a national industry analysis.

18 Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Belarus, China, Indonesia, Korea, Latvia, Moldova, Poland, and

Ukraine: Determinations, 72 FR 42110, August 1, 2007. The Commission conducted its analysis in the

reviews on a national industry basis.
I‐7

Commerce consequently revoked the antidumping order on rebar from Korea19 and continued

the antidumping duty orders on imports of rebar from Belarus, China, Indonesia, Latvia,

Moldova, Poland, and Ukraine, effective August 9, 2007.20

In July 2012, Commerce initiated and the Commission instituted the second sunset

reviews of antidumping duty orders on imports of rebar from Belarus, China, Indonesia, Latvia,

Moldova, Poland, and Ukraine. In 2013, following affirmative determinations by Commerce,21

the Commission determined that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on rebar from

Belarus, China, Indonesia, Latvia, Moldova, Poland, and Ukraine would be likely to lead to

continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a

reasonably foreseeable time.22

PREVIOUS AND RELATED GLOBAL SAFEGUARD INVESTIGATIONS

In 2001, the Commission determined that rebar was being imported into the United

States in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of serious injury, or threat

thereof, to the domestic industry producing such articles, and recommended an additional ad

valorem duty decreasing from 10 percent to 4 percent over four years.23 On March 5, 2002,

President George W. Bush announced the implementation of steel safeguard measures. Import

relief relating to rebar consisted of an additional tariff for a period of three years and one day

(15 percent ad valorem on imports in the first year, 12 percent in the second year, and 9

percent in the third year).24 Following receipt of the Commission’s mid‐term monitoring report

in September 2003, and after seeking information from the U.S. Secretary of Commerce and

U.S. Secretary of Labor, President Bush determined that the effectiveness of the action taken

had been impaired by changed circumstances. Therefore, he terminated the U.S. measure with

respect to increased tariffs on December 4, 2003.25 On March 21, 2005, the Commission

                                                      

19 Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from South Korea: Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order, 72 FR

44830, August 9, 2007.

20 Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Belarus, Indonesia, Latvia, Moldova, the People’s Republic of

China, Poland and Ukraine: Continuation of Antidumping Duty Orders, 72 FR 44830, August 9, 2007. 21 Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Belarus, Indonesia, Latvia, Moldova, Poland, People’s Republic

of China and Ukraine: Final Results of the Expedited Second Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty

Orders, 77 FR 70140, November 23, 2012. 22 Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Belarus, China, Indonesia, Latvia, Moldova, Poland, and

Ukraine: Determinations, 78 FR 41079, July 9, 2013. The Commission conducted its analysis in the

second reviews on a national industry basis.

23 Steel; Import Investigations, 66 FR 67304, December 28, 2001.

24 Presidential Proclamation 7529 of March 5, 2002, To Facilitate Positive Adjustment to Competition

from Imports of Certain Steel Products, 67 FR 10553, March 7, 2002. The President also instructed the

Secretaries of Commerce and the Treasury to establish a system of import licensing to facilitate steel

import monitoring.

25 Presidential Proclamation 7741 of December 4, 2003, To Provide for the Termination of Action

Taken With Regard to Imports of Certain Steel Products, 68 FR 68483, December 8, 2003. Import

(continued...)
I‐8

instituted an investigation under section 204(d) of the Trade Act of 1974 for the purpose of

evaluating the effectiveness of the relief action imposed by President Bush on imports of

certain steel products. The Commission transmitted its report on the evaluation to the

President and the Congress on September 19, 2005.

NATURE AND EXTENT OF SUBSIDIES AND SALES AT LTFV

Nature of the subsidies

On September 15, 2014, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register of its

affirmative final determination of countervailable subsidies for producers and exporters of

rebar from Turkey.26 The following programs in Turkey were determined to be

countervailable:27

 Provision of Natural Gas for Less Than Adequate Remuneration (LTAR)

 Provision of Lignite for LTAR

 Rediscount Program

 Deductions from Taxable Income for Export Revenue

Table I‐1 presents Commerce’s findings with respect to imports from Turkey.

Table I-1 

Rebar: Commerce’s subsidy determinations with respect to imports from Turkey 

Producer or exporter 

Countervailable subsidy margin 

(percent) 

Preliminary1 Final2

Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. 0.78 (de minimis) 0.74 (de minimis) 

Icdas Celik Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim Sanayi A.S. 0.10 (de minimis) 1.25 

All others (de minimis) 1.25 

1 Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From the Republic of Turkey: Preliminary Negative Countervailing Duty 

Determination, Preliminary Negative Critical Circumstances Determination, and Alignment With Final 

Antidumping Determination, 79 FR 10771, February 26, 2014. 2 Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From the Republic of Turkey: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination Final Affirmative Critical Circumstances Determination, 79 FR 54963, September 15, 2014. 

                                                      

(...continued)

licensing, however, remained in place through March 21, 2005, and continues in modified form at this

time.

26 Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From the Republic of Turkey: Final Affirmative Duty Determination

Final Affirmative Critical Circumstances Determination, 79 FR 54963, September 15, 2014.

27 Commerce, International Trade Administration (ITA), Issues and Decision Memorandum for the

Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Final Critical Circumstances Determination in

the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from the Republic of Turkey,

September 8, 2014.
I‐9

Sales at LTFV

On September 15, 2014, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register of its final

affirmative determination of sales at LTFV with respect to imports from Mexico28 and its final

negative determination of sales of LTFV with respect to imports from Turkey.29 Table I‐2

presents Commerce’s dumping margins with respect to imports of product from Mexico and

Turkey.

Table I-2 

Rebar: Commerce’s weighted-average LTFV margins with respect to imports from Mexico and 

Turkey 

Country/producer or exporter 

LTFV (dumping) margin 

(percent) 

Mexico Preliminary1 Final2

Deacero S.A.P.I. de C.V. 20.59 20.58 

Grupo Acerero S.A. de C.V. 66.70 66.70 

Grupo Simec 10.66 66.70 

All others 20.59 20.58 

Turkey 

Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. 0.00 0.00 

Icdas Celik Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim Sanayi A.S. 2.64 0.00 

All others 2.64 0.00 

1 Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Mexico: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value, Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, and Postponement of Final 

Determination, 79 FR 22802, April 24, 2014; Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Turkey: Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical 

Circumstances, and Postponement of Final Determination, 79 FR 22804, April 24, 2014. 2 Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Mexico: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 79 FR 54967, September 15, 2014; Steel 

Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Turkey: Final Negative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value 

and Final Determination of Critical Circumstances, 79 FR 54965, September 15, 2014. 

                                                      

28 Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Mexico: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value

and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 79 FR 54967, September 15, 2014.

29 Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Turkey: Final Negative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value and Final Determination of Critical Circumstances, 79 FR 54965, September 15, 2014.
I‐10

THE SUBJECT MERCHANDISE

Commerce’s scope

Commerce has defined the scope of these investigations as follows:

Steel concrete reinforcing bar imported in either straight length or coil

form (“rebar”) regardless of metallurgy, length, diameter, or grade.

Specifically excluded are plain rounds (i.e., nondeformed or smooth

rebar). {...} Also excluded from the scope is deformed steel wire meeting

ASTM A1064/A1064M with no bar markings (e.g., mill mark, size or

grade) and without being subject to an elongation test.30 {...}

Tariff treatment

Based upon the scope set forth by the Department of Commerce, information available

to the Commission indicates that the merchandise subject to these investigations is imported

primarily under the following provisions of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States

(2014) (“HTS”): subheadings 7213.10.00 and 7214.20.00 and statistical reporting number

7228.30.8010.31

HTS subheading 7213.10.00 covers concrete reinforcing bars and rod, of iron or nonalloy

steel, hot‐rolled, in irregularly wound coils. HTS subheading 7214.20.00 covers straight concrete

reinforcing bars and rods, of iron or nonalloy steel, that are not further worked than forged,

hot‐rolled, hot‐drawn, or hot‐extruded, but including those twisted after rolling. HTS statistical

reporting number 7228.30.8010 covers concrete reinforcing bars of other alloy steel, not

further worked than hot‐rolled, hot‐drawn, or extruded. The general rate of duty for goods of

each of these provisions is free.

On April 18, 2014, Commerce preliminarily determined that certain deformed steel wire

products are included in the scope of these investigations.32 On September 15, 2014,

                                                      

30 Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Mexico: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value

and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 79 FR 54967, September 15, 2014.

31 According to Commerce, the subject merchandise may also be imported under other HTS

provisions that cover cold‐formed/cold‐finished or alloy bars and rods, including 7215.90.1000,

7215.90.5000, 7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0045, 7222.11.0001, 7222.11.0057, 7222.11.0059,

7222.30.0001, 7227.20.0080, 7227.90.6085 (discontinued in 2014 and replaced with 7227.90.6030,

7227.90.6035, 7227.90.6040, and 7227.90.6090), 7228.20.1000, and 7228.60.6000. These numbers are

provided for convenience and customs purposes only; the written description of the scope remains

dispositive.

32 Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination of the Less‐Than‐Fair‐

Value Investigation of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico and Turkey, Commerce Decision

Memorandum, April 18, 2014. On June 19, 2014, Petitioner requested that Commerce amend the scope

(continued...)
I‐11

Commerce amended the scope to exclude certain deformed steel wire meeting ASTM

A1064/A1064M with no bar markings (e.g., mill mark, size or grade) and without being subject

to an elongation test.33 Such deformed steel wire (i.e., meeting ASTM A1064/A1064M with bar

markings or with being subject to an elongation test) is not imported under HTS subheadings

7213.10.00 or 7214.20.00 or statistical reporting number 7228.30.8010, but rather may be

imported under HTS statistical reporting number 7217.10.5090 and subheading 7217.10.60

and, depending on the characteristics of each shipment, may be imported under other

provisions of HTS heading 7217 or 7223 (wire of stainless steel) or 7229 (wire of other alloy

steel).34

THE PRODUCT

Description and applications

Rebar

Rebar is a long‐rolled steel product that is commonly used in construction projects to

provide strength to concrete. Rebar is manufactured as either plain‐round or deformed round

bars. However, in the United States deformed rebar is used almost exclusively because it

provides greater adherence to concrete due to its ridges.35 Rebar can be shipped in either

straight lengths or coils. Coiled rebar is produced in smaller sizes than straight lengths and is

used for smaller, more complex applications.  

The construction industry is the principal consumer of rebar and uses it extensively to

reinforce concrete structures. Embedding rebar in concrete enhances the concrete’s

compressional and tensional strength and controls cracking as concrete shrinks during curing or

due to temperature fluctuations. Rebar resists tension, compression, temperature variation,

and shear stresses in reinforced concrete because the surface protrusions on a deformed bar

                                                      

(...continued)

to exclude certain types of deformed steel wire. Petitioner, Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico

and Turkey: Request to Amend Scope Language, letter to the Secretary of Commerce, June 19, 2014.

33 Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Mexico: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value

and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 79 FR 54967, September 15, 2014.

34 For more information on deformed steel wire, see the “Descriptions and applications” section of

Part I. 35 Plain‐round rebar tends to be used in concrete for special purposes, such as dowels at expansion

joints where bars must slide in a metal or paper sleeve, for contraction joints in roads and runways, and

for column spirals. Plain‐round rebar offers only smooth, even surfaces for bonding with concrete.

Because deformed rebar has greater surface contact (due to deformations) with the concrete compared

with plain‐round rebar, deformed rebar adheres to concrete better than plain‐round rebar does. In

building reinforcement applications where either deformed or plain‐round rebar in the same diameter

could be used, 40 percent more plain‐round rebar would be needed than deformed rebar. Purposes and

Types of Reinforcing Steel, found at http://www.tpub.com/steelworker2/76.htm, retrieved on October

17, 2013.
I‐12

inhibit longitudinal movement relative to the surrounding concrete. During construction

projects, rebar is placed in a form and concrete from a mixer is poured over it. Once the

concrete has set, deformation is resisted and stresses are transferred from the concrete to the

rebar by friction and adhesion along the surface of the steel. A smaller market for rebar is for

mine bolts, which hold support structures in mines.36

Rebar sold in the U.S. market is generally manufactured to conform to the test

standards of the American Society for Testing and Materials (“ASTM”) International,37 which

specify for each bar size the nominal unit weight, nominal dimensions, and deformation

requirements (dimension and spacing of deformations), as well as chemical composition,

tensile strength, yield strength (grade), and elongation tolerances.38 There are several ASTM

specifications for rebar, based on steel composition. Generally, deformed rebar of these various

ASTM specifications can be interchangeable with plain‐round rebar, except for use in seismic

areas.39

To conform to ASTM specifications, deformed rebar is identified by bar markings—

distinguishing sets of raised marks legibly rolled onto the surface of one side of the bar to

denote: (1) the producer’s hallmark, (2) mill designation, (3) size designation, (4) specification

of steel type, and (5) minimum yield designation. Guidelines for use of deformed rebar in

building construction are provided by the American Concrete Institute (ACI) 318 Code.

Guidelines for use of deformed rebar in highway and bridge construction are provided by the

American Association of State and Highway and Transportation Officials (“AASHTO”) Standard

Specifications. The contents of the two specifications are similar and are applicable throughout

the continental United States and in Puerto Rico.

Rebar is available in sizes #3 through #18, as specified by ASTM standards. These size

indicators are about eight times the respective nominal diameters in inches (e.g., 3/8‐inch bar is

                                                      

36 Petition, p. 8.   37 ASTM International is not a product testing or certification organization. Rather, manufacturers can

choose voluntarily to indicate on the label or packaging that their products have been tested according

to ASTM standards. 38 The ASTM standards apply to both deformed and plain‐round rebar, whether in straight lengths or

coiled. There are separate and non‐interchangeable standards for rebar with dimensions and

designations in English units (e.g., ASTM A615) versus SI (metric) units (e.g., ASTM A615M).

39 Deformed rebar is most commonly rolled from nonalloy billet steel to the requirements of ASTM

A615/A615M. Rebar can also be re‐rolled from the head (top) portion that has been slit from scrapped

nonalloy steel rails or re‐rolled from scrapped axles of railroad rolling stock and locomotives (ASTM

A996/A996M, deformed rebar of either rail or axle steel; ASTM A616/A616M, deformed and plain rebar

of rail steel; and A617/A617M, deformed and plain rebar of axle steel). For special applications (e.g., in

seismic areas) that require a combination of strength, weldability, ductility, and bendability, ASTM

A706/A706M (a high‐strength low‐alloy (HSLA) steel) is specified. Certain forged rebars of nonalloy or

HSLA steel are covered under ASTM A970/970M. There is also a standard for deformed and plain rebar

of stainless steel (ASTM A955/A955M) for special applications requiring corrosion resistance (e.g., for

long‐term resistance to road salts and de‐icing chemicals on bridges) or controlled magnetic

permeability (e.g., for avoiding interference with hospital imaging equipment).
I‐13

designated as size #3 and 1‐inch rebar is designated as size #8),40 although the relationship

diverges somewhat for rebar larger than size #9.41 Coiled rebar is only sold from sizes #3 to #6,

as larger sizes of rebar cannot be coiled.42 In total, rebar is available in diameters ranging from

0.375 inch (size #3) to 2.257 inches (size #18).

Certain rebar sizes and lengths tend to predominate among end uses. A considerable

portion of smaller sizes (i.e., #3‐#5) and shorter lengths (i.e., 20‐30 foot) is applied to light

construction applications (e.g., residences, swimming pools, patios, and walkways).43 By

contrast, heavy construction applications (e.g., high‐rise buildings, commercial facilities,

industrial structures, bridges, roads, etc.) use all sizes and lengths. The larger sizes (#6 and

above) and longer lengths (60 feet or more) are used almost exclusively in heavy construction

applications.44  

Rebar is shipped in either straight lengths or coils. Straight length rebar is available from

mills in various lengths, from less than 20 feet to more than 60 feet. Coiled rebar is produced in

accordance with ASTM A615 (Grades 40 and 60) and A706.45 Coiled rebar is preferred for use in

smaller applications that have more complex shapes because coiled rebar is able to run

efficiently through more complicated fabrication processes with less waste and scrap than

straight length rebar.46  

Rebar may be coated by an epoxy (a powder‐coated paint) after the manufacturing

process to enhance corrosion resistance.47 Coated rebar is used in applications where the rebar

is exposed to a high degree of salt, such as in roads, bridges and parking garages. Rebar may

also be bent in the post‐manufacturing fabrication process to reinforce the rebar joints.48

Deformed steel wire

In general, deformed steel wire is a cold‐drawn wire product used for the reinforcement

of concrete. Deformed steel wire sold in the U.S. market is manufactured to conform to the test

standards of ASTM A1064 or ASTM A496.49 ASTM A1064 covers deformed wire, plain wire (for

                                                      

40 Nominal diameters of deformed rebar are equivalent to those of plain round bars of the same unit

weight (mass) per foot (meter). 41 Rebar is also available in metric sizes, with nominal diameters from 10 millimeters (mm) to 57 mm,

as specified by ASTM standards.

42 Conference transcript, p. 179 (Noriega).

43 Hearing transcript, p. 167 (Bergren), pp. 195‐96 (Campbell), and pp. 212‐13 (Gutierrez); RTAC’s

posthearing brief, pp. 12‐13. 44 Harris Supply Solutions’ Website, Rebar Sizes #3 to #18, found at

http://www.harrissupplysolutions.com/3‐rebar.html, retrieved on October 18, 2013.   45 Conference transcript, p. 83 (Kerkvliet).

46 Conference transcript, pp. 83‐84 (Webb and Kerkvliet). 47 Conference transcript, p. 155 (Byer).

48 Conference transcript, pp. 155‐156 (Byer).

49 ASTM A1064, Steel Wire and Welded Wire Reinforcement, Plain and Deformed, for Concrete; ASTM

A494, Steel Wire, Deformed, for Concrete Reinforcement.  
I‐14

concrete), and welded wire reinforcement (mesh).50 ASTM A494 covers deformed wire.51 Each

specification specifies the nominal unit weight and dimensions, including diameter and cross‐

sectional area, deformation requirements (depth and spacing), and tension strength (tensile

and yield strength) requirements. Deformed steel wire is available in sizes D1 through D45, as

specified by ASTM A494 and A1064. The size indicators refer to the cross‐sectional area of the

wire in increments of hundredths of an inch (e.g., D1‐sized wire has a cross‐sectional diameter

of 0.010 square inches while D45‐sized wire has a cross‐sectional diameter of 0.450 square

inches). Deformed steel wire is produced in diameters ranging from 0.113 inches (wire size D1)

to 0.757 inches (wire size D45). The diameters of deformed steel wire produced in sizes D11

through D45 (0.374–0.757 inch) overlap with the diameters of rebar produced in sizes 3

through 6 (0.375–0.750 inch).  

Deformed steel wire, defined broadly, is used in a wide range of concrete reinforcing

applications. Deformed steel wire is often used to produce welded wire mesh for concrete

reinforcement. Deformed steel wires are pre‐straightened, sheared to the required length, and

welded together to form the welded wire mesh. According to industry representatives, welded

wire mesh made from deformed steel wire can substitute for rebar in certain applications.52

According to some industry estimates, 80 percent of the U.S. rebar market is in sizes that could

potentially be replaced by welded wire mesh products.53

Manufacturing processes

Rebar

Rebar mills typically specialize in producing rebar either from (1) billet steel, (2) rail

steel, or (3) axle steel, because each involves different starting materials and imposes

somewhat different rolling requirements. The most common manufacturing process to produce

rebar from billet steel consists of three stages: (1) melting steel scrap, (2) casting billets, and (3)

hot‐rolling the bar. In contrast, the manufacturing process for rebar produced from scrapped

rail or axle steel, or from purchased billets, requires only reheating these materials and hot‐

rolling the bar.  

In the United States, non‐integrated “mini‐mills” typically produce billets for rebar by

melting steel scrap in electric arc furnaces. Once molten, liquid steel is poured from the furnace

into a refractory‐lined ladle, where any necessary alloys are added to effect the required

                                                      

50 ASTM A1064 does not require bar markings or an elongation test. ASTM International,

ASTMA1064/A1054M: Steel Wire and Welded Wire Reinforcement, Plain and Deformed, for Concrete,

2009.

51 According to Deacero, ASTM A1064 replaced ASTM A496 in 2013, but the industry continues to

refer to the ASTM A496 standard. Deacero, Response to Commission staff request for information

regarding deformed steel wire, May 30, 3014.

52 For more information on deformed steel wire, see app. D.

53 AMM, “Insteel sees growth in rebar substitutes,” August 12, 2014.
I‐15

chemical and physical properties. Molten steel must be cast into billets of the size and shape

suitable for the rolling process. In the more common continuous strand‐casting process, molten

steel is poured from the ladle into a tundish (reservoir dam), which controls the rate of flow

into the molds of the caster. A solid “skin” forms around the molten steel at the top openings of

the mold, and as the columns of partially solidified steel descend through the caster, water

sprays rapidly cool the cast steel (which helps minimize compositional segregation) to the point

that the strands are completely solidified when emerging from the bottom of the caster.

Lengths of continuous‐cast billets are flame cut at intervals, and then may be either sent

directly for further processing or be cooled on a cooling bed and subsequently stored for later

use.

Prior to rolling, newly cast billets, scrapped rails or scrapped railroad axles are heated to

rolling temperature in a reheat furnace. The steel is reduced in size as it passes through

successive rolling stands. Most modern rolling mills are in‐line, and rebar of different sizes can

be produced by changing the rolls. For deformed rebar, deformations are rolled onto the

surface of the rebar as it passes through the final finishing stand, which has patterns cut into

the grooves of the rolls.54 After the rolling process, straight length rebar is cut to length before

being sent to a cooling bed to be air‐cooled. Coiled rebar, however, goes to a reforming tub,

where it is spooled and cut to the desired weights or lengths.55 Testing for tensile properties,

including an elongation test (a measure of ductility), is then performed on test specimens of

either straight length rebar or coiled rebar that is subsequently straightened prior to testing.

Rebar can be water‐quenched and tempered, rather than air‐cooled. Water‐quenching

is a cooling process used to increase tensile strength in order for the rebar to comply with

ASTM standards.56 Quenched‐and‐tempered rebar can meet the same physical property

requirements of the ASTM A615/A615M specification without the addition of certain alloys to

the steel billets that are rolled into rebar, and thus is slightly less expensive to produce. In this

process (the Thermex process),57 hot‐rolled rebar passes through a water‐quenching stand (a

series of water coolers), which rapidly cools the outer case of the rebar, before the final

finishing process. The quench‐and‐temper treatment causes a dual metallurgical structure to

form in the cross‐section of the bar, producing a rebar with a stronger outer case and a more

ductile core.  

Some U.S. rebar producers produce additional products using the same equipment,

machinery, and production workers that are used to produce rebar, namely merchant bar,

special‐bar quality (SBQ) bar products, and wire rod. Merchant bar products include bars with

round, square, flat, angled, and channeled cross sections, and are used by fabricators and

                                                      

54 When rolling plain rebar with uniformly smooth surfaces rather than with deformations, smooth‐

grooved rolls are substituted in the final finishing stand. 55 Conference transcript, p. 137 (Kerkvliet).

56 Conference transcript, p. 157 (Porter). 57 Thermex refers to both the water‐quench and tempering process, as well as the mill equipment

used to produce rebar through this process. The Thermex process was developed and branded by

Germany engineering firm Hennigsdorfer Stahl Engineering (HSE) in the 1970s.
I‐16

manufacturers to produce a variety of products, including steel floor and roof joists, safety

walkways, ornamental furniture, stair railings, and farm equipment.58 SBQ bar products are

made from higher‐quality carbon and alloy steels that have greater mechanical properties,

metallurgical consistency, and dimensional accuracy than do merchant bar products. SBQ is

principally used to produce automotive components. Wire rod (delivered in coil form) is used

by manufacturers to provide a variety of products, such as chain‐link fencing, nails, and wire.59

SBQ bar products are typically priced highest, followed by merchant bar, wire rod, and rebar.60

Deformed steel wire

Deformed steel wire is produced from hot‐rolled steel wire rod, the primary material

input. Wire rod is first cleaned and descaled to remove any dirt or mill scale. Cleaning and

descaling are accomplished chemically using a strong acid, or mechanically using abrasives. The

cleaned and descaled wire rod is then coated with zinc phosphate, a lubricant to aid in the

drawing process, and cold‐drawn through a series of drawing dies to reduce the cross‐sectional

area. At the end of the drawing process, negative deformations (indentations) are rolled onto

the surface of the wire at specified depths and dimensions in two or more lines spaced

uniformly around the wire. The indentations increase the adherence of the wire to the

concrete.

DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT

In its comments to Commerce regarding the scope of these investigations, Mexican

respondent Deacero asserted that two of its product families—namely, certain deformed steel

wire products—should be excluded from the scope.61 Deacero argued that the scope of these

investigations is defined to cover steel concrete reinforcing bar and not deformed steel wire

used to reinforce concrete. Deacero further contended that steel wire is cold‐drawn from wire

rod, while rebar is manufactured directly from steel billet using a hot‐rolled process. Deacero

stated that the products in question are primarily used to manufacture certain welded wire

products (such as welded wire mesh and welded wire reinforcement mats) and to a lesser

extent, used as substitutes for rebar. Petitioner argued that the products in question should be

                                                      

58 Schnitzer Steel, “Products,” (available at

http://www.schnitzersteel.com/steel_manufacturing_products.aspx, retrieved September 27, 2013).   59 Schnitzer Steel, “Products,” (available at

http://www.schnitzersteel.com/steel_manufacturing_products.aspx, retrieved September 27, 2013).

60 According to ***, average U.S. spot prices in August 2014 were $*** per short ton for merchant

bar, $*** per short ton for wire rod, and $*** per short ton for rebar (*** does not collect specific

pricing data on SBQ products). ***.   61 Deacero, letter to Secretary Pritzker, October 31, 2013, referenced as attachment 1 to letter to

Secretary Barton, May 30, 2014.
I‐17

covered by the scope of these investigations.62 Petitioner contended that Deacero’s alleged

distinctions are all irrelevant based upon the language of the scope.

On April 18, 2014, Commerce preliminarily determined that certain deformed steel wire

products are included in the scope of these investigations.63 On September 15, 2014,

Commerce amended the scope to exclude certain deformed steel wire meeting ASTM

A1064/A1064M with no bar markings (e.g., mill mark, size or grade) and without being subject

to an elongation test.64 Two firms identified as producers of deformed steel wire, broadly

defined, (Insteel and Tree Island Wire) provided responses to the Commission’s U.S. producer

questionnaire, and provided usable data on their production operations. Two firms identified as

producers of rebar also reported producing deformed steel wire, broadly defined, (Gerdau and

Nucor), and provided usable data on their production operations. None of these firms reported

producing deformed steel wire meeting ASTM A1064 with bar markings or with being subject to

an elongation test.65 Accordingly, there is no reported domestic production of deformed steel

wire that falls within Commerce’s scope. Nonetheless, Petitioner argues that for purposes of

the Commission’s domestic like product analysis, the Commission should include deformed

steel wire found to be within Commerce’s scope.66 Deacero argues that despite the amended

scope definition, deformed steel wire not meeting Commerce’s scope definition (“non‐scope

deformed steel wire”) is a separate like product, and requests that the Commission find that

non‐scope deformed steel wire is a separate like product, and that the domestic industry

producing non‐scope deformed steel wire is neither materially injured nor threated with

material injury by reason of subject imports.67 For a discussion of deformed steel wire, broadly

defined, and the Commission’s decision regarding the appropriate domestic product(s) that are

“like” the subject imported product, see appendix D.

                                                      

62 Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination of the Less‐Than‐Fair‐

Value Investigation of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico and Turkey, Commerce Decision

Memorandum, April 18, 2014.

63 Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination of the Less‐Than‐Fair‐

Value Investigation of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico and Turkey, Commerce Decision

Memorandum, April 18, 2014.

64 Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Mexico: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value

and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 79 FR 54967, September 15, 2014.

65 RTAC’s posthearing brief, exh. 1, p. 51; email from *** to Commission staff, dated September 17,

2014; email from *** to Commission staff, dated September 12, 2014.

66 RTAC’s posthearing brief, exh. 1, p. 49.

67 Deacero’s posthearing brief, p. 59 (response to Commission staff question 1).

II‐1

PART II: CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION IN THE U.S. MARKET

U.S. MARKET CHARACTERISTICS

The primary use of rebar is concrete reinforcement. As a result, the U.S. market for

rebar is tied closely to U.S. construction activity. Major end‐use products requiring rebar

include roads and bridges, commercial and industrial construction, residential construction, and

public construction.

While some manufactured rebar is used in construction applications with no further

processing, a large share is sold to fabricators that further process the rebar, using it to create

forms used in construction. The three largest U.S. producers, CMC, Gerdau, and Nucor, as well

as Byer, own purchasing firms that operate as fabricators and distributors. These purchasing

firms obtain rebar for fabrication or distribution from their parent companies and in some cases

from other producers and import suppliers.  

U.S. PURCHASERS  

Purchaser questionnaires were sent to 84 firms identified by producers and importers as

among their ten largest purchasers.1 Twenty‐eight purchasers provided usable questionnaire

responses. The largest responding purchasers, by far, are ***, each of which accounted for

more than *** percent of all purchases reported by the responding purchasers in 2013.

Together, these three largest purchasers accounted for *** percent of all reported purchases in

2013.2 Eleven purchasers are solely end users,3 eight are solely distributors, and eight are both

distributors and end users.4 Four purchasers are related to U.S. producers: CMC, Gastrich

(Byer), Gerdau, and Harris Supply (Nucor). Purchases by these related firms (including internal

transfers) represented *** percent of all rebar bought by responding purchasers in 2013.5 Six

purchasers reported purchasing deformed steel wire as well as rebar, while 21 rebar purchasers

reported no purchases of deformed steel wire.

 

1 ***.

2 None of the other responding purchasers accounted for as much as *** percent of the reported

purchases in 2013.

3 The questionnaire requested that both fabricators and construction companies identify themselves

as end users. 4 Purchasers that were both fabricators and distributors include: ***. 5 These four firms purchased *** percent of all U.S. apparent consumption of rebar, *** percent of

U.S shipments of U.S.‐produced rebar, *** percent of U.S. imports of Mexican rebar, *** percent of U.S.

imports of Turkish (including Habas) rebar, and *** percent of U.S. imports of rebar from other

countries in 2013. However, this ***.
II‐2

CHANNELS OF DISTRIBUTION

U.S. producers’ sales were more likely to be to firms that were both distributors and end

users than to firms that were only end users; sales to firms that were only distributors were

least common.6 Importers of rebar from Mexico and Turkey sold mainly to distributors (tables

II‐1 and II‐2).7 Imports from other sources mainly were sold to purchasers that were both

distributors and end users in 2011 and 2012, but were mainly to distributors in 2013 and

January‐March 2014. As shown in table II‐3, the largest volume of shipments in each period was

to distributors/end users, followed by shipments to distributors, and finally by shipments to

end users without distribution arms.

As presented in table II‐4, purchasers reported the sources of the rebar they purchased.  

All but two purchasers reported purchasing U.S.‐produced rebar; only *** did not purchase

U.S.‐produced product. Four of 11 end users, 7 of 8 distributors, 2 of 4 independent end

users/distributors, and 2 of 4 related end users/distributors reported purchasing Mexican

rebar.8 Three of 11 end users, 7 of 8 distributors, 3 of 4 independent end users/distributors, 2

of 4 related end users/distributors, and *** reported purchasing Turkish rebar.9

 

6 These results were generally, but not entirely, consistent with reporting in prior proceedings.

Compare USITC Publications 4409, 4052, and 3933. 7 ***. E‐mail correspondence, ***, September 29, 2014.   8 ***.

9 Purchasers were not asked to report purchases from Habas separately from product from other

Turkish sources so this includes purchases from Habas.
II‐3

Table II-1 

Rebar: Shares of U.S. producers’ and importers’ U.S. shipments, by sources and channels of 

distribution, by shares, 2011-13, January-March 2013, and January-March 2014 

Item 

Period 

Calendar year January-March 

2011 2012 2013 2013 2014 

 Share of reported shipments (percent) 

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of rebar: 

 Distributors 19.4 18.7 19.7 20.3 18.5 

 End users 28.8 29.2 28.5 27.8 29.6 

 Firms that are both 

distributors and end users 51.9 52.2 51.8 51.9 51.9 

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of rebar from Mexico: 

 Distributors1 *** *** *** *** *** 

 End users *** *** *** *** *** 

 Firms that are both 

distributors and end users1

 *** *** *** *** *** 

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of rebar from Turkey (excluding Habas): 

 Distributors *** *** *** *** *** 

 End users *** *** *** *** *** 

 Firms that are both 

distributors and end users *** *** *** *** *** 

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of rebar from Turkey (Habas): 

 Distributors *** *** *** *** ***

 End users *** *** *** *** ***

 Firms that are both 

distributors and end users *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of rebar from all other countries: 

 Distributors *** *** *** *** *** 

 End users *** *** *** *** *** 

 Firms that are both 

distributors and end users *** *** *** *** *** 

Total 

 Distributors 27.0 27.1 29.7 27.7 32.5

 End users 25.9 26.3 25.2 25.7 24.6

 Firms that are both 

distributors and end users 47.1 46.7 45.2 46.6 42.8

1

 ***.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 
II‐4

Table II-2 

Rebar: U.S. producers’ and importers’ U.S. shipments, by sources and channels of distribution, 

Quantities in short tons, 2011-13, January-March 2013, and January-March 2014 

Item 

Period 

Calendar year January-March 

2011 2012 2013 2013 2014 

 Quantities of reported shipments (short tons) 

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of rebar: 

 Distributors 1,139,821 1,196,505 1,285,705 301,378 285,842

 End users 1,692,509 1,870,642 1,858,208 413,229 456,740

 Firms that are both 

distributors and end users 3,050,916 3,344,228 3,376,861 771,232 802,624

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of rebar from Mexico: 

 Distributors1 *** *** *** *** ***

 End users *** *** *** *** ***

 Firms that are both 

distributors and end users1

 *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of rebar from Turkey (excluding Habas): 

 Distributors *** *** *** *** ***

 End users *** *** *** *** ***

 Firms that are both 

distributors and end users *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of rebar from Turkey (Habas): 

 Distributors *** *** *** *** ***

 End users *** *** *** *** ***

 Firms that are both 

distributors and end users *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of rebar from all other countries: 

 Distributors *** *** *** *** ***

 End users *** *** *** *** ***

 Firms that are both 

distributors and end users *** *** *** *** ***

Total 

 Distributors 1,779,072 1,966,254 2,246,679 460,964 619,107

 End users 1,703,782 1,905,368 1,906,253 428,299 469,153

 Firms that are both 

distributors and end users 3,101,922 3,386,268 3,421,123 776,253 815,125

1

 ***.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 
II‐5

Table II-3 

Rebar: U.S. producers’ and importers’ U.S. shipments, by channels of distribution and source, 

quantities in short tons, 2011-13, January-March 2013, and January-March 2014 

Item 

Period 

Calendar year January-March 

2011 2012 2013 2013 2014 

 Quantities of reported shipments (short tons) 

Sales to distributors: 

 U.S. producers 1,139,821 1,196,505 1,285,705 301,378 285,842

 Mexico1 *** *** *** *** ***

 Turkey (excluding 

Habas) *** *** *** *** ***

Total subject *** *** *** *** *** 

 Turkey (Habas) *** *** *** *** ***

 Other countries *** *** *** *** ***

Total 1,779,072 1,966,254 2,246,679 460,964 619,107 

Sales to end users: 

 U.S. producers 1,692,509 1,870,642 1,858,208 413,229 456,740

 Mexico *** *** *** *** ***

 Turkey (excluding 

Habas) *** *** *** *** ***

Total subject *** *** *** *** *** 

 Turkey (Habas) *** *** *** *** ***

 Other countries *** *** *** *** ***

Total 1,703,782 1,905,368 1,906,253 428,299 469,153 

Sales to firms that are both distributors and end users: 

 U.S. producers 3,050,916 3,344,228 3,376,861 771,232 802,624

 Mexico1 *** *** *** *** ***

 Turkey (excluding 

Habas) *** *** *** *** ***

Total subject *** *** *** *** ***

 Turkey (Habas) *** *** *** *** ***

 Other countries *** *** *** *** ***

Total 3,101,922 3,386,268 3,421,123 776,253 815,125

Sales total:

 U.S. producers 5,883,246 6,411,375 652,0774 1,485,839 1,545,206 

 Mexico *** *** *** *** *** 

 Turkey (excluding 

Habas) *** *** *** *** *** 

Total subject *** *** *** *** *** 

 Turkey (Habas) *** *** *** *** *** 

 Other countries *** *** *** *** *** 

Total 6,584,776 7,257,890 7,574,055 1,665,516 1,903,385 

1

 ***.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 
II‐6

Table II-4 

Rebar: Sources of rebar purchased in 2011 through 2013 reported by purchasers, by type of 

purchaser 

* * * * * * * 

Purchasers were asked if their suppliers compete with them by selling to their

customers. Most of the responding purchasers (13 of 24) reported that they did compete with

their suppliers. All eight responding distributor/end users reported competing with their

suppliers (including ***), with six further indicating:

 ***;  

 ***;  

 ***;  

 ***;  

 (***) reported competition with ***, and  

 (***) reported competition at ***.

Three of eight responding distributors reported competition with their suppliers, reporting:

 one (***) reported that this occurred when customers need to manage cash flow or

*** did not have enough material to cover the purchasers needs;  

 *** reported that it sold to accounts to which domestic mills and trading companies

also sell; and  

 *** reported that its customers “occasionally contact our sources directly for

quotation” and each of its “suppliers from time to time will sell a *** customer

material in competition.”  

Two of the seven responding end users reported competing with their suppliers, reporting:

 *** reported that *** reported “***;” and  

 *** reported competition with mill‐owned fabrication shops.10  

Purchasers’ major customers

Purchasers were asked to report the “major types of customers to which ...{they} sell

rebar.” Twenty‐two purchasers responded, including five purchasers that reported that they

were end users, all eight firms that reported they were distributors, eight firms that reported

that they were end user/distributors, and ***.  

End users reported selling to: “***;” “general contractors and sub‐contractors;”

“commercial contractors, residential contractors, highway construction contractors, and we sell

to the general public also;” “contractors;” and “commercial construction companies, general

contractors, and home builders.”

 

10 One purchaser ***.
II‐7

Distributors reported selling to: “pre‐casters, fabricators, home improvement

warehouses, lumber yards, wholesalers;” “rebar fabricators; precast concrete manufacturers;

concrete construction suppliers (retail);” “lumber yards, distributors, some end users;” “retail

lumber yards;” “hardware and contractors;” “retail lumber yards, fabrication shops, pre‐casters

and masonry centers;” “rebar fabricators, pre‐casters, national home retail centers, lumber

dealers, professional (pro) dealers, pool manufacturers;” and “lumberyards, concrete/masonry

suppliers.”

Independent end users/distributors reported selling to: “fabricators, pre‐casters,

building material companies;” “construction supply houses, pre‐casters, and fabricators;”

“concrete yards, lumber yards, building material dealers, pool supply yards, precast

manufacturers, smaller fabricators;” and “other fabricators and contractors and other

distributors.”

Related end users/distributors reported selling to: “our distribution customers are small

contractors, pool builders, local lumber yards, etc.,” “brokers, construction supply companies,

and rebar fabrication companies,” “contractors, lumber yards, pool companies, precast

suppliers, rental yards, service centers,” and “general contractors, concrete subcontractors,

other distributors.”

Mexican respondents contend that domestic and imported rebar are concentrated in

different sectors of the U.S. market.11 They report that imports are largely unable to sell to

fabricators because fabricators prefer longer rebar.12 Deacero, in particular, reports that it is

unable to make rebar longer than 42 feet.13 Mexican respondents also reported that their rebar

generally is more likely to be used in residential construction because it is sold in shorter

lengths and is more likely be fabricated on the building site rather than be fabricated by a

fabricator.14 As a result, Mexican respondents claim that one of the reasons that consumption

of Mexican product has grown more rapidly than that for U.S.‐produced rebar is that residential

construction has grown more rapidly than other types of construction.15 Respondents further

contend that U.S. producers’ related downstream end users/distributors help insulate the U.S.

producers from import competition.16  

RTAC, however, disagrees with these characterizations of the market. It states that U.S

producers sell both to fabricators and distributors; sell in the residential and nonresidential

 

11 Mexican respondents also claim that the amount of rebar that U.S. producers have reported that

they sell in the channels of distribution differs from what they reported in the latest Commission review

of rebar. Mexican respondent’s posthearing brief, responses to Commissioners’ questions p. 16. In 2011

and 2012 over 30 percent of sales were reportedly to distributors while less than 1 percent of their sales

were reportedly to distributor/end‐users. Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Belarus, China, Indonesia,

Latvia, Moldova, Poland, and Ukraine, Inv. Nos. 731‐TA‐873‐875, 877‐880, and 882 (Second Review),

USITC Publication 4409, July 2013 (Table II‐1). 12 Hearing transcript, pp. 155‐157 (Bazan).

13 Hearing transcript, p. 150 (Gutierrez). 14 Hearing transcript, p. 161 (Bergren).

15 Hearing transcript, p. 202 (Campbell).

16 Hearing transcript, p. 272 (Campbell).
II‐8

construction markets; and sell all sizes, lengths, and grades. It argues that “there are no clean or

isolated channels of distribution.”17 In addition, product sold to distributors may be sold by

these distributors to fabricators; and that “there is no separate market for 20, 40 or 60 foot

rebar. It is simply a matter of convenience in terms of the rebar length.”18

There is some overlap of sales between customers of importers and those of the U.S.

producers. Importers listed 66 different purchasers.19 These purchasers overlapped with

purchasers reported by the producers in 41 instances, and 13 separate purchasers were

reported to be among the 10 largest purchasers by both one or more U.S. producer and one or

more importer.  

Regional sales

U.S. producers reported selling rebar to all regions in the contiguous United States

(table II‐5).20 Importers in aggregate also sell to all regions of the contiguous United States;

however, those selling rebar from Mexico reported that they did not sell into the Northeast,

and those selling rebar from Turkey did not sell into the Mountain and Pacific Coast regions.

Firms were also asked if they sold rebar in Puerto Rico, and if they did how much they sold in

Puerto Rico. Firms selling to Puerto Rico included ***,21 ***,22 ***, and ***. With respect to

rebar sold in Puerto Rico since 2011, ***.23

 

17 Hearing transcript, pp. 44‐45 (Alvarado).

18 Hearing transcript, pp. 60‐61 (Melvin).

19 Many of these were listed by multiple importers, with a total of 122 responses listed including

duplicates.   20 Four of eight responding U.S. producers reported selling to all regions of the contiguous United

States. Every region in the contiguous United States had at least six U.S. suppliers. 21 ***. 22 ***. ***.   23 ***. E‐mail from ***, August 5, 2014.
II‐9

Table II-5 

Rebar: Geographic market areas in the United States served by U.S. producers and importers, by 

number of responding firms 

Region U.S. producers Mexico Turkey 

Nonsubject 

Imports 

Northeast 8 0 9 0 

Midwest 8 6 6 0 

Southeast 8 2 10 1 

Central Southwest 6 9 11 1 

Mountain 6 6 0 0 

Pacific Coast 6 6 0 0 

Puerto Rico 2 1 3 2 

Other1 4 1 1 0 

1

 All other U.S. markets, including AK, HI, and VI, among others. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

Shipping distances

Table II‐6 presents the distances U.S. producers and importers shipped rebar in 2013.

U.S. producers reported that most of their sales were within 250 miles of their point of

shipment. Most imports from Turkey are sold within 100 miles of point of shipment and most

imports from Mexico are shipped between 101 and 250 miles.

Table II-6 

Rebar: Distances transported by share of sales, 2013 

Distance U.S. producers 

Importers of rebar 

from Mexico 

Importers of rebar 

from Turkey 

100 miles or less 31.5 14.5 79.4 

101 to 250 miles 22.5 51.8 10.5 

251 to 500 miles 24.2 31.6 6.5 

501 to 1,000 miles 17.3 1.3 3.6 

Over 1,000 miles 4.5 0.7 0.0 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS

U.S. supply

Domestic production

Based on available information, U.S. producers have the ability to respond to changes in

demand with moderate to large changes in the quantity of shipments of U.S.‐produced rebar to

the U.S. market. The main factors contributing to this ability for supply to respond to changes in

demand are excess capacity, some available inventories, and the ability to switch to and from

producing other products on the same equipment.
II‐10

Industry capacity

U.S. producers’ production capacity increased between 2011 and 2013, rising from 9.6

million short tons to 9.9 million short tons. Production increased irregularly from 6.3 million

short tons in 2011 to 6.8 million short tons in 2013. As a result, capacity utilization increased

irregularly from 65.7 percent in 2011 to 68.4 percent in 2013. This relatively low level of

capacity utilization suggests that U.S. producers may have substantial capacity to increase

production of rebar in response to an increase in prices.  

Alternative markets

U.S. producers’ exports as a percentage of total shipments decreased from *** percent

in 2011 to *** percent in 2013, indicating that U.S. producers may have a limited ability to shift

shipments into the U.S. market from other markets in response to price changes. U.S.

producers exported rebar to Canada, the Caribbean, Central America, and Mexico.  

Inventory levels

U.S. producers’ ratio of inventories to total shipments increased from *** percent at the

end of 2011 to *** percent by the end of 2013. Inventories are relatively low, even though U.S.

producers report that *** percent of their sales are from inventories. These levels of

inventories suggest that U.S. producers may have some limited ability to use inventories to

respond to price changes.  

Production alternatives

Eight of nine responding U.S. producers reported producing other products using the

same equipment, machinery, and workers, including: merchant bar, SBQ bar, wire rod, pencil

rod, T‐stock, round bar, smooth rounds for grinding balls, light sections, and rod coils.24 All

responding U.S. producers reported that their ability to shift was limited by either factors

affecting the plants’ capacity, or demand for products.

Subject imports from Mexico

Based on available information, producers of rebar from Mexico have the ability to

respond to changes in demand with moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of rebar to

the U.S. market. The main contributing factors to the moderate degree of supply

responsiveness are the availability of unused capacity, the existence of some alternate markets,

and the ability to produce alternate products.

 

24 None of the nine rebar producers reported producing deformed steel wire on shared equipment.
II‐11

Industry capacity

Reported rebar capacity in Mexico increased from *** short tons in 2011 to *** short

tons in 2013. Capacity utilization increased from *** percent in 2011 to *** percent in 2012

and then decreased to *** percent in 2013. Thus, the rebar industry in Mexico has some excess

capacity that might be available to use to increase shipments to the United States.

Alternative markets

Most rebar shipments by the industry in Mexico were to the home market (*** percent

in 2011, falling to *** percent in 2013). Exports to markets other than the United States

increased from *** percent in 2011 to *** percent in 2013, accounting for most of the

decrease in home market shipments. Mexican producers’ main export markets are ***. The

rebar industry in Mexico therefore would have some rebar available that could be sold into the

U.S. market.

Inventory levels

The Mexican industry’s rebar inventories as a share of total shipments increased

irregularly from *** percent in 2011 to *** percent in 2013. This indicates that the industry in

Mexico may have a somewhat limited ability to shift sales to the United States from

inventories.

Production alternatives

Mexican producers reported producing more than 3 million short tons of alternative

products (mainly ***) in their facilities. Thus Mexican producers may have the ability to

increase sales to the U.S. market by shifting production to rebar from alternative products.

Supply constraints

Five Mexican producers reported supply constraints, including: the availability of

Mexican iron ore and scrap or raw materials, as well as limits caused by the capacity constraints

of their cooling beds, furnaces, reheat furnaces, and rolling speed.25

Subject imports from Turkey (excluding Habas)

Based on available information, producers of rebar from Turkey (other than Habas) have

the ability to respond to changes in demand with limited‐to‐moderate changes in the quantity

of shipments of rebar to the U.S. market. The main contributing factors to the limited‐to‐

 

25 Firms reported that capacity was also affected by the size of the billets used, rebar mix, and the

diameter of the rebar produced. Capacity in terms of tons is lower for smaller diameter rebar.
II‐12

moderate degree of supply responsiveness are the existence of alternate markets, and the

ability to produce alternate products.

Industry capacity

The subject Turkish industry’s rebar capacity increased from *** short tons to *** short

tons between 2011 and 2013. Capacity utilization increased from *** percent in 2011 to ***

percent in 2013. Thus the rebar industry in Turkey has limited excess capacity available that

might be used to increase shipments to the United States.

Alternative markets

The majority of shipments of subject Turkish rebar producers were to export markets,

primarily other than the United States. The percentage of such shipments increased irregularly

from *** percent of total shipments in 2011 to *** percent in 2013, while exports to the U.S.

market increased from *** percent of total shipments in 2011 to *** percent in 2013. Thus, the

rebar industry in Turkey may be able to shift sales from other export markets to the U.S.

market.

Inventory levels

Subject Turkish inventories as a share of total shipments were relatively low, but

increased from *** percent to consistently *** percent during 2011‐13. This indicates that the

Turkish rebar industry may have a limited ability to shift sales to the United States from

inventories.

Production alternatives

Subject Turkish producers reported *** to *** short tons of production of alternative

products in 2011‐13. Their production of alternative products decreased from *** percent of

total overall production in 2011 to *** percent in 2013. Thus, subject Turkish producers may

have some ability to increase sales to the U.S. market by shifting production to rebar from

alternative products.

Supply constraints

Subject Turkish producers reported supply constraints which included maintenance,

length, width, and size breakdowns.26

 

26 ***.
II‐13

Imports from nonsubject sources

Habas was the largest nonsubject source of U.S. imports during 2013, accounting for ***

percent of all nonsubject imports. The next largest sources were Spain and Dominican Republic,

accounting for *** and *** percent of nonsubject imports respectively.  

New suppliers  

Eight of 27 purchasers indicated that new suppliers entered the U.S. market since 2011.

Purchasers cited Deacero, Fonderia, and Gasa (Mexico); Colakoglu Metalurji (Turkey); Tata

Steel, Traxys, Intermetal27 (import sources unclear); and Korea, Japan, Peru, Portugal, Spain,

and Taiwan (no company listed).

U.S. demand

Based on available information, it is likely that changes in the price level of rebar would

result in small changes in the quantity of rebar demanded. The main contributing factors to the

small degree of responsiveness of demand is the limited substitutability of other products for

rebar and its relatively small cost share in its major uses.

The overall U.S. demand for rebar is driven by the U.S. economy, nonresidential

construction spending and, to a lesser extent, residential construction spending. The aggregate

U.S. economy, as measured by percentage changes in the gross domestic product, has

fluctuated between a low of ‐2.1 percent in the first quarter of 2014 to a high of 4.6 percent in

the fourth quarter of 2011 (figure II‐1).

 

 

27 The purchaser did not specify if the source were ***. ***.
II‐14

Figure II-1

Percent changes in real gross domestic product (GDP) growth, by quarters, January 2011 - June 

2014 

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce. 

The primary factor influencing rebar demand, nonresidential construction spending,

increased unevenly from January 2011 through November 2012. After a decline in January

2013, total nonresidential construction resumed an uneven increase (figure II‐2).  

Nonresidential construction is highly seasonal (figure II‐3). Construction demand is lowest at

the end of each year and the beginning of the following year; this reduces rebar demand in the

fall and winter. Respondents, however, reported that residential construction is also an

important source of demand and these types of projects are more likely to use imported

rebar.28 Residential construction increased from January 2011 through June 2014 and is also

highly seasonal. Between January 2011 and June 2014, residential construction increased by

43.7 percent while nonresidential construction increased by 16.2 percent.

 

 

28 Hearing transcript, p. 154 (Gutierrez).

‐3.0

‐2.0

‐1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

2011 2012 2013 2014

Percentage change

Gross domestic product
II‐15

Figure II-2 

Construction spending: Monthly total non-residential and residential construction, value in 

billions of dollars, annualized, seasonally adjusted, January 2011 - June 2014 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Manufacturing, Mining and Construction Statistics, Construction Spending. 

http://www.census.gov/econ/currentdata.

Figure II-3 

Construction spending: Nonresidential and residential construction, not seasonally adjusted, 

value in billions of dollars monthly, January 2011 - June 2014 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Manufacturing, Mining and Construction Statistics, Construction Spending. 

http://www.census.gov/econ/currentdata.

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2011 2012 2013 2014

Billions of dollars

Nonresidential construction Residential construction

10

20

30

40

50

60

2011 2012 2013 2014

Billions of dollars

Nonresidential Residential
II‐16

Respondents contend that fabricators prefer the longer lengths of rebar not offered by

Deacero or other importers.29 Fabricated rebar is typically focused on nonresidential

construction, while imported rebar is more accepted in residential construction.30 Residential

construction is more likely to use the 20‐foot rebar lengths Deacero typically exports.31 Thus,

respondents believe the larger increase in residential construction has led to the greater

increase in apparent consumption of imported rebar compared to domestically produced rebar.

In contrast, petitioner reported rebar is a “highly standardized product,” and that

imported rebar from Mexico and Turkey is sold in the same sizes, lengths, and grades as

domestically produced rebar and is used interchangeably. U.S.‐produced rebar is used in both

residential and nonresidential construction. U.S. producers supply the majority of product

distributors purchase and there is “no clean or isolated” channel of distribution.32

End uses

U.S. demand for rebar depends on the demand for U.S.‐produced downstream

products. Reported end uses include construction (commercial, nonresidential, public, private,

residential, roads and bridges), downstream rebar products (stirrups, mine roof bolts, spirals,

and bar supports), and other uses such as ***.

Business cycles

Six of 8 responding U.S. producers, 6 of 16 responding importers, and 16 of 24

responding purchasers indicated that the rebar market was subject to business cycles following

construction cycles or cycles caused by the weather. Six U.S. producers, four importers, and

seven purchasers reported that there were other conditions of competition affecting the rebar

market as well including: highly competitive imports, “Buy American” provisions, more trading

companies, and oversupply.

Seven producers reported changes in business cycles or conditions; five reported

continued unusually low demand from the 2008 recession. Other differences included

competition from imports and other U.S. producers, low sales and low profitability, and shifts in

government spending (first increasing in response to the recession and then declining due to

budget concerns). Five importers reported changes in business cycles or conditions including:

an “unusually slow” recovery from the recession, recovery from the recession (generally),

changes in raw material supply and demand, increased construction and oversupply, and more

trading companies selling imported rebar.33 Eleven purchasers reported changes including:

 

29 Hearing transcript, p. 156 (Bazan).

30 Hearing transcript, p. 154 (Gutierrez).

31 Hearing transcript, p. 157 (Bazan).

32 Hearing transcript, pp. 42‐45 (Alvarado).

33 ***.
II‐17

excess supply; increased imports; producers acting as fabricators thus cutting out independent

fabricators; continued recession; and the need to purchase imports to be competitive.34

Apparent consumption

Apparent U.S. consumption of rebar increased during 2011‐13 from 6.5 million short

tons in 2011 to 7.7 million short tons in 2013. Overall, the quantity of apparent U.S.

consumption was 18.2 percent higher in 2013 than in 2011. Apparent U.S. consumption was

also 8.6 percent higher in the first quarter of 2014 than in the first quarter of 2013.

Demand trends

Most producers, importers, and purchasers reported that U.S. demand for rebar had

increased since 2011 (table II‐7). Half of responding producers reported that demand outside

the United States had decreased, and most importers reported that demand had fluctuated.

Purchasers’ responses were mixed, with most reporting demand had either fluctuated (5) or

decreased (4). Six of 16 responding purchasers reported that demand for their downstream

products using rebar had increased; six reported that demand had fluctuated; and four

reported demand had decreased. Fifteen of 16 responding purchasers noted that demand for

their end use product has affected their demand for rebar.

Table II-7 

Rebar: Firms’ responses regarding U.S. demand, demand outside the United States and demand 

for purchasers’ final products, by number of responding firms 

Item Increase No change Decrease Fluctuate 

Demand in the United States 

U.S. producers 6 0 2 2 

Importers 11 1 0 6 

Purchasers 13 6 2 3 

Demand outside the United States 

U.S. producers 1 1 4 2 

Importers 4 2 1 10 

Purchasers 0 2 4 5 

Demand for purchasers’ final product 

Purchasers 6 0 4 6 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Substitute products

Most responding U.S. producers (6 of 9) listed one or more substitutes for rebar.35 Most

importers (14 of 17) and purchasers (19 of 24) reported that there were no substitutes for

rebar. The most frequently reported substitute was wire mesh; other substitutes included fiber

reinforced concrete, structural steel, pre‐stressed cable, deformed steel wire, and prestressed

 

34 ***.

35 Three U.S. producers reported that there were no substitutes for rebar.  
II‐18

concrete strand (pc strand). Wire mesh could be used in concrete reinforcing, paving,

residential construction, and noncritical applications. Other substitutes were reported to be

used in concrete reinforcing, building frames, residential/nonresidential construction, and slabs

and foundations for nonstructural applications and bridges. 36 Two producers (***) and one

importer (***), but no purchasers, reported that substitutes affected the price of rebar. Wire

mesh, deformed steel wire, and PC strand were reported to affect the price of rebar.

Cost share

Rebar accounts for a small share of the cost of the end‐use products in which it is used.

Questionnaire respondents’ estimates of the cost of rebar as a share of most types of

construction37 (the most common end use) varied little, ranging from 2 to 5 percent; exceptions

were foundations, driveways, and “miscellaneous construction” (10 to 15 percent). For

intermediate applications (forms fabricated from rebar),38 however, the rebar’s cost share was

estimated to be much higher, ranging from 40 to 90 percent. Testimony from the staff

conference suggests that there were no imports of fabricated forms because they are made

specifically for each construction project and differ from project to project.39 As a result, the

fabricated forms do not appear to face import competition and the cost share of rebar

(whether or not fabricated) in construction will affect demand for rebar, rather than the direct

cost share of rebar in fabricated forms.

SUBSTITUTABILITY ISSUES

The degree of substitution between domestically produced and imported rebar depends

upon such factors as relative prices, quality (e.g., grade standards, reliability of supply, etc.),

and conditions of sale (e.g., price discounts/rebates, lead times between order and delivery

dates, payment terms, etc.). Based on available data, staff believes that there are few

differences between domestic and imported rebar, and there is a high degree of substitution

among product produced in the United States, the subject countries, and other import sources.

Lead times

Rebar is primarily produced‐to‐order. U.S. producers reported that 59.7 percent of their

sales were produced‐to‐order, with lead times ranging from 14 to 60 days; six of the eight

responding producers reported lead times of 30 to 36 days. U.S. importers reported that 61.4

percent of their sales were produced‐to‐order, with lead times ranging from 15 to 120 days; a

 

36 ***.   37 This included commercial and residential construction, and roads and bridges.

38 These include dowels, stirrups, cut and band, bar supports, spirals, coated rebar, cut to length,

“fabrication,” and roof bolts.

39 Conference transcript, pp. 143‐144 (Melvin and Webb).   
II‐19

majority of responding importers reporting lead times of 60 to 65 days. Lead times from

inventories in the United States ranged from “0” to 5 days for U.S. producers and 1 to 8 days for

importers. Importers’ lead times from inventories outside the United States ranged from 25 to

60 days. Imports from Mexico can enter the United States more quickly (*** days for shipments

from inventories and *** days for produced‐to‐order shipments) than product from Turkey.

Respondents reported that Mexican rebar was either shipped by rail from Deacero’s production

facilities or by truck from its warehouse facilities in Mexicali, a city south of California near the

border between Mexico and the United States.40

Knowledge of country sources

Twenty‐six purchasers indicated they had marketing/pricing knowledge of domestic

rebar, 17 of Mexican rebar, 17 of Turkish rebar, and nine of rebar from nonsubject countries.

As shown in table II‐8, most purchasers and almost all their customers “sometimes” or “never”

make purchasing decisions based on the producer or country of origin. Of the purchasers

related to the U.S. producers, *** reported that they “always” consider the producer in their

purchases, *** reported that it “sometimes” considers the producer, and *** reported that it

“never” considers the producer. *** were the only purchasers that explained why they always

considered the producer: ***.” ***.” *** of the four purchasers related to the producers (***)

reported “never” purchasing based on the country of origin while *** reported “sometimes”

purchasing based on country of origin (because of their customer’s requirements) and ***

reported “sometimes” purchasing based on country of origin, stating that quality and

availability were not an issue for rebar.

Table II-8 

Rebar: Purchasing decisions based on producer and country of origin, by number of reporting 

firms 

Purchaser/Customer Decision Always Usually Sometimes Never 

Purchaser makes decision based on producer 8 2 11 6 

Purchaser’s customers make decision based on producer 0 0 13 15 

Purchaser makes decision based on country 5 2 12 9 

Purchaser’s customers make decision based on country 0 1 18 9 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

Factors affecting purchasing decisions

Price was by far the most important factor that firms consider in their purchasing

decisions for rebar (table II‐9). All 28 purchasers listed price among their three most important

factors and most (20) listed it as the most important factor.41 The other factors frequently cited

as one of the top three factors considered in purchasing decisions for rebar were availability (21

 

40 Conference transcript, pp. 177‐178 (Bazan). 41 The four purchases that “sometimes” purchase the lower‐priced product are ***.  
II‐20

firms) and quality (12 firms). Availability was the most frequently reported second most

important factor (11 firms) and third most important factor (8 firms).

Table II-9 

Rebar: Ranking of factors used in purchasing decisions as reported by U.S. purchasers, by 

number of reporting firms 

Factor First Second Third1

 Total 

Price 20 6 2 28 

Availability 2 11 8 21 

Quality 2 4 6 12 

Credit/payment terms 1 2 3 6 

Traditional supplier/supplier relationship 1 2 1 4 

Service 1 0 2 3 

Delivery/lead times 0 2 2 4 

Reliability/reliability of supply 0 0 2 2 

Other2 1 1 1 3 

1

 One purchaser reported price for both first and third most important factor, only the first is included in the 

table. 

2

 Other factors include for first factor whether import or domestic, for second factor discounts offered, and 

for third factor ease of business. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

The majority of purchasers (16 of 28) reported that they “usually” purchase the lowest‐

priced rebar. Eight purchasers “always” purchase the lowest‐priced product, while four

“sometimes” purchase the lowest‐priced product.42

When asked if they purchased rebar from one source although a comparable product

was available at a lower price from another source, 22 purchasers reported reasons,43

including: vendor supplies other products; relationship; reliability/delivery; payment terms;

availability; transportation costs and service; lead times, U.S. and Mexico have shorter lead

times than Turkey or Japan; buy only domestic; prefer domestic since it can be used in any

project; and prefer domestic for quality, lead time, minimum orders, reliability of supply, less

chance of damage, and U.S. producers provide delivery. A number of purchasers reported on

their methods of purchasing from related producers including: ***.  

Five of 27 responding purchasers reported that certain types of rebar were only

available from a single source. These included: domestic rebar is only available from U.S. mills;

MMFX – ASTM A103544 and A706 and grade 75 are not always readily available as imports; #14

 

42 Three of the 11 responding end users, 1 of the 8 responding distributors, 2 of the 6 responding end

user/distributors (***), and the one “other” purchaser reported always purchasing the least expensive

product.

43 Three of the firms reporting that they “always” purchased the lowest priced product provided

reasons that they did not always purchase the lowest priced product. 44 MMFX/ASTM A1035 “is one of the strongest grades” of rebar grades on the market. It is used in

“humid or volatile environments” such as bridge construction because it resists corrosion. Found at

http://www.harrissupplysolutions.com/a1035‐rebar‐astm‐a1035‐grade‐reinforcing‐bar.html; retrieved

August 7, 2014.
II‐21

and #18 bar are only purchased from ***, because *** usually does not have these sizes; and

large diameter rebar is only available domestically.  

Purchasers were asked which factors they considered in determining the quality of

rebar. The most common response was that the material must meet ASTM specifications. Other

factors considered include: packaging such as material breaks away from its packaging and

uniform tight neatly packaged bundle or coil; straightness; meets specifications, codes, and mill

certification provided with every purchase; workability such as performance in machines and

bends without problems; consistency; rust free surface; and straight longitudinal ribs.

Importance of specified purchase factors

Purchasers were asked to rate the importance of 15 factors in their purchasing decisions

(table II‐10). No factor was reported to be “very important” by all 28 responding purchasers.

The factors rated as “very important” by most purchasers were price, and quality meets

industry standards (25 each) availability (24 each), delivery time and reliability of supply (22),

and product consistency (21 each). Factors for which more firms reported they were not

important than reported they were very important were quality exceeds industry standards and

minimum quantity requirement (13 each reported that they were not important); and

packaging and technical support/service (11 each).

Table II-10 

Rebar: Importance of specific purchase factors, as reported by U.S. purchasers, by number of 

responding firms 

Factor 

Very 

important 

Somewhat 

important 

Not 

important 

Availability 24 4 0 

Delivery terms 14 12 2 

Delivery time 22 5 1 

Discounts offered 11 13 4 

Extension of credit 9 13 6 

Minimum quantity requirements 1 14 13 

Packaging 2 15 11 

Price 25 3 0 

Product consistency 21 7 0 

Product range 8 15 5 

Quality exceeds industry standards 5 9 13 

Quality meets industry standards 25 2 1 

Reliability of supply 22 6 0 

Technical support/service 5 12 11 

U.S. transportation costs 10 16 3 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 
II‐22

Supplier certification

All but one of the 28 responding purchasers require that their suppliers be ASTM

certified.45 Most (21 of 25) purchasers did not require other certification or qualifications of

their rebar suppliers. Only one purchaser reported the time to qualify a new supplier (30 days).

No purchaser reported that any domestic or foreign supplier had failed in its attempt to qualify

product, or had lost its approved status since 2011.

Changes in purchasing patterns

Purchasers were asked about changes in their purchasing patterns from different

sources since 2011 (table II‐11). Reasons for decreased purchases of U.S. product included:

reduced sales (including some of which stated that this was because of the recession), reduced

mining, domestic material too expensive, and increased import pressure. Reasons for increased

purchases of U.S. product include improved market, increased volume of concrete, domestic

mills have become more competitively priced, slow recovery, company growth, and new

products/focus. Purchasers reporting that U.S. demand has fluctuated reported that this

occurred because of fluctuating business activity, Turkish rebar being more competitive, and

economy‐wide changes.

Table II-11 

Rebar: Changes in purchase patterns from U.S., subject, and nonsubject countries 

Source of purchases 

Did not 

purchase Decreased Increased Constant Fluctuated

United States 2 8 8 5 4 

Mexico 12 2 8 1 3 

Turkey 10 3 8 2 2 

Other 12 4 1 1 3 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

Two firms reported that their purchases of Mexican product had declined, with both

reporting Mexican product was becoming less competitive. Purchasers’ reasons for increased

purchases of Mexican rebar included: competitive prices; a one‐time large purchase; purchased

low‐priced imports to remain competitive; and company growth and new products/new focus.  

Purchasers’ reasons for reduced purchases of Turkish rebar included reduced sales and more

competitive U.S. product prices. Purchasers’ reasons for increased purchases of Turkish product

included: competitive prices; greater need for competitive prices; company growth; and new

products/focus.  

Six of 28 responding purchasers reported that they had changed rebar suppliers since

2011. Specifically, one purchaser reported adding *** while it reduced purchases from ***, one

purchaser added ***, one purchaser added *** and dropped *** due to the pending

antidumping case, and one firm added import brokers to get lower priced imports. Two other

 

45 The firm selling rebar *** did not require ASTM certification.  
II‐23

purchasers did not report which firms they had added or dropped but reported that they varied

their share of purchases from specific suppliers based on availability, service, and price.  

Eight of 27 purchasers reported new suppliers in the market since 2011. Specific firms

named included: Gasa, Deacero, and Fonderia (Mexico), as well as Colakoglu Metalurji (Turkey).

For firms that import from a number of countries, purchasers reported that Traxys (North

America), Intermetal,46 International Metal, and Tata International were new suppliers, and

countries Japan, Korea, Portugal, Peru, Spain, and Taiwan were also new sources of supply.

Importance of purchasing domestic product

Purchasers were asked what shares of their sales were covered by “Buy American”

provision or other preference for domestically produced rebar. Overall, 56.9 percent of the

rebar which purchasers sold had no domestic content requirements. Most purchasers (19 of 27)

reported that more than half of the rebar they sold had no domestic content requirement.

Twenty‐one purchasers reported some purchases were covered by legal “Buy American”

requirements, covering 17.6 percent of all sales which purchasers reported. Fourteen

purchasers reported that, for some of their sales, customers required U.S. product; these

purchases were 5.4 percent of sales reported by purchasers. Reasons customers required

domestic product included: some customers think U.S. product is superior; some purchasers

buy only U.S.‐produced rebar because they prefer to hold a single inventory that can be used in

all projects (including “Buy American”); preferences; wanting to support the U.S. economy; lead

times; and product not available as an import.47 *** purchasers (***) reported “other”

preference for U.S. product; this accounted for 20.0 percent48 of all reported sales.49

“Buy America” requirements apply to iron and steel products such as rebar that are

purchased for the Federal‐aid highway construction program. Under “Buy America,” federal‐aid

funds may not be obligated for a project unless iron and steel products used in such projects

are manufactured in the United States (with limited exceptions based on the product cost or its

share of the original contract value). In addition, under an alternate‐bid procedure, foreign‐

source materials may be used if the total project bid using foreign‐source materials is 25

percent less than the lowest total bid using domestic materials. “Buy American” is a separate

and distinct program from “Buy America.” The Buy American Act, which covers specified

products, requires the Federal Government to purchase domestic goods and services unless the

head of the agency involved in the procurement has determined that the prices of the domestic

 

46 ***. 47 Most purchasers did not provide reasons for the preference. The only other reason reported was

that preference for U.S. product was job specific.

48 *** is why this share is relatively high.

49 Reasons for “other” preferences for U.S.‐produced rebar ***” and *** explained its “other”

preference  was because imported rebar was not available.
II‐24

suppliers are “unreasonable” or that their purchase would be “inconsistent with the public

interest.”50

U.S. producers were also asked if rebar they sold was covered by “Buy American”

provisions or other restrictions preventing the purchase of imported rebar. They reported that,

in 80.0 percent of their sales, purchasers did not prefer U.S.‐produced product. Most

responding producers (8 of 9) reported that “Buy American” provisions covered from 15 to 50

percent of their sales, averaging 19.9 percent of sales. Only one producer reported any

preference for domestic product besides complying with “Buy American” programs,

requirements by customers (less than one tenth of one percent of sales).  

The Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute (CRSI) estimated that between 2002 and 2012,

11.5 percent of rebar usage was covered by “Buy American” provisions. Between 2008 and

2012, however, usage under the “Buy American” provisions was relatively high during the

economic downturn, both because federal stimulus activity was high and because other

construction was relatively low. Thus, CRSI estimates that going forward, the “Buy American”

share should be 10.5 to 10.6 percent of total U.S. rebar demand.51

At the conference, witnesses for the petitioner reported that “Buy American” programs

are dependent on transportation spending and this spending has fallen in the last 3 years so

that the volume of current “Buy American” purchases is relatively low.52 Spending both for

recovery from Hurricane Katrina and under the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act,”

which was enacted because of the recession, had been important sources of “Buy American”

purchases. The projects covered by these programs are almost complete. U.S. producers

reported that with more public/private partnerships in building infrastructure, the application

of “Buy American” is uncertain.53 In addition, “Buy American” projects tend to be large projects,

beyond the capacity of smaller rebar producers.54 Some U.S. producers reported that “Buy

American” provisions have relatively little impact on the market, that they do not tend to

increase prices, and that rebar producers typically do not know if a project is covered by “Buy

American.”55  

In contrast, respondents reported that “Buy American” provisions have a major impact

on the market. It is difficult for importers to sell to fabricators because most of their “jobs” are

“public jobs” and firms do not want to carry dual inventories, so they prefer to carry only U.S.‐

 

50 Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from China, Investigation Nos. 701‐TA‐464 and 731‐TA‐

1160 (Final), USITC Publication 4162, June 2010, p. II‐10. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal

Highway Administration Web site, “Construction Program Guide: Buy America,”

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/cqit/buyam.cfm  (accessed September 29, 2014) and U.S.

Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Memorandum, “Buy America

Requirements (HHO‐32),” dated, July 6, 1989, last modified December 12, 2013,

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/contracts/070689.cfm (accessed September 29, 2014).

51 Letter submitted as an attachment to ***’s producer questionnaire.

52 Conference transcript, pp. 104‐105 (Crowe and Melvin).

53 Conference transcript, pp. 102‐104 (Porter and Kerkvliet).

54 Conference transcript, p. 104 (Webb). 55 Conference transcript, pp. 103‐104 (Kerkvliet).
II‐25

produced rebar.56 Under the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act” “Buy American”

provisions were tighter than the traditional “Buy American” provisions. Nonetheless, even

under the traditional “Buy American” provisions, which have exceptions allowing the use of

imports under some circumstances, imports are seldom used.57  

Respondents contend that “domestic rebar is also required for building projects seeking

to qualify for LEED certification. LEED stands for Leadership in Energy and Environmental

Design, and certification is desired to showcase that the builder is environmentally responsible.

LEED standards block imports because they require the construction materials to be made

within 500 miles of the job site.”58  

LEED is a voluntary certification program in which buildings receive different levels of

certification based on fulfilment of a number of criteria.59 “One of the key strategies that LEED

rewards is the use of local and regional materials from within 500 miles of the project. All

materials, including wood, sourced or manufactured within 500 miles receive credit in LEED.

This strategy is frequently adopted, as almost 90% of certified commercial LEED projects attain

the local materials credit.”60 This credit is obtained by using “building materials or products that

have been extracted, harvested or recovered, as well as manufactured, within 500 miles of the

project site for a minimum of 10% or 20%, based on cost, of the total materials value.” Thus, in

constructing a LEED certified building, the local material credits are not required. Locally

produced rebar may or may not be used to cover the 10 to 20 percent of local materials in a

project. On the other hand, if a builder is seeking to get the local material credits, rebar is likely

to be eligible. The large number of rebar mills throughout the country ensure that, for most

projects, rebar from within 500 miles of the building site is available. Deacero reports that

nearly all its rebar production takes place at its Celaya facility, which is more than 500 miles

from the United States.61  

Comparisons of domestic products, subject imports, and nonsubject imports

Purchasers were asked a number of questions comparing rebar produced in the United

States, subject countries, and nonsubject countries. First, purchasers were asked for a country‐

by‐country comparison on the same 15 factors from table II‐10 for which they were asked to

rate the importance. Table II‐12 compares product from the United States, Mexico, and Turkey.

Table II‐13 compares product from the United States and subject countries to product from

nonsubject countries.  

 

56 Conference transcript, pp. 222‐223 (Bazan and Nolan). 57 The traditional “Buy American” programs allow waivers for short supply and allow purchase of

imports if its price is sufficiently lower than the price of U.S.‐produced rebar. Conference transcript, pp.

223‐254 (Nolan).

58 Hearing transcript, pp. 155‐156 (Bazan).

59 http://www.usgbc.org/LEED/. 60 http://www.usgbc.org/Docs/Archive/General/Docs9250.pdf retrieved September 19, 2014.   61 Mexican respondent’s posthearing brief, answers to Commissioners’ questions, p. 20 and exhibit 1.
II‐26

Table II-12 

Rebar: Purchasers’ comparisons between U.S.-produced and subject imported product 

Factor 

U.S. vs. Mexico U.S. vs. Turkey 

Mexico vs. 

Turkey 

S C I S C I S C I 

Availability 9 11 0 9 8 2 6 10 3 

Delivery terms 8 12 0 10 8 1 7 11 1 

Delivery time 12 8 0 13 6 0 8 10 1 

Discounts offered 0 16 4 0 13 6 1 17 1 

Extension of credit 3 16 1 3 16 0 0 19 0 

Minimum quantity requirements 8 12 0 9 10 0 5 13 1 

Packaging 3 16 1 3 14 2 1 17 1 

Price1 0 7 13 1 1 17 2 8 9 

Product consistency 1 19 0 2 17 0 2 17 0 

Product range 7 12 1 4 14 1 1 14 4 

Quality exceeds industry standards 2 16 0 2 15 0 1 16 0 

Quality meets industry standards 1 19 0 1 18 0 1 18 0 

Reliability of supply 8 10 1 9 8 2 5 12 2 

Technical support/service 7 13 0 8 11 0 3 16 0 

U.S. transportation costs1 5 13 2 5 9 5 2 15 2 

1

 A rating of superior means that price/U.S. transportation costs 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 list 

country’s product is inferior. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 
II‐27

Table II-13 

Rebar: Purchasers’ comparisons between U.S.-produced, subject imported and imported product 

from nonsubject countries 

Factor 

U.S. vs. 

nonsubject 

Mexico vs. 

nonsubject 

Turkey vs. 

nonsubject 

S C I S C I S C I 

Availability 10 5 1 8 6 2 6 10 0 

Delivery terms 11 5 0 8 8 0 5 10 1 

Delivery time 11 5 0 9 7 0 5 11 0 

Discounts offered 1 10 5 3 11 2 3 12 1 

Extension of credit 5 11 0 4 12 0 3 13 0 

Minimum quantity requirements 8 8 0 8 8 0 5 11 0 

Packaging 4 12 0 3 13 0 2 14 0 

Price1 2 5 9 7 6 3 11 4 1 

Product consistency 4 12 0 3 12 1 2 14 0 

Product range 6 10 0 2 13 1 2 14 0 

Quality exceeds industry standards 4 11 0 1 13 1 1 14 0 

Quality meets industry standards 2 14 0 0 15 1 0 16 0 

Reliability of supply 10 5 1 7 8 1 5 11 0 

Technical support/service 10 6 0 6 9 1 4 12 0 

U.S. transportation costs1 6 8 2 3 10 3 2 14 0 

1

 A rating of superior means that price/U.S. transportation costs 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 list 

country’s product is inferior. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

Most responding purchasers reported that U.S. and Mexican rebar were comparable for

13 factors. Most purchasers reported U.S. product was superior for delivery time while most

purchasers reported Mexican rebar was superior in price (lower‐priced) to U.S.‐produced

rebar.62  

Most responding purchasers reported that U.S. and Turkish rebar were comparable for

nine factors. Among the five other factors, most purchasers reported U.S. product was superior

for delivery terms and delivery time while most purchasers reported Turkish rebar was superior

in price (lower‐priced) to U.S.‐produced rebar.63 U.S. transportation cost for U.S. and Turkish

rebar was reported to be comparable by nine purchasers, five reported U.S. product was

superior, and five reported U.S. product was inferior. For reliability of supply and availability,

U.S. rebar was reported to be superior to Turkish by nine purchasers, comparable by eight, and

inferior by two.  

 

62 One of the three responding end users, five of eight responding distributors, five of the six

responding end user/distributors (including all the related end user/distributors) reported that U.S. was

inferior to Mexico on price (i.e., the U.S.‐produced rebar was higher‐priced).   63 One distributor reported that U.S. rebar was comparable to Turkish rebar on price and one end

user reported U.S. rebar was superior in price (i.e., the U.S.‐produced rebar was lower‐priced).  
II‐28

At least half of the responding purchasers reported that rebar from Mexico and Turkey

was comparable on 14 factors. Regarding price, more purchasers (9) reported that rebar from

Mexico was higher‐priced than rebar from Turkey than reported that they were comparable (8);

two reported Mexican prices were lower.  

At least half of the responding purchasers reported that U.S. rebar was comparable to

rebar from nonsubject countries for nine factors. Most purchasers reported that U.S. rebar was

superior for availability, delivery terms, delivery time, reliability of supply, and technical

support/service while most responding purchasers reported that U.S. product was inferior with

respect to price.  

At least half of the responding purchasers reported that Mexican rebar was comparable

to rebar from nonsubject countries on 12 factors. Most reported that Mexican rebar was

superior with respect to delivery time. For availability, eight reported Mexico was superior, six

that Mexican and nonsubject rebar were comparable, and two that Mexican rebar was inferior.

For price, seven reported Mexican was superior (lower priced), six reported Mexican and

nonsubject rebar were comparable and three reported Mexican rebar was inferior in price.  

Most purchasers reported that Turkish rebar and rebar from nonsubject countries were

comparable on all factors except price, for which most purchasers rated Turkish product as

superior (lower‐priced).

Comparison of U.S.‐produced and imported rebar

In order to determine whether U.S.‐produced rebar can generally be used in the same

applications as imports from Mexico and Turkey, U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers

were asked whether the products can “always,” “frequently,” “sometimes,” or “never” be used

interchangeably. As shown in table II‐14, all but one responding U.S. producer reported that

U.S.‐produced rebar was “always” interchangeable with rebar from other countries. Most

responding importers and purchasers reported that rebar from all countries was “always” or

“frequently” interchangeable with rebar from other sources. One end user reported that U.S.

and imported product from Mexico and Turkey were never interchangeable. It did not explain

its response.64 One *** reported that U.S. and imported product from Mexico and Turkey were

sometimes interchangeable. It did not explain its response.65 One distributor reported that U.S.

and Turkish rebar were “never” interchangeable. It reported that some federal projects require

domestic material and so U.S. product is not interchangeable with product from other

countries.66

 

64 It reported it did not know about imported rebar from Mexico and Turkey. It reported purchases of

rebar from ***.

65 It reported that it knew about rebar from the United States, Mexico, Turkey, and nonsubject

sources. It reported purchasing rebar from ***.

66 It reported that it knew about product from Turkey and nonsubject countries. ***.
II‐29

Table II-14 

Rebar: Interchangeability between rebar produced in the United States and in subject and 

nonsubject countries, by country pairs 

Country pair 

Number of U.S. 

producers reporting 

Number of U.S. 

importers reporting 

Number of 

purchasers reporting 

A F S N A F S N A F S N 

U.S. vs. subject countries: 

 U.S. vs. Mexico 8 0 1 0 5 4 3 1 6 10 1 1 

 U.S. vs. Turkey 8 0 1 0 6 4 5 2 6 9 1 2 

Subject countries comparisons: 

 Mexico vs. Turkey 6 0 1 0 6 3 1 0 11 5 1 0 

Nonsubject countries 

comparisons: 

 U.S. vs. nonsubject 7 0 1 0 5 2 1 1 6 5 2 1 

 Mexico vs. nonsubject 6 0 0 0 6 2 1 0 9 4 1 0 

 Turkey vs. nonsubject 6 0 1 0 6 2 2 0 9 4 1 0 

Note.--A=Always, F=Frequently, S=Sometimes, N=Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

As can be seen from table II‐15, most responding purchasers reported that rebar from

all sources “always” met minimum quality specifications. Twenty‐three of 25 responding

purchasers reported that the U.S. rebar “always” met minimum quality specifications, 16 of 20

reported Mexican rebar “always” met minimum quality specifications, and 14 of 19 purchasers

reported that rebar from Turkey “always” met minimum quality specifications.

Table II-15 

Rebar: Ability to meet minimum quality specifications, by source and number of reporting firms1 

Source Always Usually Sometimes Rarely or never 

United States 23 1 1 0 

Mexico 16 4 0 0 

Turkey 14 5 0 0 

1

 Purchasers were asked how often domestically produced or imported product meets minimum quality 

specifications for their own or their customers’ uses.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked to assess how often differences other

than price were significant in their sales/purchases of rebar from the United States, subject, or

nonsubject countries. As seen in table II‐16, most producers reported that differences other

than price were “never” significant. In contrast, most importers and purchasers reported that

differences other than price between U.S. rebar and rebar from Mexico or Turkey were at least

“sometimes” significant. Differences other than price between rebar from Mexico and Turkey

were reported to be at least “sometimes” important by six of the nine responding importers. In

contrast most purchasers (9 of 16) reported that there were no differences other than price

between Mexican and Turkish rebar.  
II‐30

Differences other than price between U.S. and nonsubject rebar were reported as at

least “sometimes” important by just over half the importers (4 of 7) and purchasers (8 of 15).

Half of the responding importers reported no differences other than price between product

from Mexico and nonsubject countries, but just over half (5 of 9) reported differences other

than price between rebar from Turkey compared with nonsubject countries. Over half the

purchasers (8 of 14) reported there were “never” differences other than price for these country

pairs.

Table II-16 

Rebar: Significance of differences other than price between rebar produced in the United States 

and in other countries, by country pair 

Country pair 

Number of U.S. 

producers reporting 

Number of U.S. 

importers reporting 

Number of 

purchasers reporting 

A F S N A F S N A F S N 

U.S. vs. subject countries: 

 U.S. vs. Mexico 0 0 2 7 2 3 5 3 2 5 6 7 

 U.S. vs. Turkey 0 0 2 7 2 4 8 3 3 5 4 7 

Subject countries comparisons: 

 Mexico vs. Turkey 0 0 1 6 1 1 4 3 1 2 4 9 

Nonsubject countries 

comparisons: 

 U.S. vs. nonsubject 0 0 1 7 1 1 2 3 2 4 2 7 

 Mexico vs. nonsubject 0 0 1 6 1 1 2 4 1 2 3 8 

 Turkey vs. nonsubject 0 0 1 6 1 1 3 4 1 2 3 8 

Note.--A = Always, F = Frequently, S = Sometimes, N = Never. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

ELASTICITY ESTIMATES

This section discusses elasticity estimates; parties were encouraged to comment on

these estimates in their briefs. None of the parties commented on these elasticity estimates.

U.S. supply elasticity

The domestic supply elasticity67 for rebar measures the sensitivity of the quantity

supplied by U.S. producers to changes in the U.S. market price of rebar. The elasticity of

domestic supply depends on several factors including the level of excess capacity, the ease with

which producers can alter capacity, producers’ ability to shift to production of other products,

the existence of inventories, and the availability of alternate markets for U.S.‐produced rebar.

Analysis of these factors earlier indicates that the U.S. industry is likely to be able to increase or

decrease shipments to the U.S. market; an estimate in the range of 4 to 8 is suggested.  

 

67 A supply function is not defined in the case of a non‐competitive market.
II‐31

U.S. demand elasticity

The U.S. demand elasticity for rebar measures the sensitivity of the overall quantity

demanded to a change in the U.S. market price of rebar. This estimate depends on factors

discussed earlier such as the existence, availability, and commercial viability of substitute

products, as well as the component share of the rebar in the production of any downstream

products. Based on the available information, the aggregate demand for rebar is likely to be

moderately inelastic; a range of –0.5 to ‐1.0 is suggested.  

Substitution elasticity

The elasticity of substitution depends upon the extent of product differentiation

between the domestic and imported products.68 Product differentiation, in turn, depends upon

such factors as quality (e.g., chemistry, appearance, etc.) conditions of sale (e.g., availability,

sales terms/ discounts/ promotions, etc.), and legal restrictions such as “Buy American”

provisions. Based on available information, the elasticity of substitution between U.S.‐produced

rebar and imported rebar is likely to be in the range of 3 to 6. However for projects that require

rebar subject to “Buy American” clauses, the elasticity of substitution will be lower.

 

68 The substitution elasticity measures the responsiveness of the relative U.S. consumption levels of

the subject imports and the domestic like products to changes in their relative prices. This reflects how

easily purchasers switch from the U.S. product to the subject products (or vice versa) when prices

change.

III‐1

PART III: U.S. PRODUCERS’ PRODUCTION, SHIPMENTS, AND

EMPLOYMENT

The Commission analyzes a number of factors in making injury determinations (see 19

U.S.C. §§ 1677(7)(B) and 1677(7)(C)). Information on the dumping margins was presented in

Part I of this report and information on the volume and pricing of imports of the subject

merchandise is presented in Part IV and Part V. Information on the other factors specified is

presented in this section and/or Part VI and (except as noted) is based on the questionnaire

responses of nine firms that accounted for virtually all of U.S. production of rebar during 2013.

U.S. PRODUCERS

The Commission issued U.S. producer questionnaires to 11 firms identified as producers

of rebar in the petition. Ten firms identified as rebar producers provided responses,1 including

nine which provided usable data on their productive operations.2 Staff believes that these

responses represent virtually all of U.S. production of rebar.3

Table III‐1 lists U.S. producers of rebar, their production locations, positions on the

petition, related firms, shares of total production, ownership, and related and/or affiliated

firms.

                                                      

1 One firm, ***, reported that it does not produce rebar. 2 ***. E‐mail from ***, September 18, 2013.   3 ***. ***. E‐mail from ***, October 22, 2013.
III‐2

Table III-1 

Rebar: U.S. producers of rebar, their positions on the petition, production locations, production, 

and shares of reported production, 2013 

Firm 

Position on 

petition 

Production 

location(s) 

Share of 

production 

(percent) 

ArcelorMittal1 *** 

Canutillo, TX 

Georgetown, SC 

Harriman, TN ***

Byer Steel Petitioner Cincinnati, OH ***

Cascade Petitioner McMinnville, OR ***

CMC2 Petitioner 

Cayce, SC 

Magnolia, AR 

Mesa, AZ 

Seguin, TX ***

Evraz *** Pueblo, CO ***

Gerdau3 Petitioner 

Baldwin, FL 

Charlotte, NC 

Jackson, TN 

Knoxville, TN 

Midlothian, TX 

Rancho 

Cucamonga, CA 

Sayreville, NJ 

St. Paul, MN 

West Vidor, TX 

Wilton, IA ***

Keystone *** Peoria, IL ***

Nucor Petitioner 

Auburn, NY 

Birmingham, AL 

Darlington, SC 

Jackson, MS 

Jewett, TX 

Kankakee, IL 

Kingman, AZ 

Marion, OH 

Plymouth, UT 

Seattle, WA 

Wallingford, CT ***

SDI4 *** 

Pittsboro, IN 

Roanoke, VA ***

Total ***

1

 ArcelorMittal is related to subject producer ArcelorMittal Las Truchas, a subsidiary located in Mexico. 

ArcelorMittal S.A. has additional subsidiary rebar facilities in Algeria, Argentina, Brazil, Bosnia and 

Herzegovina, Canada, China, Czech Republic, Germany, Kazakhstan, Morocco, Poland, Spain, South 

Africa, and Ukraine. 

2

 CMC is related to nonsubject producer CMC Poland Sp z.o.o. 

3

 Gerdau Ameristeel Corp. (Canada) is 100 percent owned by Gerdau S.A. (Brazil), and is related to rebar 

producers in Canada, Brazil, and Mexico (Sidertul SA de CV). 

4

 ***. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 
III‐3

Table III‐2 summarizes important industry events since 2011.

Table III-2 

Rebar: Important industry events since 2011 

Year Company Event 

2011 Nucor Expansion: Harris Steel, a subsidiary of Nucor and fabricator of 

rebar, opened new facilities in Birmingham, Alabama, and San 

Antonio, Texas. 

March 2011 Gerdau Expansion: Gerdau Ameristeel opened a new rebar fabrication 

facility in Navasota, Texas, that has a capacity of 40,000 tons. 

April 2011 ArcelorMittal 

USA 

Closure: ArcelorMittal USA closed its Harriman, TN rebar mill, 

which had the capacity to produce 350,000 tons of rebar and 

merchant bar products per year. 

April 2011 Cascade Revised labor agreement: ***. 

October 2011 CMC Reduction: CMC reduced its global workforce by 350 workers and 

closed five rebar fabricating locations (four domestic and one 

international location).

April 2012 Nucor Expansion: Nufab LLC, a rebar fabricator owned by Nucor, 

announced plans to invest $6.9 million in a facility in Alabama, which 

will create 80 new jobs within 5 years. 

July 2012 Nucor Expansion: Nucor announced plans to install a new reheat furnance 

at its rolling mill in Wallingford, Connecticut, that will boost annual 

production capacity to 350,000 metric tons from 250,000. The mill 

produces rebar, and wire products. 

November 

2012 

CMC Expansion: CMC announced plans to increase the melt-shop 

capacity of its Mesa, Arizona, rebar mill. ***. 

February 

2013 

Gerdau ***. 

May 2013 Gerdau Expansion: Gerdau Ameristeel announced that it will expand its 

presence in its Knox, Tennessee, location with the addition of 40 

new jobs and an additional facility that will apply finishing services to 

rebar. 

June 2013 CMC Layoffs: A “reduction in force” that will affect one-third of its 

operations at the Magnolia, Arizona, steel mill, which produces rebar 

and other long products. As of March 2010, CMC’s Magnolia steel 

plant had a rolling capacity of 150,000 tons. 

July 2013 Keystone Change in ownership: Changed ownership from publicly traded to 

privately held. ***. 

October 2013 Gerdau Layoffs: Gerdau Long Steel North America laid off 13 workers in its 

rebar mills in Rancho Cucamonga, California, and Midlothian, 

Texas, citing import pressure and slow economic conditions. 

July 2014 Sherman Steel Capacity increase: Sherman Steel reportedly is in the early stages 

of feasibility and marketing studies to build an independent rebar mill 

near Youngstown, Ohio.

August 2014 Texas Steel LLC Capacity increase: Texas Steel reportedly plans to build a 200,000 

tons-per-year rebar mill near Waco, Texas. Pending approval, 

construction could begin in spring 2015 with production commencing 

by mid-2016. 

Source: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Belarus, China, Indonesia, Latvia, Moldova, Poland and 

Ukraine, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-873-875, 878-880, and 882 (Second Review), USITC Publication 4409, July 

2013, table III-1; American Metal Market, various issues; company websites; other Internet articles, and 

responses to Commission questionnaires. 
III‐4

U.S. PRODUCTION, CAPACITY, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION

Table III‐3 presents U.S. producers’ production, capacity, and capacity utilization. Total

U.S. capacity increased from 2011 to 2013 by approximately 280,000 short tons (2.9 percent).

Capacity was moderately lower during January‐March 2014 compared with January‐March

2013.

Table III-3 

Rebar: U.S. producers’ production, capacity, and capacity utilization, 2011-13, January-March 

2013, and January-March 2014 

Item 

Calendar year January to March 

2011 2012 2013 2013 2014 

 Quantity (short tons) 

Capacity1 9,632,001 9,816,490 9,911,957 2,522,772 2,521,331 

Production 6,327,968 6,831,468 6,776,007 1,558,702 1,665,052 

 Ratio (percent) 

Capacity utilization 65.7 69.6 68.4 61.8 66.0

 1 Adjusted. Average production capacity reported in this table reflects a reduction of *** short tons for each calendar 

year and of *** short tons for January-March 2013 and for January-March 2014. These amounts reflect combined 

production capacity attributed to ***. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

Total rebar production increased by 7.1 percent during 2011‐13, and was 6.8 percent

higher in January‐March 2014 than in January‐March 2013. Capacity increased during 2011‐13,

but at a slower rate than production, and was moderately higher in January‐March 2014 than in

January‐March 2013. As a result, capacity utilization increased by 2.7 percentage points during

2011‐13 and was 4.2 percentage points higher in January‐March 2014 than in January‐March

2013.

Table III‐4 presents the information provided by U.S. producers regarding their

constraints on capacity.

Table III-4 

Rebar: U.S. producers’ constraint(s) on capacity 

* * * * * * * 

Alternative products

*** reported producing other products using the same manufacturing equipment

and/or production employees that were used to produce rebar. U.S. producers generally cited

market conditions as a factor determining their product mix. Table III‐5 presents the

information provided by U.S. producers regarding their constraints on product shifting.
III‐5

Table III-5 

Rebar: U.S. producers’ constraints on product shifting 

* * * * * * * 

Table III‐6 presents aggregate data for total U.S. production of all products made on the

same equipment and machinery used to produce rebar. Overall capacity fluctuated slightly

from 2011 to 2013, and was modestly higher in January‐March 2014 compared to January‐

March 2013. Non‐rebar production decreased from 2011 to 2013, and was lower in January‐

March 2014 than in January‐March 2013. No U.S. producers reported producing deformed steel

wire on the same equipment and machinery used to produce rebar.

Table III-6 

Rebar: U.S. producers’ total capacity, production, and capacity utilization, by product, 2011-13, 

January-March 2013, and January-March 2014 

Item 

Calendar year January to March

2011 2012 2013 2013 2014

 Quantity (short tons) 

Overall capacity1 18,557,314 18,511,314 18,533,314 4,626,988 4,650,218

Production: 

 Straight rebar 6,073,399 6,543,991 6,480,902 1,495,570 1,604,951

Coiled rebar 254,569 287,477 295,105 63,132 60,101

Merchant bar 3,452,286 3,515,396 3,441,952 908,157 911,500

Other bar/rod (including SBQ bar) 3,184,339 3,007,139 2,684,973 720,420 690,717

Deformed steel wire 0 0 0 0 0

Total production 12,964,593 13,354,003 12,902,932 3,187,279 3,267,269

 Ratios and shares (percent) 

Capacity utilization 69.9 72.1 69.6 68.9 70.3

Share of production: 

 Straight rebar 46.8 49.0 50.2 46.9 49.1

Coiled rebar 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.0 1.8

Merchant bar 26.6 26.3 26.7 28.5 27.9

Other bar/rod (including SBQ bar) 24.6 22.5 20.8 22.6 21.1

Deformed steel wire 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total production 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1 Adjusted. Average production capacity reported in this table reflects a reduction of *** short tons for each calendar 

year and of *** short tons for January-March 2013 and for January-March 2014. These amounts reflect combined 

production capacity attributed to ***. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 
III‐6

U.S. PRODUCERS’ U.S. SHIPMENTS AND EXPORTS

Table III‐7 presents U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, export shipments, and total

shipments.4 U.S. producer’s U.S. shipments increased by 10.8 percent from 2011 to 2013, and

were 4.0 percent higher in January‐March 2014 than in January‐March 2013. U.S. commercial

shipments accounted for more than *** of total shipments, while transfers to related firms

accounted for slightly more than *** percent of total shipments during this period. Export

shipments, in contrast, accounted for less than *** percent of total shipments. Total shipments

increased by *** percent from 2011 to 2013, and were *** percent higher in January‐March

2014 than in January‐March 2013.

   

                                                      

4 U.S. shipments include commercial shipments, internal consumption, and transfers to related firms.

Commercial shipments are shipments, other than internal consumption and transfers to related firms,

within the United States. Internal consumption refers to product consumed internally by a firm.

Transfers to related parties are shipments made to related domestic firms. Export shipments are

shipments to destinations outside the United States, including shipments to related firms. Total

shipments are U.S. shipments and export shipments combined.
III‐7

Table III-7 

Rebar: U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, exports shipments, and total shipments, 2011-13, JanuaryMarch 2013, and January-March 2014 

Item 

Calendar year January to March 

2011 2012 2013 2013 2014 

 Quantity (short tons) 

Commercial U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Internal consumption *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal, U.S. shipments 5,883,245 6,411,375 6,520,775 1,485,838 1,545,205

Export shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Total shipments *** *** *** *** ***

 Value (1,000 dollars) 

Commercial U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Internal consumption *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal, U.S. shipments 3,861,848 4,162,510 4,080,230 957,585 981,886

Export shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Total shipments *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value (dollars per short ton) 

Commercial U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Internal consumption *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal, U.S. shipments 656 649 626 644 635

Export shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Total shipments *** *** *** *** ***

 Share of quantity (percent) 

Commercial U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Internal consumption *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal, U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Export shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Total shipments 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 Share of value (percent) 

Commercial U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Internal consumption *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal, U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Export shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Total shipments 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

NA = not applicable. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 
III‐8

Three firms reported transfers to related firms: CMC, Gerdau, and Nucor.5 ***

accounted for approximately *** of the total transfers. *** reported that its transfers are to its

***. ***. *** also reported that its mills ***. ***. ***. ***. Furthermore, ***.

U.S. producers were asked to report data on their U.S. shipments of rebar, by length, by

size, and by grade, in 2013.6 Rebar greater than or equal to 60 feet in length accounted for the

largest share of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments (44.2 percent), followed by rebar greater than

or equal to 20 feet in length but less than 40 feet in length (27.5 percent), and then by rebar

greater than or equal to 40 feet in length but less than 60 feet in length (21.6 percent). The two

remaining categories—rebar less than 20 feet in length and coiled rebar—accounted for 6.8

percent of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments. U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments by size were

concentrated in No. 5 (24.5 percent), No. 4 (22.4 percent), and No. 6 (15.9 percent). None of

the remaining sizes accounted for more than 7.8 percent of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments. U.S.

producers’ U.S. shipments by grade were concentrated predominantly in grade 60 (84.5

percent). None of the remaining grades accounted for more than 7.2 percent of U.S. producers’

shipments.

U.S. PRODUCERS’ INVENTORIES

Table III‐9 presents U.S. producers’ end‐of‐period inventories and the ratio of these

inventories to U.S. producers’ production, U.S. shipments, and total shipments during 2011‐13,

January‐March 2013, and January‐March 2014. U.S. producers’ inventories increased

throughout 2011‐13 and were higher in January‐March 2014 than in January‐March 2013. End‐

of‐period inventory was highest in March 2014.7

Table III-9 

Rebar: U.S. producers’ inventories, 2011-13, January-March 2013, and January-March 2014 

Item 

Calendar year January to March 

2011 2012 2013 2013 2014 

 Quantity (short tons) 

U.S. producers' end-of-period 

inventories 484,796 545,398 550,880 562,035 605,110

 Ratio (percent) 

Ratio of inventories to.— 

U.S. production 7.7 8.0 8.1 9.0 9.1

U.S. shipments 8.2 8.5 8.4 9.5 9.8

Total shipments *** *** *** *** ***

 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

                                                      

5 ***. ***.

6 These data appear in Part IV of this report, under Cumulation Considerations. 7 *** accounted for *** percent of the net increase in U.S. producers’ end‐of‐period inventories

between 2011 and 2013, and for *** percent of the net increase in U.S. producers’ end‐of‐period

inventories in January‐March 2014 compared to January‐March 2013.
III‐9

U.S. PRODUCERS’ IMPORTS AND PURCHASES

***. ***. 8  ***.9 ***. ***. ***. The company reported that ***. The company reported

that ***. Table III‐10 presents *** during 2011‐13, January‐March 2013, and January‐March

2014.

Table III-10 

Rebar: *** U.S. imports and purchases of rebar, 2011-13, January-March 2013, and January-March 

2014 

Item 

Calendar year January to March 

2011 2012 2013 2013 2014 

 Quantity (short tons) 

Imports from -- 

Mexico *** *** *** *** ***

Turkey (other than 

Habas) *** *** *** *** ***

Turkey (Habas) *** *** *** *** ***

All other sources *** *** *** *** ***

Purchases from -- 

Mexico *** *** *** *** ***

Turkey (other than 

Habas) *** *** *** *** ***

Turkey (Habas) *** *** *** *** ***

All other sources *** *** *** *** ***

 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

U.S. EMPLOYMENT, WAGES, AND PRODUCTIVITY

Table III‐11 presents U.S. producers’ employment‐related data during 2011‐13, January‐

March 2013, and January‐March 2014. The number of production and related workers

increased between 2011 and 2012, as did their hours worked and wages paid. Hourly wages

also increased between 2011 and 2012, but productivity gains kept unit labor costs

stable. Between 2012 and 2013, the number of production and related workers increased

again, as did their hours worked and wages paid. Hourly wages increased further, but lower

productivity resulted in increased unit labor costs. The number of production and related

workers, their hours worked, and their wages paid were all higher in January‐March 2014 than

in January‐March 2013, while hourly wage rates, productivity, and unit labor costs were

generally comparable.

   

                                                      

8 ***. ***. Email from ***, August 21, 2014.

9 ***.
III‐10

Table III-11 

Rebar: Average number of production and related workers, hours worked, wages paid to such 

employees, hourly wages, productivity, and unit labor costs, 2011-13, January-March 2013, and 

January-March 2014 

Item 

Calendar year January to March 

2011 2012 2013 2013 2014 

Production and related workers (PRWs) 

(number) 3,966 4,078 4,183 4,087 4,133

Total hours worked (1,000 hours) 7,977 8,251 8,369 1,996 2,134

Hours worked per PRW (hours) 2,011 2,023 2,001 488 516

Wages paid ($1,000) 283,836 309,473 321,526 76,124 81,581

Hourly wages (dollars per hour) $35.58 $37.51 $38.42 $38.14 $38.23 

Productivity (short tons per 1,000 hours) 793 828 810 781 780

Unit labor costs (dollars per short tons) $45 $45 $47 $49 $49 

 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 
IV‐1

PART IV: U.S. IMPORTS, APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION, AND MARKET

SHARES

U.S. IMPORTERS

The Commission issued importer questionnaires to 47 firms believed to be importers of

subject rebar, as well as to all U.S. producers of rebar.1 Usable questionnaire responses were

received from 18 companies, representing virtually all imports of rebar from Mexico, and 84.2

percent of imports of rebar from Turkey in 2013.2 Table IV‐1 lists all responding U.S. importers

of rebar from Mexico, Turkey, and other sources, their locations, and their shares of U.S.

imports, in 2013.   

 

1 The Commission issued questionnaires to those firms identified in the petition, along with firms

that, based on a review of proprietary data provided by ***, may have imported merchandise under the

HTS statistical reporting numbers by which subject imports primarily enter the United States:

7213.10.0000, 7214.20.0000, and 7228.30.8010. The subject merchandise may also enter under other

statistical reporting numbers, including 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.5000, 7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0030,

7221.00.0045, 7222.11.0001, 7222.11.0057, 7222.11.0059, 7222.30.0001, 7227.20.0080, 7227.90.6085

(discontinued in 2014 and replaced with 7227.90.6030, 7227.90.6035, 7227.90.6040, and

7227.90.6090), 7228.20.1000, and 7228.60.6000. 2 Import data are based on official Commerce statistics (HTS statistical reporting numbers

7213.10.0000, 7214.20.0000, and 7228.30.8010). Staff believes official Commerce statistics are more

reliable than importers’ questionnaire response data due to export shipping lag times arising from

producers/exporters (e.g., ***) acting as their own importer of record. Parties view official Commerce

statistics as representative of U.S. imports. RTAC’s postconference brief, exh. 1, p. 36, and conference

transcript, pp. 221‐222 (Nolan and Bond).
IV‐2

Table IV-1 

Rebar: U.S. importers, headquarters, and share of imports by source, 2013 

Firm Headquarters 

Share of imports by source (percent) 

Mexico 

Turkey 

(other than 

Habas) 

Turkey 

(Habas) 

All other 

sources Total 

Aldarra Overseas Group Inc. San Juan, PR *** *** *** *** ***

C&F International Houston, TX *** *** *** *** ***

CMC Irving, TX *** *** *** *** ***

Concrete Reinforcing Products Sunrise , FL *** *** *** *** ***

Deacero USA, Inc. Houston, TX *** *** *** *** ***

Ekinciler Istanbul, Turkey *** *** *** *** ***

Gasa Steel San Antonio, TX *** *** *** *** ***

Habas Istanbul, Turkey *** *** *** *** ***

Icdas Istanbul, Turkey *** *** *** *** ***

Intermetal Rebar LLC Miami, FL *** *** *** *** ***

Intermetal-International Metal Miami, FL *** *** *** *** ***

Izmir Demir Celik Sanayi A.S. Izmir, Turkey *** *** *** *** ***

Macsteel International USA Corp. White Plains, NY *** *** *** *** ***

Medtrade, Inc. Houston, TX *** *** *** *** ***

Simec USA Corp. National City, CA *** *** *** *** ***

Stemcor USA, Inc. New York, NY *** *** *** *** ***

Tata Steel International (North America) Ltd. Schaumburg, IL *** *** *** *** ***

Ternium International USA Corp. Houston, TX *** *** *** *** ***

Total *** *** *** *** ***

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

U.S. IMPORTS  

Table IV‐2 presents data for U.S. imports of rebar from Mexico, Turkey, and all other

sources.3 In 2011, Mexico was the largest supplier of rebar to the United States. In 2012, Turkey

(other than Habas) became the largest supplier of rebar to the United States, and continued as

such in 2013 and into 2014. In 2013, imports of rebar from Mexico and from subject Turkish

producers and exporters, combined, accounted for *** percent of the quantity and *** percent

of the value of all U.S. imports of rebar. The largest nonsubject supplier was Habas, which

accounted for *** percent of the quantity of total imports in 2013. Other nonsubject suppliers

include Spain (3.5 percent of the quantity of total imports in 2013), the Dominican Republic (2.6

percent), Japan (2.1 percent), Korea (1.6 percent), and Peru (1.0 percent).

From 2011 to 2013, the quantity of imports of rebar from subject Turkish producers and

exporters increased by *** percent and the value increased by *** percent. The unit value of

these imports from Turkey decreased by *** percent from 2011 to 2012, and declined by ***

percent from 2012 to 2013, resulting in an overall decrease in unit value from 2011 to 2013 of

 

3 In its final determination, Commerce calculated a zero percent dumping margin and a de minimis

subsidy rate for Habas. Accordingly, Habas is treated as a nonsubject source and table IV‐2 presents U.S.

imports from Turkey from producers and exporters other than Habas.
IV‐3

*** percent. The quantity of imports of rebar from subject Turkish producers and exporters

was *** percent lower in January‐March 2014 than in January‐March 2013, although the value

was *** percent higher. Accordingly, the unit value of these imports from Turkey was ***

percent higher in January‐March 2014 than in January‐March 2013.

From 2011 to 2013, the quantity of imports of rebar from Mexico increased by 19.4

percent and the value increased by 8.2 percent. The unit value of imports of rebar from Mexico

decreased by 9.4 percent from 2011 to 2013, as the quantity of imports of rebar from Mexico

increased more than the value during the period. The quantity of imports of rebar from Mexico

was 7.5 percent higher in January‐March 2014 than in January‐March 2013. The value of

imports of rebar from Mexico was 4.6 percent higher in January‐March 2014 than in January‐

March 2013. The unit value of imports of rebar from Mexico was 2.6 percent lower in January‐

March 2014 than in January‐March 2013.   
IV‐4

Table IV-2 

Rebar: U.S. imports by source, 2011-13, January-March 2013, and January-March 20141

Item 

Calendar year January to March 

2011 2012 2013 2013 2014 

 Quantity (short tons) 

U.S. imports from.-- 

 Mexico 283,285 293,749 338,200 77,482 83,281

 Turkey (other than Habas) *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal (subject *** *** *** *** ***

All other sources -- 

Turkey (Habas) *** *** *** *** ***

Spain 0 0 42,744 0 26,445

Dominican Republic 82,359 39,575 31,242 5,624 7,411

Japan 0 23 25,723 0 17,497

Korea 0 0 19,586 4,752 2,244

Peru 0 0 11,635 0 6,060

All other 22,393 12,467 23,213 1,949 14,155

Subtotal (nonsubject) *** *** *** *** ***

Total U.S. imports 655,418 979,431 1,208,898 360,186 460,117

 Value (1,000 dollars) 

U.S. imports from.-- 

 Mexico 174,697 174,015 188,960 44,855 46,938 

 Turkey (other than Habas) *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal (subject) *** *** *** *** ***

All other sources -- 

Turkey (Habas) *** *** *** *** ***

Spain 0 0 25,707 0 16,703

Dominican Republic 46,778 26,881 20,559 3,435 4,882

Japan 0 20 13,336 0 9,505

Korea 0 0 11,448 2,775 1,273

Peru 0 0 6,911 0 3,767

All other 17,840 10,729 17,803 1,664 9,312

Subtotal (nonsubject) *** *** *** *** ***

Total U.S. imports 410,448 602,951 686,610 203,520 263,933

 Table continued on next page. 
IV‐5

Table IV-2--Continued

Rebar: U.S. imports by source, 2011-13, January-March 2013, and January-March 20141

Item 

Calendar year January to March 

2011 2012 2013 2013 2014 

 Unit value (dollars per short ton) 

U.S. imports from.-- 

 Mexico 617 592 559 579 564

 Turkey (other than Habas) *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal (subject) *** *** *** *** ***

All other sources -- 

Turkey (Habas) *** *** *** *** ***

Spain 0 0 601 0 632

Dominican Republic 568 679 658 611 659

Japan 0 893 518 0 543

Korea 0 0 584 584 567

Peru 0 0 594 0 622

All other 797 861 767 854 658

Subtotal (nonsubject) *** *** *** *** ***

Total U.S. imports 626 616 568 565 574

 Share of quantity (percent) 

U.S. imports from.-- 

 Mexico 43.2 30.0 28.0 21.5 18.1

 Turkey (other than Habas) *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal (subject) *** *** *** *** ***

All other sources -- 

Turkey (Habas) *** *** *** *** ***

Spain 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 5.7

Dominican Republic 12.6 4.0 2.6 1.6 1.6

Japan 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 3.8

Korea 0.0 0.0 1.6 1.3 0.5

Peru 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.3

All other 3.4 1.3 1.9 0.5 3.1

Subtotal (nonsubject) *** *** *** *** ***

Total U.S. imports 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table continued on next page. 
IV‐6

Table IV-2--Continued

Rebar: U.S. imports by source, 2011-13, January-March 2013, and January-March 20141

Item 

Calendar year January to March 

2011 2012 2013 2013 2014 

 Share of value (percent) 

U.S. imports from.-- 

 Mexico 42.6 28.9 27.5 22.0 17.8

 Turkey (other than Habas) *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal (subject *** *** *** *** ***

All other sources -- 

Turkey (Habas) *** *** *** *** ***

Spain 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 6.3

Dominican Republic 11.4 4.5 3.0 1.7 1.8

Japan 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 3.6

Korea 0.0 0.0 1.7 1.4 0.5

Peru 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.4

All other 4.3 1.8 2.6 0.8 3.5

Subtotal (nonsubject) *** *** *** *** ***

Total U.S. imports 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1 Does not include imports of deformed steel wire. ***. For more information on deformed steel wire, see 

app. C. 

Source: Compiled from *** and official statistics of the Department of Commerce. 

CRITICAL CIRCUMSTANCES

On September 15, 2014, Commerce issued its final determinations for these

investigations, which included affirmative determinations of critical circumstances for several

sources.4 In its final determination of sales at less than fair value for Mexico, Commerce

determined that critical circumstances exist with regard to imports from Mexico from Deacero,

Acerero, Simec, and Mexican firms that are subject to the all others rate (collectively, all

producers and exporters).5 Table IV‐3 presents monthly data of imports of rebar by U.S.

importers from Mexico from all producers and exporters, for the six‐month periods before and

after the filing of the petition on September 4, 2013, as well as end‐of‐period inventories. In the

 

4 When petitioners file timely allegations of critical circumstances, Commerce examines whether

there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that (1) either there is a history of dumping and

material injury by reason of dumped imports in the United States or elsewhere of the subject

merchandise, or the person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was imported knew or

should have known that the exporter was selling the subject merchandise at LTFV and that there was

likely to be material injury by reason of such sales; and (2) there have been massive imports of the

subject merchandise over a relatively short period.   5 Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Mexico: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value

and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 79 FR 54967, September 15, 2014.
IV‐7

six‐month period before the filing of the petition (March‐August 2013), imports of rebar from

Mexico totaled 170,896 short tons (47.8 percent of total imports of rebar from Mexico during

March 2013‐February 2014). In the six‐month period after the filing of the petition (September

2013‐February 2014), imports of rebar from Mexico totaled 186,342 short tons (52.2 percent of

imports of rebar from Mexico during March 2013‐February 2014).

Table IV-3 

Rebar: U.S. imports from Mexico, by month, March 2013 through February 20141

Month/year 

U.S. imports from Mexico 

Quantity (short tons) Share of total (percent) 

March 2013 35,962 10.1

April 2013 29,394 8.2

May 2013 22,073 6.2

June 2013 21,210 5.9

July 2013 24,981 7.0

August 2013 37,275 10.4

September 2013 31,530 8.8

October 2013 34,974 9.8

November 2013 31,063 8.7

December 2013 28,218 7.9

January 2014 35,008 9.8

February 2014 25,549 7.2

Total imports 357,238 100.0

Item 

Period 

Jan-Mar 2013 Jan-Mar 2014 

U.S. importers' EOP inventories *** ***

 1 Does not include imports of deformed steel wire. ***. For more information on deformed steel wire, see 

app. C. 

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the Department of Commerce (import data) and data submitted 

in response to Commission questionnaires (inventory data). 

In its final countervailing duty determination for Turkey, Commerce determined that

critical circumstances exist with regard to imports from Turkey of rebar from all producers and

exporters other than Habas and Icdas.6 Table IV‐4 presents monthly data of imports of rebar by

U.S. importers from Turkey from all producers and exporters other than Habas and Icdas, for

the six‐month periods before and after the filing of the petition on September 4, 2013, as well

as end‐of‐period inventories. In the six‐month period before the filing of the petition (March‐

August 2013), imports of rebar from Turkey excluding Habas and Icdas totaled *** short tons

(*** percent of total imports of rebar from Turkey excluding Habas and Icdas during March

2013‐February 2014). In the six‐month period after the filing of the petition (September 2013‐

 

6 Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From the Republic of Turkey: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty

Determination Final Affirmative Critical Circumstances Determination, 79 FR 54963, September 15, 2014.
IV‐8

February 2014), imports of rebar from Turkey excluding Habas and Icdas totaled *** short tons

(*** percent of total imports of rebar from Turkey excluding Habas and Icdas during March

2013‐February 2014).

Table IV-4 

Rebar: U.S. imports from Turkey excluding Habas and Icdas, by month, March 2013 through 

February 2014 

Month/year 

U.S. imports from 

Turkey (other than Habas and Icdas) 

Quantity (short tons) Share of total (percent) 

March 2013 *** ***

April 2013 *** ***

May 2013 *** ***

June 2013 *** ***

July 2013 *** ***

August 2013 *** ***

September 2013 *** ***

October 2013 *** ***

November 2013 *** ***

December 2013 *** ***

January 2014 *** ***

February 2014 *** ***

Total imports *** ***

Item 

Period 

Jan-Mar 2013 Jan-Mar 2014 

U.S. importers' EOP inventories *** ***

Source: Compiled from *** (import data) and data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires 

(inventory data). 

Where Commerce has made affirmative final critical circumstances determinations, and

if the Commission makes affirmative critical circumstances findings, subject imports from

Mexico may be subject to antidumping duties retroactive by 90 days from April 24, 2014, the

effective date of Commerce’s preliminary LTFV determination;7 and certain subject imports

from Turkey may be subject to countervailing duties retroactive by 90 days from September 15,

2014, the effective date of Commerce’s final countervailing duty determination.8

 

7 Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Mexico: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value

and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 79 FR 54967, September 15, 2014.

8 Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From the Republic of Turkey: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty

Determination Final Affirmative Critical Circumstances Determination, 79 FR 54963, September 15, 2014.
IV‐9

NEGLIGIBILITY

The statute requires that an investigation be terminated without an injury

determination if imports of the subject merchandise are found to be negligible.9 Negligible

imports are generally defined in the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, as imports from a country

of merchandise corresponding to a domestic like product where such imports account for less

than 3 percent of the volume of all such merchandise imported into the United States in the

most recent 12‐month period for which data are available that precedes the filing of the

petition or the initiation of the investigation. However, if there are imports of such merchandise

from a number of countries subject to investigations initiated on the same day that individually

account for less than 3 percent of the total volume of the subject merchandise, and if the

imports from those countries collectively account for more than 7 percent of the volume of all

such merchandise imported into the United States during the applicable 12‐month period, then

imports from such countries are deemed not to be negligible.10 Imports from Mexico accounted

for 30.3 percent of total imports of rebar by quantity during September 2012‐August 2013 and

imports from subject Turkish producers and exporters accounted for *** percent of total

imports of rebar by quantity during September 2012‐August 2013. During this period, imports

from nonsubject Habas accounted for *** percent of total imports of rebar by quantity and all

other sources accounted for 5.7 percent.

CUMULATION CONSIDERATIONS

In assessing whether imports should be cumulated, the Commission determines

whether U.S. imports from the subject countries compete with each other and with the

domestic like product and has generally considered four factors: (1) fungibility, (2) presence of

sales or offers to sell in the same geographical markets, (3) common or similar channels of

distribution, and (4) simultaneous presence in the market. Additional information concerning

fungibility, geographical markets, and simultaneous presence in the market is presented below.

Fungibility

Table IV‐5 presents U.S. producers’ and importers’ U.S. shipments of rebar by length.

Table IV‐6 presents U.S. producers’ and U.S importers’ U.S. shipments by size. Table IV‐7

presents U.S. producers’ and importers’ U.S. shipments of rebar by grade.

 

9 Sections 703(a)(1), 705(b)(1), 733(a)(1), and 735(b)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a)(1),

1671d(b)(1), 1673b(a)(1), and 1673d(b)(1)).

10 Section 771 (24) of the Act (19 U.S.C § 1677(24)).
IV‐10

Table IV-5 

Rebar: U.S. producers’ and importers’ U.S. shipments, by length, 2013 

Item 

United States Mexico1

Quantity 

(short tons) Share (%) 

Quantity 

(short tons) Share (%) 

< 20 feet (straight) 96,788 1.5 *** ***

≥ 20 but < 40 feet (straight) 1,790,975 27.5 *** ***

≥ 40 but < 60 feet (straight) 1,407,718 21.6 *** ***

≥ 60 feet (straight) 2,881,481 44.2 *** ***

Coiled rebar 343,813 5.3 *** ***

Total U.S. shipments 6,520,775 100.0 *** ***

Item 

Turkey (other than Habas) Turkey (Habas) 

Quantity 

(short tons) Share (%) 

Quantity 

(short tons) Share (%) 

< 20 feet (straight) *** *** *** ***

≥ 20 but < 40 feet (straight) *** *** *** ***

≥ 40 but < 60 feet (straight) *** *** *** ***

≥ 60 feet (straight) *** *** *** ***

Coiled rebar *** *** *** ***

Total U.S. shipments *** *** *** ***

Item 

All other sources Total importers’ U.S. shipments 

Quantity 

(short tons) Share (%) 

Quantity 

(short tons) Share (%) 

< 20 feet (straight) *** *** 91,253 8.6

≥ 20 but < 40 feet (straight) *** *** 666,001 62.6

≥ 40 but < 60 feet (straight) *** *** 276,128 26.0

≥ 60 feet (straight) *** *** 16,090 1.5

Coiled rebar *** *** 13,870 1.3

Total U.S. shipments *** *** 1,063,341 100.0

1

 Does not include imports of deformed steel wire. ***. For more information on deformed steel wire, see 

app. C. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 
IV‐11

Table IV-6 

Rebar: U.S. producers’ and importers’ U.S. shipments, by size, 2013 

Item 

United States Mexico1

Quantity 

(short tons) Share (%) 

Quantity 

(short tons) Share (%) 

No. 3 315,721 4.8 *** ***

No. 4 1,457,509 22.4 *** ***

No. 5 1,596,598 24.5 *** ***

No. 6 1,038,814 15.9 *** ***

No. 7 418,793 6.4 *** ***

No. 8 507,473 7.8 *** ***

No. 9 370,817 5.7 *** ***

No. 10 247,314 3.8 *** ***

No. 11 361,099 5.5 *** ***

No. 14/18 79,019 1.2 *** ***

Other 127,618 2.0 *** ***

Total U.S. shipments 6,520,775 100.0 *** ***

Item 

Turkey (other than Habas) Turkey (Habas) 

Quantity 

(short tons) Share (%) 

Quantity 

(short tons) Share (%) 

No. 3 *** *** *** ***

No. 4 *** *** *** ***

No. 5 *** *** *** ***

No. 6 *** *** *** ***

No. 7 *** *** *** ***

No. 8 *** *** *** ***

No. 9 *** *** *** ***

No. 10 *** *** *** ***

No. 11 *** *** *** ***

No. 14/18 *** *** *** ***

Other *** *** *** ***

Total U.S. shipments *** *** *** ***

Table continued on next page. 
IV‐12

Table IV-6--Continued

Rebar: U.S. producers’ and importers’ U.S. shipments, by size, 2013 

Item 

All other sources Total importers’ U.S. shipments 

Quantity 

(short tons) Share (%) 

Quantity 

(short tons) Share (%) 

No. 3 *** *** 237,780 22.4

No. 4 *** *** 452,520 42.6

No. 5 *** *** 236,803 22.3

No. 6 *** *** 75,336 7.1

No. 7 *** *** 18,814 1.8

No. 8 *** *** 15,448 1.5

No. 9 *** *** 7,200 0.7

No. 10 *** *** 3,929 0.4

No. 11 *** *** 5,638 0.5

No. 14/18 *** *** 0 0.0

Other *** *** 9,873 0.9

Total U.S. shipments *** *** 1,063,341 100.0

1

 Does not include imports of deformed steel wire. ***. For more information on deformed steel wire, see 

app. C. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 
IV‐13

Table IV-7 

Rebar: U.S. producers’ and importers’ U.S. shipments, by grade,1

 2013 

Item 

United States Mexico2

Quantity 

(short tons) Share (%) 

Quantity 

(short tons) Share (%) 

Grade 40 328,408 5.0 *** ***

Grade 60 5,506,819 84.5 *** ***

Grade 75 213,022 3.3 *** ***

Other 472,525 7.2 *** ***

Total U.S. shipments 6,520,775 100.0 *** ***

Item 

Turkey (other than Habas) Turkey (Habas) 

Quantity 

(short tons) Share (%) 

Quantity 

(short tons) Share (%) 

Grade 40 *** *** *** ***

Grade 60 *** *** *** ***

Grade 75 *** *** *** ***

Other *** *** *** ***

Total U.S. shipments *** *** *** ***

Item 

All other sources Total importers’ U.S. shipments 

Quantity 

(short tons) Share (%) 

Quantity 

(short tons) Share (%) 

Grade 40 *** *** 213,265 20.1

Grade 60 *** *** 838,452 78.9

Grade 75 *** *** 6,104 0.6

Other *** *** 5,520 0.5

Total U.S. shipments *** *** 1,063,341 100.0

1

 Refers to minimum yield strength, in thousands of pounds per square inch (psi). Thus grade 60 rebar 

(60,000 psi) has a higher minimum yield strength than grade 40 rebar (40,000 psi). 

2

 Does not include imports of deformed steel wire. ***. For more information on deformed steel wire, see 

app. C. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

Presence in the market

Official Commerce statistics and *** for U.S. imports were used to evaluate subject

import presence in the market. Table IV‐8 and Figure IV‐1 present U.S. imports by month from

each subject source. With respect to U.S. imports of rebar from Mexico, the month with the

greatest quantity of entries was January 2011, with entries of 44,870 short tons. Subject

imports from Turkey exceeded this level in 16 of the 42 months between January 2011 and

June 2014, peaking at *** short tons in *** 2013.   
IV‐14

Table IV-8 

Rebar: U.S. imports from subject sources, by month, January 2011-June 20141

Country 

2011 

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 

Quantity (short tons) 

Mexico 44,870 18,207 29,380 16,290 19,416 18,496 

Turkey (other than Habas) *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal (subject) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Turkey (Habas) *** *** *** *** *** ***

All other sources 6,195 16,097 8,913 6,403 6,785 3,375

 Subtotal 

 (nonsubject) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total imports 51,065 83,240 62,360 94,739 54,352 54,302

Country 

2011 

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

Quantity (short tons) 

Mexico 21,980 29,906 28,364 20,776 20,590 15,009 

Turkey (other than Habas) *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal (subject) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Turkey (Habas) *** *** *** *** *** ***

All other sources 6,720 24,323 4,313 11,540 3,708 6,379

 Subtotal 

 (nonsubject) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total imports 28,704 54,283 32,697 32,317 35,658 71,702

Country 

2012 

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 

Quantity (short tons) 

Mexico 20,110 11,939 29,877 19,007 22,754 24,407 

Turkey (other than Habas) *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal (subject) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Turkey (Habas) *** *** *** *** *** ***

All other sources 10,257 3,168 7,758 3,385 4,119 4,630

 Subtotal 

 (nonsubject) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total imports 137,057 124,460 109,084 105,703 75,983 70,180

Country 

2012 

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

Quantity (short tons) 

Mexico 19,767 33,234 32,800 22,617 30,411 26,825 

Turkey (other than Habas) *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal (subject) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Turkey (Habas) *** *** *** *** *** ***

All other sources 2,704 3,513 4,097 3,928 1,778 2,729

 Subtotal 

 (nonsubject) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total imports 36,802 57,643 46,299 58,814 97,728 59,679

Table continued on next page. 

 
IV‐15

Table IV-8--Continued 

Rebar: U.S. imports from subject sources, by month, January 2011-June 20141

Country 

2013 

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 

Quantity (short tons) 

Mexico 19,106 22,414 35,962 29,394 22,073 21,210 

Turkey (other than Habas) *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal (subject) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Turkey (Habas) *** *** *** *** *** ***

All other sources 7,026 3,364 1,936 1,631 7,644 14,175

 Subtotal 

 (nonsubject) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total imports 117,679 82,290 160,217 39,369 150,983 100,411

Country 

2013 

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

Quantity (short tons) 

Mexico 24,981 37,275 31,530 34,974 31,063 28,218 

Turkey (other than Habas) *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal (subject) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Turkey (Habas) *** *** *** *** *** ***

All other sources 7,131 5,728 23,867 9,459 20,330 51,850

 Subtotal 

 (nonsubject) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total imports 49,248 111,165 140,179 73,676 103,614 80,068

Country 

2014 

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 

Quantity (short tons) 

Mexico 35,008 25,549 22,723 14,647 185 167 

Turkey (other than Habas) *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal (subject) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Turkey (Habas) *** *** *** *** *** ***

All other sources 41,372 18,738 13,703 45,215 36,324 6,002

 Subtotal 

 (nonsubject) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total imports 214,572 92,242 153,303 132,634 87,839 69,623

1

 Does not include imports of deformed steel wire. ***. For more information on deformed steel wire, see app. C. 

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics and ***. 

Figure IV-1 

Rebar: U.S. imports from Mexico and Turkey (other than Habas), by month, January 2011-June 

2014 

* * * * * * * 
IV‐16

Geographical markets

Official Commerce statistics show that in 2013, approximately 92.6 percent of U.S.

imports of rebar from Mexico entered the United States through the customs districts of

Laredo, Texas (75.6 percent); and El Paso, Texas (17.0 percent). All other U.S. imports of rebar

from Mexico entered through the customs districts of San Diego, California; and Nogales,

Arizona; and San Juan, Puerto Rico. Official Commerce statistics and *** show that in 2013,

approximately *** percent of U.S. imports of rebar from subject Turkish producers and

exporters entered through the customs districts of Houston‐Galveston, Texas (*** percent);

Miami, Florida (*** percent); New Orleans, Louisiana (*** percent); San Juan, Puerto Rico (***

percent); and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (*** percent). All other U.S. imports of rebar from

subject Turkish producers and exporters entered through the customs districts of New York,

New York; Baltimore, Maryland; Boston, Massachusetts; and Tampa, Florida. Figures IV‐2 and

IV‐3 present the share of U.S. imports by district from Mexico and Turkey (excluding Habas).

Figure IV-2 

Rebar: Share of U.S. imports from Mexico, by district, 2013 

Note.-- Excludes imports of deformed steel wire. 

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics. 

17.0%

75.6%

0.8%

5.7% 0.9%

El Paso, TX

Laredo, TX

Nogales, AZ

San Diego, CA

San Juan, PR
IV‐17

Figure IV-3 

Rebar: Share of U.S. imports from Turkey (excluding Habas), by district, 2013 

* * * * * * * 

APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION  

Table IV‐9 presents data on apparent U.S. consumption and U.S. market shares for rebar

over 2011‐13, January‐March 2013, and January‐March 2014.

U.S. MARKET SHARES  

U.S. market share data are presented in table IV‐10. Respondents argued that there is

seasonality in the U.S. market, as construction is more prevalent during the spring months but

lags during the winter months. Accordingly, purchases for rebar are low in the fourth quarter

but are high during the first half the year.11 Counsel for respondents argued that because of this

seasonality, comparing market shares between an interim period and a full year is not a valid

assessment.12

 

11 Hearing transcript, pp. 186‐87 (Nolan). 12 Hearing transcript, pp. 186‐87 (Nolan).
IV‐18

Table IV-9 

Rebar: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. imports, and apparent U.S. consumption, 2011-

13, January-March 2013, and January-March 2014 

Item 

Calendar year January to March

2011 2012 2013 2013 2014

 Quantity (short tons) 

U.S. producers' U.S. shipments 5,883,245 6,411,375 6,520,775 1,485,838 1,545,205 

U.S. imports from.-- 

 Mexico 283,285 293,749 338,200 77,482 83,281

 Turkey (other than Habas) *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal (subject) *** *** *** *** ***

All other sources -- 

Turkey (Habas) *** *** *** *** ***

Spain 0 0 42,744 0 26,445

Dominican Republic 82,359 39,575 31,242 5,624 7,411

Japan 0 23 25,723 0 17,497

Korea 0 0 19,586 4,752 2,244

Peru 0 0 11,635 0 6,060

All other 22,393 12,467 23,213 1,949 14,155

Subtotal (nonsubject) *** *** *** *** ***

Total U.S. imports 655,418 979,431 1,208,898 360,186 460,117

Apparent U.S. consumption 6,538,663 7,390,806 7,729,673 1,846,024 2,005,322

 Value (1,000 dollars) 

U.S. producers' U.S. shipments 3,861,848 4,162,510 4,080,230 957,585 981,886

U.S. imports from.-- 

 Mexico 174,697 174,015 188,960 44,855 46,938

 Turkey (other than Habas) *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal (subject) *** *** *** *** ***

All other sources -- 

Turkey (Habas) *** *** *** *** ***

Spain 0 0 25,707 0 16,703

Dominican Republic 46,778 26,881 20,559 3,435 4,882

Japan 0 20 13,336 0 9,505

Korea 0 0 11,448 2,775 1,273

Peru 0 0 6,911 0 3,767

All other 17,840 10,729 17,803 1,664 9,312

Subtotal (nonsubject) *** *** *** *** ***

Total U.S. imports 410,448 602,951 686,610 203,520 263,933

Apparent U.S. consumption 4,272,296 4,765,461 4,766,840 1,161,105 1,245,819 1 Does not include imports of deformed steel wire. ***. For more information on deformed steel wire, see app. C. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires (shipment data), ***, and official 

statistics of the Department of Commerce (import data). 

   
IV‐19

Table IV-10 

Rebar: U.S. consumption and market shares, 2011-13, January-March 2013, and January-March 

2014 

Item 

Calendar year January to March

2011 2012 2013 2013 2014

 Share of quantity (percent) 

U.S. producers' U.S. shipments 90.0 86.7 84.4 80.5 77.1

U.S. imports from.-- 

 Mexico 4.3 4.0 4.4 4.2 4.2

 Turkey (other than Habas) *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal (subject) *** *** *** *** ***

All other sources -- 

Turkey (Habas) *** *** *** *** ***

Spain 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 1.3

Dominican Republic 1.3 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4

Japan 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.9

Korea 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.1

Peru 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.3

All other 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.7

Subtotal (nonsubject) *** *** *** *** ***

Total U.S. imports 10.0 13.3 15.6 19.5 22.9

 Share of value (percent) 

U.S. producers' U.S. shipments 90.4 87.3 85.6 82.5 78.8

U.S. imports from.-- 

 Mexico 4.1 3.7 4.0 3.9 3.8

 Turkey (other than Habas) *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal (subject) *** *** *** *** ***

All other sources -- 

Turkey (Habas) *** *** *** *** ***

Spain 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.3

Dominican Republic 1.1 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.4

Japan 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.8

Korea 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1

Peru 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3

All other 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.7

Subtotal (nonsubject) *** *** *** *** ***

Total U.S. imports 9.6 12.7 14.4 17.5 21.2 1 Does not include imports of deformed steel wire. ***. For more information on deformed steel wire, see app. C.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires (shipment data), ***, and official 

statistics of the Department of Commerce (import data). 
IV‐20

RATIO OF IMPORTS TO U.S. PRODUCTION

Table IV‐11 presents data on the ratio of U.S. imports to U.S. production.

Table IV-11 

Rebar: Ratio of U.S. imports to U.S. production, 2011-13, January-March 2013, and January-March 

20141

Item 

Calendar year January to March 

2011 2012 2013 2013 2014 

 Ratio to U.S. rebar production (percent) 

U.S. imports from.-- 

 Mexico 4.5 4.3 5.0 5.0 5.0

 Turkey (other than Habas) *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal (subject) *** *** *** *** ***

All other sources -- 

Turkey (Habas) *** *** *** *** ***

Spain 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 1.6

Dominican Republic 1.3 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4

Japan 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 1.1

Korea 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.1

Peru 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.4

All other 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.9

Subtotal (nonsubject) *** *** *** *** ***

Total U.S. imports 10.4 14.3 17.8 23.1 27.6

 1 Does not include imports of deformed steel wire. ***. For more information on deformed steel wire, see 

app. C.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and official Commerce 

Statistics. 
V‐1

PART V: PRICING DATA

FACTORS AFFECTING PRICES

As noted earlier, demand factors such as fluctuations in the non‐residential (and to a

lesser extent in residential) construction sectors, as well as overall U.S. economic activity,

influence rebar prices. On the supply side, rebar prices are affected mainly by scrap prices.

Raw material costs

Raw materials accounted for approximately two‐thirds of rebar cost of goods sold

(COGS) during January 2011 – March 2014. The principal raw material used in rebar production

is scrap metal. As shown in figure V‐1, prices for scrap steel in the United States have fluctuated

between January 2011 and July 2014, with the highest price in the beginning of 2012 ($415 per

short ton) and the lowest price in mid‐2012 ($299 per short ton). Overall, scrap prices declined

by 18.4 percent between January 2011 and July 2014. Figure V‐2 compares the quarterly

average price of scrap with the price of U.S. product 3 (the largest product in terms of quantity

sold to unrelated purchasers by U.S. producers).

Figure V-1 

Scrap prices: Monthly price of shredded auto scrap to consumers, Chicago, January 2011 - July 

2014 

Source: American Metal Markets, October 2014. 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2011 2012 2013 2014

Dollars per short ton

Shredded auto scrap, Chicago
V‐2

Figure V-2 

Rebar and scrap: Quarterly prices of U.S. pricing product 3 and scrap (lagged by one quarter), 

January 2011 - March 2014

Source: American Metal Markets and compiled from data submitted in response to Commission 

questionnaires. 

Producers and importers were asked how raw material costs had changed and if they

expected these trends to continue. Most producers reported that scrap prices were volatile and

an important cost. Importers reported that raw material prices (including scrap and iron ore)

have fluctuated, and that raw material costs are an important determinant of rebar prices.

None of the U.S. producers predicted how scrap prices would change in the future; however

two importers expected that the price of inputs would increase, one expected it would

decrease, and one expected continued fluctuations.

U.S. inland transportation costs

Most responding U.S. producers (8 of 9) reported that they typically arrange

transportation to their customers. In contrast, most importers reported that their purchasers

arranged transportation. U.S. producers reported that their U.S. inland transportation costs

ranged from 5 to 10 percent with seven of the eight responding producers reporting

transportation costs averaging 7 percent or less. Seven importers reported transportation costs

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2011 2012 2013 2014

Dollars per short ton

Product 3 Lagged scrap
V‐3

ranging from 1 to 7 percent, with six of the seven reporting transportation costs of 5 percent or

less.1

  

PRICING PRACTICES

Pricing methods

All nine U.S. producers of rebar and 16 of 18 responding importers used transaction‐by‐

transaction negotiations to set prices (table V‐1). Two producers and three importers used

contracts, and one producer used a price list.2 One importer not reporting transaction‐by‐

transaction prices reported setting reported using contracts. The importer responding “other”

did not explain how it set prices.

Table V-1 

Rebar: U.S. producers’ and importers’ reported price setting methods, by number of responding 

firms1

Method U.S. producers Importers 

Transaction-by-transaction 9 16 

Contract 2 3 

Set price list 1 0 

Other 0 1 

1

 The sum of responses down will not add up to the total number of responding firms as each firm was 

instructed to check all applicable price setting methods employed.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

The vast majority of U.S.‐produced and imported rebar is sold on a spot basis (table V‐

2). Of the five U.S. producers that use short‐term contracts, one fixes only price, while four fix

both price and quantity; two noted that prices cannot be renegotiated, while three indicated

that the contracts contain meet‐or‐release provisions. Of the *** producers that use long‐term

contracts, *** fixes only price and *** fixes both price and quantity; *** noted that prices

cannot be renegotiated, and *** indicated that the contracts contain meet‐or‐release

provisions. U.S. producers’ short‐term contracts lasted from 30 to 180 days, with three of the

five producers reporting that short‐term contracts lasted 30 to 45 days; long‐term contracts

lasted from *** days.

                                                      

1 Since most importers did not arrange transportation, most did not report cost share of inland

transportation. 2 ***.
V‐4

Table V-2 

Rebar: U.S. producers’ and importers’ shares of U.S. commercial shipments by type of sale, 2013 

Type of sale U.S. product Mexican imports 

Turkish imports 

(excluding Habas) 

Long-term contracts 3.7 0.0 *** 

Short-term contracts 15.1 11.3 *** 

Spot sales 81.2 88.7 *** 

Note.--Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Four importers reported selling on a short‐term contract basis.3 Three of these reported

length of contracts (ranging from 30 to 120) days; all four reported that contracts do not allow

price to be renegotiated, fix both price and quantity, and do not have a meet or release

provision.

Sixteen purchasers reported that they purchase product daily, six purchase weekly,

three purchase monthly, and two purchase quarterly.4 Four of 27 responding purchasers

reported that their purchasing patterns had changed since January 2011. Three of these

reported increased purchases of “Turkish” or “imported” rebar5 and one reported purchasing

more from “mill floor stock or stock at the port.” Most (26 of 28) purchasers typically contacted

five or fewer suppliers before making a purchase, and more than half (15) of the responding

purchasers typically contacted three or fewer suppliers.

Sales terms and discounts

U.S. producers were almost evenly divided between selling on an f.o.b. and delivered

basis, with four reporting selling f.o.b., three selling on a delivered basis, and the remaining two

responding producers using both methods. Importers were also divided, with eight reporting

selling mainly on a delivered basis and nine selling mainly on an f.o.b. basis. Producer f.o.b.

quotes are commonly based on the location of the mill, and importer f.o.b. quotes are typically

based on the port of entry or discharge.6  

Eight producers offered some discounts: six offered quantity/total volume discounts.7

Seventeen of 18 responding importers reported no discounts.8 Six of nine responding U.S.

producers and 14 of 17 responding importers reported sales terms of net 30 days.9

  

                                                      

3 No importer reported selling via long‐term contracts. 4 One purchaser reported purchasing “a couple days a week.” 5 One of these reported that there was limited domestic product available.

6 Only one importer reported selling on an f.o.b. basis from its warehouse.   7 Two producers reported other discounts, including early payment discounts and discounts

determined by the market.
V‐5

Independent Steel Alliance

In January 2013, several U.S. and Canadian independent rebar fabricators began a

purchasing cooperative called the Independent Steel Alliance (“ISA”) in order to increase

negotiating leverage when making purchases from steel suppliers and to earn rebates based on

purchase volumes. Its members account for more than $500 million in purchases of rebar, wire

mesh, and bar supports. The ISA also was established to allow its suppliers an avenue to reach

new purchasers and increase sales. Among its steel suppliers are domestic producers Byer and

SDI and Mexican producer Deacero.10 Members report that the ISA is very new and still being

tested.11 Respondents assert that the creation of the ISA was a response to the growing power

of the largest three U.S. rebar producers who owned major distributors/fabricators.12

Eight of 10 responding producers but only 3 of 16 responding importers reported that

they had sold rebar to ISA members. None of the U.S. producers and only one importer (***)

reported that its conditions of sale to ISA members differed from those for other sales. ***

reported ***. Eight of nine responding producers and all responding importers reported no

differences between sales to ISA members and other sales and that the ISA had not affected

prices or purchaser patterns.13  

While only 5 of the 28 responding purchasers reported that they were members of the

ISA, two of these had used the ISA in making purchases. Three purchasers reported that 5

percent or less of their 2013 purchases were through the ISA.  All eight responding purchasers

reported that there was no difference between ISA and other purchases.14 Two ISA members

reported that the only differences in their purchases were that they identify themselves as ISA

                                                            

(...continued)

8 One importer reported prompt payment discounts.

9 This includes 1⁄2 percent 10 net 30. One producer reported selling 2 percent 10 net 30, one reported

1 percent 10 net 30, and one reported ***. Two importers reported letter of credit at sight or cash

against document and one reported terms are set before importation.

10 Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Belarus, China, Indonesia, Latvia, Moldova, Poland, and

Ukraine, Inv. Nos. 731‐TA‐873‐875, 878‐880, and 882 (Second Review), USITC Publication 4409, July

2013, p. II‐21. See also “Deacero joins ISA rebar buying co‐op,” AMM, August 9, 2013. Deacero joined

the ISA on July 1, 2013. A company official indicated an interest in becoming more active in the (U.S.)

fabrication market as a supplier and noted that Deacero had expanded its rebar fabrication customer

base by joining the ISA. The official observed that the ISA allows Deacero to “realize improved margins”

by selling directly to fabricators rather than through distributors. 11 Conference transcript, pp. 164‐165 (Melvin and Webb). 12 Respondents assert that, in addition to the degree of concentration of U.S. rebar production, “the

Big Three rebar producers ‐‐ Nucor, Gerdau, and CMC ‐‐ got into the fabrication business and

consolidated it... Combined, the Big Three have over 160 fabrication shops around the United States.

About 50 percent of all U.S. fabrication work goes to one of the Big Three's fabricators.” Conference

transcript, pp. 185‐186 (Bazan).

13 The producer reporting there were differences did not explain what these differences were. 14 One of these, however, reported that there was the possibility of earning rebates.
V‐6

members and receive year‐end rebates of 5 percent.15 One reported that rebate programs were

negotiated by the ISA and the purchase terms are negotiated between purchaser and supplier.

Only 1 of 15 responding purchasers reported that the ISA has affected prices or purchase

patterns, reporting that its independent purchases are made using member suppliers. Five

purchasers reported benefits of ISA membership, including: possibility of getting rebates;

allowing independent fabricators to consolidate volumes to compete more effectively with mill

owned fabricators; and getting industry information.16  

Purchases from related fabricators

Four of 10 producers and 3 of 18 importers reported sales to related fabricators or

distributors. No producers or importers reported that their sales process differed between

related and unrelated purchasers. No producers reported that prices differed between related

and unrelated purchasers, and one of nine responding purchasers reported that it was

different, reporting the payment is automatic for the related purchaser.17 Two of the seven

responding importers (***) reported that prices differed based on volume and that terms

differed although they did not report how. None of the six responding producers and seven

importers reported any supply preference for related purchasers.

Six of the 28 responding purchasers reported purchasing product from related

fabricators. One of these (***) reported its purchase process differed between related and

unrelated suppliers, reporting it purchases ***.18 One purchaser, ***, reported that its

purchase process did not differ between related and unrelated firms but reported it paid the

“***.”19 No purchasers reported paying different prices to related and unrelated suppliers. Two

of the nine purchasers reported that terms differed between related and unrelated suppliers:

*** reported that payment to related suppliers was immediate and *** reported payments are

made through a centralized cash management system and there are no credit‐related concerns.  

Price leadership

In the purchasers’ questionnaire, a price leader was defined as “(1) one or more firms

that initiate a price change, either up or down, that is followed by other firms, or (2) one or

more firms that have a significant impact on prices. A price leader is not necessarily the lowest‐

priced supplier.” Most responding purchasers (18 of 26) reported that Nucor was the price

                                                      

15 One purchaser reported that everything else being equal it preferred purchasing from ISA

members.

16 One purchaser reported that the cost outweighed the benefits. 17 One producer (***) reported that there were no credit expenses for sales to related purchasers.

18 ***.

19 The only other purchaser that provided details (***) reported it negotiated competitive prices

from both *** and third parties.
V‐7

leader.20 Nucor was reported to announce monthly price changes based on raw material costs

and market conditions, and/or the first to announce price changes.21  

Six of the eight responding distributors reported that Nucor was the price leader, with

two of these reporting that other firms also acted as price leaders. Explanations of how Nucor

acted as a price leader included:  

 “the market generally follows their price changes;”  

 “Nucor announces price changes and all other domestic producers adjust pricing

accordingly;”  

 Nucor “is the largest producer and they lead the market;”  

 “all the suppliers have similar prices;” and  

 Nucor “announced price movements, all other domestic producers generally wait

and follow.  Importers will also key off Nucor's announcements and thus make

changes.”  

Distributors reporting other firms were also price leaders reported that:  

 “during the periods of 2011, 2012, 2013 Nucor was the demonstrated leader in

pricing for domestic material.  Monthly pricing announcements were sent just prior

to the 3rd Monday of every month and were anxiously anticipated.  Other Domestic

suppliers would in fact attempt to take price leadership, almost always this

leadership was rejected. In 2012 and 2013, Intermetal re‐emerged into the market

place. It was very quick that for import material, Intermetal become a price leader.  

This was typically Turkish material that was offered at a sub market price.” and  

 “everyone in the industry follows their lead.  They set the market with Gerdau

being the low cost provider between the two, lower than import in most cases.”

One distributor reported Concrete Reinforcing Products (an importer) was a price leader,22

stating that:  

 prices drop as a result of oversupply/purchase by this firm.

   

                                                      

20 This includes three purchasers that reported that both Nucor and Gerdau were price leaders, one

that reported Nucor and Intermetal were price leaders, and one that reported Harris was a price leader

because it was owned by Nucor. Other price leaders were reported by ***. 21 For examples of articles about Nucor’s price announcements, and anticipated announcements, see

http://www.metalbulletin.com/Article/2627032/Iron/AMM‐Rebar‐prices‐falling‐as‐market‐awaits‐

Nucor‐move‐for‐July.html#axzz374hH4ia9 and http://www.steelfirst.com/Article/3062336/Nucor‐

reduces‐rebar‐prices‐by‐20‐per‐ton.html retrieved July 10, 2014. 22 ***.
V‐8

Nine end users reported Nucor was the price leader, one of these also reported Gerdau was a

price leader. End users’ responses included:  

 “adjust prices monthly based on raw material, market conditions and foreign

competition;”  

 “I am told that others follow Nucor's lead;”  

 “they announce price changes and others follow;”  

 “we consider Nucor as the price leader because all other suppliers and producers

wait to see what Nucor does every month and they follow their lead;”  

 “release monthly letter;”  

 “since 2004, Nucor has taken the lead in establishing pricing using the scrap index

which is  published monthly. Any change in pricing since 2004, established by Nucor,

has been followed by the other mills;”  

 “established a standard by which to relate scrap increases into the price;” and

 “always first out with price change notifications.”

Three of the eight responding end user/distributors reported that Nucor was the price

leader ***. *** of these firms reported that Nucor made price announcements, and one of

these reported that it led prices up or down. Two of the *** reported other price leaders

including: Icdas, Deacero, and various brokers selling imported rebar. All four *** provided

further information about price leaders, including:  

 “firms don't determine prices, the market determines prices. The mill, foreign or

domestic, that is offering the lowest price sets the standard that all must meet to be

competitive in the marketplace;”  

 “imports lead prices down;”  

 “imports from various sources, primarily from Turkey and Mexico;” and  

 “both importing companies (Icdas and Deacero) have consistently made offers and

sold in the U.S. that are about $100/ton below market prices.  Domestic producers

have to be close to that price level to compete.”  

Two unrelated purchasers/end users reported importers were price leaders, reporting:  

 “Nucor & Gerdau try to lead prices up, Turkish national leads prices down” and  

 “they consistently and continuously lead prices down.”

Respondents contend that “Nucor and Gerdau are the price leaders and undersold other

U.S. producers and each other,”23 emphasizing sales by the two producers to fabricators.24

Petitioner stated that U.S. producers are not price leaders. Nucor reported that it was a price

                                                      

23 Hearing transcript, p. 166 (Bond).

24 Hearing transcript, p. 225 (Campbell).
V‐9

follower, not a price leader.25 Petitioner argued that the fact that Nucor publishes price lists

does not make it a price leader.26

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 rebar products shipped to unrelated U.S.

customers during January 2011 to March 2014.27

Product 1.‐‐ Straight ASTM A615, No. 3, grade 60 rebar

Product 2.‐‐ Straight ASTM A615, No. 4, grade 60 rebar

Product 3.‐‐ Straight ASTM A615, No. 5, grade 60 rebar

Product 4.‐‐ Straight ASTM A615, No. 6, grade 60 rebar

Product 5.‐‐ Straight ASTM A615, No. 3, grade 40 rebar

Product 6.‐‐ Straight ASTM A615, No. 5, grade 40 rebar

Six U.S. producers provided usable price data for U.S.‐produced rebar, 10 importers

provided usable price data for product from Mexico, and 11 importers provided usable price

data for rebar from Turkey (other than Habas). Seven importers provided price data for product

produced by Habas. Not all producers or importers reported data for all products and all

quarters during January 2011 to March 2014. Pricing data reported by these firms accounted

for approximately 32.5 percent of U.S. producers’ shipments of product,28 *** percent of U.S.

shipments of subject imports from Mexico, and *** percent of U.S. shipments of subject

imports from Turkey (other than Habas) during January 2011 to March 2014.29  

Price data for products 1‐6 are presented in tables V‐3 to V‐8 and figures V‐3 to V‐8.30  

Turkish respondents contend that product 1 is not sold in the same manner by the Turkish

exporters as by the U.S. producers. “Turkish exporters normally sell rebar in multiple sizes at a

blended price with a limitation on the quantity of ...{product 1}...that may be included in any

order.” “U.S. producers typically sell this product at a premium in the U.S. market.” “Therefore,

                                                      

25 Hearing transcript, p. 108 (Darsey).

26 Hearing transcript, p. 109 (Alvarado).

27 Prior investigations and reviews conducted by the Commission, dating back to 1997, have routinely

requested data for ASTM A615 grade 60 rebar in size numbers 3, 4, and 5, and generally for size number

6 as well. Deacero requested the addition of product 5 and product 6, reporting that grade 40 rebar was

“an important portion of its exports to the United States.” Deacero’s response to draft questionnaire,

May 27, 2014.

28 Price data accounted for approximately *** percent of U.S. producers’ commercial shipments.

29 Turkish price data was requested separately for Habas, Icdas, and all other Turkish producers.

30 No pricing data were collected for rebar from nonsubject countries because imports from

nonsubject countries accounted for less than 5 percent of the U.S. market during January 2011‐March

2014.
V‐10

... {product 1}...will indicate a lower price when in fact it is part of a blended average price per

order.”31

Table V-3 

Rebar: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 11

 and 

margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2011 - March 2014 

Period 

United States Mexico 

Turkey 

(other than Habas) 

Turkey 

(Habas) 

Price 

(dollars 

per 

short 

ton) 

Quantity 

(short 

tons) 

Price 

(dollars 

per 

short 

ton) 

Quantity

(short 

tons) 

Margin 

(percent)

Price 

(dollars 

per 

short 

ton) 

Quantity

(short 

tons) 

Margin 

(percent) 

Price 

(dollars 

per 

short 

ton) 

Quantity

(short 

tons) 

2011: 

Jan.-Mar. 672 37,139 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Apr.-June 700 36,917 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

July-Sept. 703 43,161 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Oct.-Dec. 701 39,963 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

2012: 

Jan.-Mar. 679 36,061 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Apr.-June 697 35,983 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

July-Sept. 669 43,947 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Oct.-Dec. 649 35,348 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

2013: 

Jan.-Mar. 661 31,434 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Apr.-June 647 35,627 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

July-Sept. 633 35,716 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Oct.-Dec. 632 35,852 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

2014: 

Jan.-Mar. 649 35,966 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

1

 Product 1: Straight ASTM A615, No. 3, grade 60 rebar.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

                                                      

31 Turkish respondents’ comments on draft questionnaires, p. 2.
V‐11

Table V-4 

Rebar: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 21 and 

margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2011 - March 2014 

Period 

United States Mexico 

Turkey 

(other than Habas) 

Turkey 

(Habas) 

Price 

(dollars 

per 

short 

ton) 

Quantity 

(short 

tons) 

Price 

(dollars 

per 

short 

ton) 

Quantity

(short 

tons) 

Margin 

(percent)

Price 

(dollars 

per 

short 

ton) 

Quantity

(short 

tons) 

Margin 

(percent) 

Price 

(dollars 

per 

short 

ton) 

Quantity

(short 

tons) 

2011: 

Jan.-Mar. 670 115,696 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Apr.-June 684 144,559 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

July-Sept. 688 171,865 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Oct.-Dec. 691 174,374 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

2012: 

Jan.-Mar. 695 142,479 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Apr.-June 683 156,745 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

July-Sept. 653 192,295 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Oct.-Dec. 639 178,413 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

2013: 

Jan.-Mar. 655 119,992 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Apr.-June 638 138,620 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

July-Sept. 625 134,714 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Oct.-Dec. 625 152,404 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

2014: 

Jan.-Mar. 648 119,374 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

1

 Product 2: Straight ASTM A615, No. 4, grade 60 rebar. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V‐12

Table V-5 

Rebar: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 31 and 

margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2011 - March 2014 

Period 

United States Mexico 

Turkey 

(other than Habas) 

Turkey 

(Habas) 

Price 

(dollars 

per 

short 

ton) 

Quantity 

(short 

tons) 

Price 

(dollars 

per 

short 

ton) 

Quantity

(short 

tons) 

Margin 

(percent)

Price 

(dollars 

per 

short 

ton) 

Quantity

(short 

tons) 

Margin 

(percent) 

Price 

(dollars 

per 

short 

ton) 

Quantity

(short 

tons) 

2011: 

Jan.-Mar. 667 168,052 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Apr.-June 685 170,145 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

July-Sept. 687 197,808 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Oct.-Dec. 689 189,079 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

2012: 

Jan.-Mar. 695 159,000 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Apr.-June 679 176,612 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

July-Sept. 649 213,958 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Oct.-Dec. 640 195,499 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

2013: 

Jan.-Mar. 650 162,194 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Apr.-June 634 165,042 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

July-Sept. 614 169,064 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Oct.-Dec. 612 179,199 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

2014: 

Jan.-Mar. 640 153,845 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

1

 Product 3: Straight ASTM A615, No. 5, grade 60 rebar. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V‐13

Table V-6 

Rebar: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 41 and 

margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2011 - March 2014 

Period 

United States Mexico 

Turkey 

(other than Habas) 

Turkey 

(Habas) 

Price 

(dollars 

per 

short 

ton) 

Quantity 

(short 

tons) 

Price 

(dollars 

per 

short 

ton) 

Quantity

(short 

tons) 

Margin 

(percent)

Price 

(dollars 

per 

short 

ton) 

Quantity

(short 

tons) 

Margin 

(percent) 

Price 

(dollars 

per 

short 

ton) 

Quantity

(short 

tons) 

2011: 

Jan.-Mar. 671 124,316 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Apr.-June 672 122,401 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

July-Sept. 676 149,358 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Oct.-Dec. 682 128,680 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

2012: 

Jan.-Mar. 686 119,628 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Apr.-June 671 131,182 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

July-Sept. 644 147,003 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Oct.-Dec. 640 125,179 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

2013: 

Jan.-Mar. 652 108,371 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Apr.-June 642 123,614 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

July-Sept. 624 116,652 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Oct.-Dec. 634 131,027 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

2014: 

Jan.-Mar. 657 110,400 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

1

 Product 4: Straight ASTM A615, No. 6, grade 60 rebar.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V‐14

Table V-7 

Rebar: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 51 and 

margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2011 - March 2014 

Period 

United States Mexico 

Turkey 

(other than Habas) 

Turkey 

(Habas) 

Price 

(dollars 

per 

short 

ton) 

Quantity 

(short 

tons) 

Price 

(dollars 

per 

short 

ton) 

Quantity

(short 

tons) 

Margin 

(percent)

Price 

(dollars 

per 

short 

ton) 

Quantity

(short 

tons) 

Margin 

(percent) 

Price 

(dollars 

per 

short 

ton) 

Quantity

(short 

tons) 

2011: 

Jan.-Mar. 672 7,878 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Apr.-June 681 12,076 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

July-Sept. 686 11,900 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Oct.-Dec. 689 14,331 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

2012: 

Jan.-Mar. 690 9,573 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Apr.-June 675 9,431 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

July-Sept. 640 12,256 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Oct.-Dec. 636 10,787 *** *** *** *** *** *** -- 0 

2013: 

Jan.-Mar. 628 9,443 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Apr.-June 615 9,710 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

July-Sept. 605 9,125 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Oct.-Dec. 605 9,038 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

2014: 

Jan.-Mar. 634 7,157 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

1 Product 5: Straight ASTM A615, No. 3, grade 40 rebar.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V‐15

Table V-8 

Rebar: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 61 and 

margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2011 - March 2014 

Period 

United States Mexico 

Turkey 

(other than Habas) 

Turkey 

(Habas) 

Price 

(dollars 

per 

short 

ton) 

Quantity 

(short 

tons) 

Price 

(dollars 

per 

short 

ton) 

Quantity

(short 

tons) 

Margin 

(percent)

Price 

(dollars 

per 

short 

ton) 

Quantity

(short 

tons) 

Margin 

(percent) 

Price 

(dollars 

per 

short 

ton) 

Quantity

(short 

tons) 

2011: 

Jan.-Mar. 642 7,214 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Apr.-June 670 8,911 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

July-Sept. 674 10,397 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Oct.-Dec. 677 8,332 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

2012: 

Jan.-Mar. 681 8,927 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Apr.-June 667 8,182 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

July-Sept. 630 10,083 *** *** *** *** *** *** -- 0 

Oct.-Dec. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** -- 0 

2013: 

Jan.-Mar. 629 9,270 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Apr.-June 617 7,676 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

July-Sept. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Oct.-Dec. 611 8,644 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

2014: 

Jan.-Mar. 597 6,646 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

1

 Product 6: Straight ASTM A615, No. 4, grade 40 rebar.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V‐16

Figure V-3 

Rebar: Weighted-average prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 1, by quarters, 

January 2011 - March 2014 

*            *            *            *           *            *            *

Figure V-4 

Rebar: Weighted-average prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 2, by quarters, 

January 2011 - March 2014 

*            *            *            *           *            *            *

Figure V-5 

Rebar: Weighted-average prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 3, by quarters, 

January 2011 - March 2014 

*            *            *            *           *            *            *

Figure V-6 

Rebar: Weighted-average prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 4, by quarters, 

January 2011 - March 2014 

*            *            *            *           *            *            *

Figure V-7 

Rebar: Weighted-average prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 5, by quarters, 

January 2011 - March 2014 

*            *            *            *           *            *            *

Figure V-8 

Rebar: Weighted-average prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 6, by quarters, 

January 2011 - March 2014 

*            *            *            *           *            *            *
V‐17

Respondents stated that the AUVs for U.S. producers’ sales to their related end

users/distributors tend to be lower than the AUVs of commercial shipments and thus the

exclusive focus on U.S. commercial sales inflates the margins of underselling in the pricing data

in section V.32  

Petitioner reported that the price they charge to their related end users/distributors is

the same as the price they charge independent purchasers for similarly sized orders. Firms that

make large purchases get volume discounts.33

Price trends

Prices decreased between January 2011 and March 2014 for product from the United

States, Mexico, and Turkey (other than Habas) for all but one country‐product combination.34

Table V‐9 summarizes the price trends, by country and by product. As shown in the table,

domestic price decreases ranged from 2.0 to 7.0 percent from January 2011 to March 2014.

Price decreases for rebar from Mexico for products *** ranged from *** to *** percent, while

the price of Mexican product *** increased by *** percent. Import price decreases for rebar

imported from Turkey (other than Habas) ranged from *** to *** percent.

                                                      

32 Hearing transcript, p. 255 (Campbell).

33 Hearing transcript, pp. 82‐83 (Kaplan).

34 Mexican product *** prices increased over the period.  
V‐18

Table V-9 

Rebar: Summary of weighted-average f.o.b. prices for products 1-6 from the United States, 

Mexico, and Turkey (other than Habas) 

Item 

Number of 

quarters 

Low price 

(dollars per 

short ton)

High price 

(dollars per 

short ton) 

Change in 

price1 (percent)

Product 1 

United States 13 632 703 (3.4)

Mexico 13 *** *** ***

Turkey (other than Habas) 13 *** *** ***

Product 2 

United States 13 625 695 (3.2)

Mexico 13 *** *** ***

Turkey (other than Habas) 13 *** *** ***

Product 3 

United States 13 612 695 (4.0)

Mexico 13 *** *** ***

Turkey (other than Habas) 13 *** *** ***

Product 4 

United States 13 624 686 (2.0)

Mexico 13 *** *** ***

Turkey (other than Habas) 13 *** *** ***

Product 5 

United States 13 605 690 (5.7)

Mexico 13 *** *** ***

Turkey (other than Habas) 13 *** *** ***

Product 6 

United States 13 *** 681 (7.0)

Mexico 13 *** *** *** 

Turkey (other than Habas) 13 *** *** ***

1

 Percentage change from the first quarter of 2011 to the first quarter of 2014 for all countries and 

products.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V‐19

Price comparisons

As shown in table V‐10, prices for rebar imported from Mexico were below those for

U.S.‐produced rebar in all of 78 comparisons; margins of underselling ranged from 0.7 to 15.3

percent. Prices of rebar imported from Turkey (other than Habas) were below those for U.S.‐

produced rebar in 77 of 78 comparisons; margins of underselling ranged from 0.6 to 17.5

percent. In the remaining comparison, the margin of overselling for rebar from Turkey (other

than Habas) was *** percent higher. 35  

Table V-10 

Rebar: Instances of underselling/overselling and the range and average of margins, by country, 

January 2011 - March 2014 

Source 

Underselling Overselling 

Number 

of 

instances 

Range 

(percent) 

Average 

margin 

(percent)

Number 

of 

instances 

Range 

(percent) 

Average 

margin 

(percent)

Mexico 78 0.7 to 15.3 8.6 0 NA NA 

Turkey (other than 

Habas) 77 0.6 to 17.5 10.9 1 *** *** 

 Total 

(Mexico and Turkey other 

than Habas) 155 0.6 to 17.5 9.7 1 *** *** 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

LOST SALES AND LOST REVENUE

The Commission requested U.S. producers of rebar to report any instances of lost sales

or revenue they experienced due to competition from imports of rebar from Mexico and Turkey

since January 2010. Seven U.S. producers (all responding producers except ***) alleged that

they had to reduce prices and two reported they had to roll back price increases (***). All eight

responding U.S. producers alleged that they had lost sales to imported product from the subject

countries. The *** lost sales allegations36 totaled $*** and involved more than *** short tons

of rebar, and the *** lost revenue allegations totaled $*** and involved *** short tons of

                                                      

35 In 78 possible product / quarter combinations, product from Turkey (other than Habas) was priced

lower than product from Mexico in 61 instances and higher in 17 instances.  In 75 possible product /

quarter combinations, product from Turkey (other than Habas) was priced lower than product from

Turkey (Habas only) in 71 instances and higher in 4 instances.  In 75 possible product / quarter

combinations, product from Mexico was priced lower than product from Turkey (Habas only) in 67

instances and higher in 8 instances.  In 75 possible product / quarter combinations, product from Turkey

(Habas only) was priced lower than U.S.‐produced product in 63 instances and higher in 12 instances.

36 Petitioner also reported two lost sales allegations regarding a firm that petitioner reports is no

longer in business. These allegations are not included in the tables or the totals.  
V‐20

rebar. The following summarizes allegations and confirmations by source. However, as

discussed below, not all purchasers provided a response to the allegations.

*** of the lost sales allegations concerned rebar from Turkey alone; these allegations

concerned *** short tons of rebar with a value of $***. Purchasers confirmed *** of these

instances of lost sales consisting of *** short tons of rebar with a value of $***. *** of the lost

revenue allegations concerned rebar from Turkey alone; these allegations concerned *** short

tons of rebar with a revenue loss of $***. Purchasers confirmed *** of these instances of lost

revenue consisting of *** short tons of rebar with a revenue loss of $***.

*** of the lost sales allegations concerned rebar from Turkey and Mexico, and

concerned *** short tons of rebar with a value of $***. Purchasers ***. *** of the lost revenue

allegations concerned rebar from Turkey and Mexico; these allegations concerned *** short

tons of rebar with a revenue loss of $***.  Purchasers confirmed *** of these instances of lost

revenue consisting of *** short tons of rebar with a revenue loss of $***.  

*** of the lost sales allegations concerned rebar from Mexico alone; these allegations

concerned *** short tons of rebar with a value of $***. Purchasers confirmed *** of these

instances of lost sales. There were no of the lost revenue allegations concerned rebar from

Mexico alone.  

Staff contacted 14 purchasers;37 a summary of the information obtained is presented in

tables V‐11 and V‐12 and in the text that follows.

Purchasers were asked to provide details regarding the lost sales and/or lost revenue

allegations.

***.  

Table V-11 

Rebar: U.S. producers’ lost sales allegations 

*            *            *            *           *            *            *

Table V-12 

Rebar: U.S. producers’ lost revenue allegations 

*            *            *            *           *            *            *

***.  

***.

***.

***.

***.

                                                      

37 This includes *** purchasers for which *** lost sales were reported and *** purchasers for which

*** lost revenues were reported.  
VI‐1

PART VI: FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE OF U.S. PRODUCERS

BACKGROUND

Part VI presents the rebar financial results of nine U.S. producers.  The majority of U.S.

producers reported their financial results for calendar‐year periods and on the basis of

generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).1  Staff conducted off‐site verifications of the

U.S. producers’ questionnaires of Gerdau and Nucor and incorporated changes pursuant to

those verifications into this report.  

As discussed in Part III, the operations of the U.S. industry are relatively concentrated,

with the three largest volume producers (CMC, Gerdau, and Nucor) accounting for *** percent

of the reported quantity of net sales in 2013.  Transfers account for a relatively large share of

total sales volume, ranging from a low of *** percent of total sales volume to a high of ***

percent.  CMC, Gerdau, and Nucor, accounting for *** reported transfers, confirmed that

transfers represent rebar sales to related distributor/fabricator operations.2 3

Through related suppliers, the operations of a number of rebar producers are integrated

with respect to ferrous scrap, the primary raw material input:  Cascade purchases scrap from a

related company (Schnitzer Steel’s Metal Recycling Business);4 CMC operates nine scrap metal

recycling plants which directly support the company’s overall mill operations;5 Gerdau’s parent

company operated 23 scrap recycling centers in North America in 2013;6 Nucor’s David J.

Joseph (DJJ) company operated 70 scrap recycling facilities in 2013; 7 and SDI’s metal recycling

 

1 Cascade and CMC reported their annual financial results on the basis of fiscal years ending August

31.  Gerdau, a subsidiary of the Brazilian firm Gerdau S.A., reported its financial results on the basis of

International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).   2 RTAC’s postconference brief, Exhibit 1 (Attachment A).  ***.  Staff verification report, Nucor, p. 3.  

***.  

3 As characterized by an industry witness, related fabrication is essentially an additional route to the

end market.  Conference transcript, p. 150 (Porter).  With regard to the benefit of having downstream

fabricating operations, an industry witness at the staff conference noted that that U.S. producers with

rebar production and downstream fabricating operations are in a position to extract profit from both

levels of rebar activity.  Conference transcript, p. 151 (Porter).  Another industry witness stated that the

presence of related fabricating operations does not insulate the rebar manufacturing operations from

demand volatility, but indicated there would be a financial benefit to rebar manufacturing operations, at

least to some extent, due to marginally lower selling, general and administration (SG&A) expenses

associated with sales to a related company; e.g., the absence of bad debt allowance for transfers and

lower sales and marketing resources expended as compared to commercial sales.  Conference

transcript, p. 152 (Kerkvliet).  RTAC’s postconference brief also reiterated that related fabricators are

operated as separate business units which purchase rebar from both related and unrelated sources.  

RTAC’s postconference brief, p. 35.    4 http://www.cascadesteel.com/company_profile.aspx, retrieved October 28, 2013.  ***.  July 24,

2014 submission by Wiley Rein on behalf of ***. 5 CMC 2013 10‐K, p. 4.  ***.  RTAC’s postconference brief, p. 35.     6 Gerdau SA (2013 20‐F), p 26.  ***.  *** U.S. producer questionnaire response, III‐7.   7 Nucor 2013 10‐K, p. 4.  ***.  RTAC’s postconference brief, Exhibit 1 (Attachment A).  ***.  July 24,

2014 submission by Wiley Rein on behalf of ***.  
VI‐2

operations supplied around half of the company’s overall ferrous scrap requirements in 2012

and 2013.8 9

  U.S. producers with related scrap supply varied in terms of whether ferrous scrap

was purchased at cost (***) or at a transfer price reflecting fair market value (***). 10 11  

With respect to rebar manufacturing facilities, all U.S. producers other than Byer Steel

reported the production and sale of other products in addition to rebar.  While CMC, Gerdau,

and Nucor differed to some extent in terms of the relative importance of rebar and other

products,12  smaller‐volume producers, with some exceptions, generally reported that rebar

was a minor product with respect to their overall operations.

OPERATIONS ON REBAR

Income‐and‐loss data for the U.S. industry’s rebar operations are presented in table  

VI‐1.  Selected company‐specific financial information is presented in table VI‐2.  A variance

analysis of these financial results is presented in table VI‐3.13   

 

8 SDI 2013 10‐K, p. 5.     9 RTAC’s postconference brief stated that underlying scrap prices are determined by global supply

and demand and that related scrap suppliers are operated as separate business units, which in turn

suggests that scrap purchases from related suppliers cannot insulate related producers from price

volatility.  As described by RTAC, a benefit of integration with respect to ferrous scrap would instead be

that, at least to some extent, it enhances security of supply.  RTAC’s postconference brief, pp. 15‐16.  

RTAC’s postconference brief, Exhibit 1, (Attachment A).  ***.  September 30, 2013 e‐mail with

attachment from *** to USITC auditor.

10 July 24, 2014 submission by Wiley Rein on behalf of ***.  July 24, 2014 submission by Wiley Rein

on behalf of ***.  July 24, 2014 submission by Wiley Rein on behalf of ***.           11 With regard to input purchases from related companies, the Commission’s standard practice

requires the elimination of the related company’s profit or loss from the relevant COGS reported in the

financial section of the U.S. producer questionnaire.  The intent of this adjustment is for the related

company’s actual cost to be recognized in determining the financial results reported to the Commission.  

The U.S. producers referenced above indicated that they complied with the Commission’s requested

input valuation.    12 ***.  *** U.S. producer questionnaire, response to question III‐5.  *** U.S. producer questionnaire,

response to question III‐5.  *** U.S. producer questionnaire, response to question III‐5.  It should be

noted that these percentages reflect an aggregation of overall mill operations.  Individual mills do not

necessarily reflect these shares and can vary substantially with regard to the relative importance of

rebar.  ***. Staff verification report, Gerdau, pp. 3‐4.  Staff verification report, Nucor, p. 3.      13 The Commission’s variance analysis is calculated in three parts:  sales variance, cost of goods sold

(COGS) variance, and SG&A expenses variance.  Each part consists of a price variance (in the case of the

sales variance) or a cost variance (in the case of the COGS and SG&A expenses variances) and a volume

(quantity) variance.  The sales or cost variance is calculated as the change in unit price/cost times the

new volume, while the volume variance is calculated as the change in volume times the old unit

price/cost.  Summarized at the bottom of table VI‐3, the price variance is from sales, the cost/expense

variance is the sum of those items from COGS and SG&A, respectively, and the net volume variance is

the sum of the price, COGS, and SG&A volume variances.  All things being equal, a stable overall product

mix, which U.S. producers generally indicated was the case, enhances the utility of the Commission’s

variance analysis.     
VI‐3

Table VI-1 

Rebar: Results of operations of U.S. firms, 2011-13, January-March 2013, and January-March 2014

Item 

 Calendar year January-March 

2011 2012 2013 2013 2014 

 Quantity (short tons) 

Commercial sales *** *** *** *** ***

Internal consumption1 *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** ***

 Total net sales quantity 6,252,358 6,763,455 6,762,561 1,542,114 1,610,824

 Value ($1,000) 

Commercial sales *** *** *** *** ***

Internal consumption1 *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** ***

 Total net sales value 4,096,256 4,401,929 4,266,236 994,583 1,021,690

 Cost of goods sold: 

 Raw materials 2,644,948 2,772,837 2,569,730 611,699 654,218

 Direct labor 266,344 292,249 304,281 73,455 78,490

 Other factory costs 829,884 919,701 1,056,123 232,804 244,123

 Total cost of goods sold 3,741,176 3,984,787 3,930,134 917,958 976,831

 Gross profit 355,080 417,142 336,102 76,625 44,859

 SG&A expenses 177,046 176,581 177,621 43,396 43,175

 Operating income 178,034 240,561 158,481 33,229 1,684

 Interest expense 43,501 27,366 34,180 8,158 8,408

 Other expenses 7,325 2,883 3,829 816 986

 Other income items2 (1,667) (2,891) 23,260 (551) (472)

 Net income or (loss) 125,541 207,421 143,732 23,704 (8,182)

 Depreciation/amortization 132,211 128,941 136,982 33,973 34,534

 Estimated cash flow from operations 257,752 336,362 280,714 57,677 26,352

 Ratio to net sales (percent) 

 Raw materials 64.6 63.0 60.2 61.5 64.0

 Direct labor 6.5 6.6 7.1 7.4 7.7

 Other factory costs 20.3 20.9 24.8 23.4 23.9

 Cost of goods sold 91.3 90.5 92.1 92.3 95.6

 Gross profit 8.7 9.5 7.9 7.7 4.4

 SG&A expenses 4.3 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.2

 Operating income 4.3 5.5 3.7 3.3 0.2

 Net income or (loss) 3.1 4.7 3.4 2.4 (0.8)

 Table continued on next page. 
VI‐4

Table VI-1--Continued

Rebar: Results of operations of U.S. firms, 2011-13, January-March 2013, and January-March 2014 

Item 

Calendar year January-March 

2011 2012 2013 2013 2014 

 Ratio to cost of goods sold (percent) 

 Raw materials 70.7 69.6 65.4 66.6 67.0

 Direct labor 7.1 7.3 7.7 8.0 8.0

 Other factory costs 22.2 23.1 26.9 25.4 25.0

 Unit values (dollars per short ton) 

Commercial sales3 *** *** *** *** ***

Internal consumption (

4

) *** *** *** ***

Transfers3 *** *** *** *** ***

 Total net sales 655 651 631 645 634

 Cost of goods sold: 

 Raw materials 423 410 380 397 406

 Direct labor 43 43 45 48 49

 Other factory costs 133 136 156 151 152

 Total cost of goods sold 598 589 581 595 606

 Gross profit 57 62 50 50 28

 SG&A expenses 28 26 26 28 27

 Operating income 28 36 23 22 1

 Number of firms reporting 

 Operating losses 1 2 1 1 3

 Data 9 9 9 9 9

1

 ***. RTAC’s postconference brief, Exhibit 1 (Attachment A). 

2

 ***. Ibid. 

3 Average company-specific commercial sales and transfer values are presented in Appendix E. 

4 Not applicable. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

Table VI-2 

Rebar: Results of operations of U.S. firms, by firm, 2011-13, January-March 2013, and January-March 

2014

* * * * * * *
VI‐5

Table VI-3 

Rebar: Variance analysis of U.S. firms’ operations, 2011-13, January-March 2013, and JanuaryMarch 2014

Item 

Calendar year January-March 

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 

 Total net sales: Value ($1,000) 

 Price variance (29,174) (135,111) (17,207)

 Volume variance 334,847 (582) 44,314

 Total net sales variance 305,673 (135,693) 27,107

 Cost of sales: 

 Raw materials: 

 Cost variance 88,321 202,740 (15,264)

 Volume variance (216,210) 367 (27,255)

 Net raw material variance (127,889) 203,107 (42,519)

 Direct labor: 

 Cost variance (4,133) (12,071) (1,762)

 Volume variance (21,772) 39 (3,273)

 Net direct labor variance (25,905) (12,032) (5,035)

 Other factory costs: 

 Cost variance (21,978) (136,544) (946)

 Volume variance (67,839) 122 (10,373)

 Net other factory cost variance (89,817) (136,422) (11,319)

 Net cost of sales: 

 Cost variance 62,210 54,126 (17,973)

 Volume variance (305,821) 527 (40,900)

 Total net cost of sales variance (243,611) 54,653 (58,873)

 Gross profit variance 62,062 (81,040) (31,766)

 SG&A expenses: 

 Expense variance 14,938 (1,063) 2,155

 Volume variance (14,473) 23 (1,934)

 Total SG&A variance 465 (1,040) 221

 Operating income variance 62,527 (82,080) (31,545)

 Summarized as: 

 Price variance (29,174) (135,111) (17,207)

 Net cost/expense variance 77,148 53,063 (15,818)

 Net volume variance 14,553 (32) 1,481

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 
VI‐6

Revenue

As indicated previously, the shares of the primary rebar sales categories (commercial

sales and transfers) remained relatively stable throughout the period.14  As shown in the

revenue section of the table VI‐3 variance analysis, the industry’s total revenue increased

between 2011‐12 due to a positive volume variance which more than offset a smaller

corresponding negative price variance.  In contrast, total revenue declined between 2012‐13

due to a large negative price variance and a smaller negative volume variance.  

Table VI‐2 shows that during the full‐year period, as well as in interim 2014 compared to

interim 2013, directional trends in company‐specific rebar sales volume were generally the

same.15  However, there were exceptions; e.g., *** that reported higher sales volume in 2013,

while *** reporting lower sales volume in interim 2014 compared to interim 2013.16 17   

Gerdau’s *** may to some extent reflect shipping delays in the first quarter 2013 during

implementation of a new ERP system at a number of mills.18  ***.19  

While in most cases reporting similar directional trends in sales volume, smaller‐volume

producers also tended to report larger percentage swings/changes in sales volume as compared

to the larger‐volume producers.20

With regard to average sales value, U.S. producers shared the same directional trend for

much of the period.  In most instances, the directional trend of average sales and average raw

material were also the same.21  

Cost of goods sold and gross profit

  As shown in table VI‐1, total raw material costs, a large share of which represents

ferrous scrap, ranged from a low of 65.4 percent of COGS in 2013 to a high of 70.7 percent of

 

14 ***.  September 30, 2013 e‐mail with attachment from *** to USITC auditor.

15 ***.  September 30, 2013 e‐mail with attachment (revised table II‐7a) from *** to USITC auditor.    16 ***.  Staff verification report, Nucor, p. 4.   17 ***.  July 24, 2014 submission by Wiley Rein on behalf of ***.

18 The following Gerdau rebar mills transitioned to SAP in February 2013 which resulted in a planned

halt in shipping during part of that month:  Gerdau Beaumont, Gerdau Charlotte, Gerdau Jackson,

Gerdau Jacksonville, Gerdau Knoxville, Gerdau St. Paul, and Gerdau Wilton.  Gerdau Long Steel North

America plans brief shipment halt to install new software, Metal Bulletin Daily, January 18, 2013, Issue

348, p. 43.  ***.  Staff verification report, Gerdau, p. 3.  While Gerdau’s shipping (at the above‐

referenced mills) was to be suspended intentionally for four days in February 2013, delays reportedly

persisted at least into March 2013.  Gerdau Long Steel North America new software causing delays,

buyers say, Metal Bulletin. March 8, 2013, Issue 9293, p. 159.   19 July 24, 2014 submission by Wiley Rein on behalf of ***.

20 ***.  July 23, 2014 e‐mail with attachments (including revised table II‐7a and III‐10) from *** to

USITC auditor.  ***.  July 24, 2014 submission by Wiley Rein on behalf of ***.  ***.   July 24, 2014 e‐mail

with attachment from *** to USITC auditor.

***.  July 24, 2014 submission by Wiley Rein on behalf of ***.  ***.  July 18, 2014 e‐mail with

attachment from *** to USITC auditor.   21 Most U.S. producers indicated that surcharges were not a component of reported rebar sales.  

While ***.  RTAC’s postconference brief, Exhibit 1 (Attachment A).  ***.  September 30, 2013 e‐mail

with attachment from *** to USITC auditor.  
VI‐7

COGS in 2011.22  A number of U.S. producers, as noted previously, source ferrous scrap from

related suppliers.23

Other factory costs, the second largest component of total rebar COGS, were at their

highest level as a share of total COGS in 2013, at 26.9 percent, and at their lowest level in 2011,

22.2 percent.  “Other factory costs” represent a combination of fixed, variable, and mixed

(semi‐fixed/semi‐variable) costs which differ by company based on factors such as

manufacturing operations, product mix, and company‐specific accounting choices regarding

cost assignment.  All things being equal, the directional trend of other factory costs (on an

average basis and as a share of total COGS), due to the presence of fixed manufacturing costs,

would tend to be the opposite of the directional trend of corresponding sales/production

volume.24 25  Among the large‐volume producers, ***.26  ***.27

 

22 In general, raw material costs can be interpreted as primary raw material, namely ferrous scrap of

varying grades, and additional non‐scrap materials (depending on cost classification).  The extent to

which conversion costs to produce billet are included directly in raw material costs or reported

separately as part of other factory costs varies.  In some instances, raw material can also reflect billets

and/or other raw materials (not requiring a separate melting and casting stage) purchased from outside

sources.  In addition to differences in mill‐specific yield, which would impact the average raw material

costs consumed per ton of finished rebar produced, the above generally indicates that company‐specific

average raw material costs should not be assumed to be directly comparable.

23 Byer Steel, a reroller, is unique in terms of its rebar production and raw material input.  The

company purchases railroad axles, described as a low‐cost scrap item which can be treated like a billet.  

This reportedly allows the company to bypass the melt stage and instead charge the primary raw

material input directly to a gas‐fed reheat furnace.  Conference transcript, p. 149 (Byer).  Similarly and as

described in CMC’s 2013 10‐K, “{o}ur smaller Arkansas minimill does not have a melt shop or continuous  

casting equipment.  The Arkansas minimill manufacturing process begins with a reheating furnace

utilizing used rail, primarily salvaged from railroad abandonments, and billets acquired either from our

other minimills or from unrelated suppliers as its raw material.  The remainder of the manufacturing

process utilizes a rolling mill, cooling bed and finishing equipment and support facilities similar to, but on

a smaller scale than, those at our other minimills.”  CMC 2013 10‐K, p. 5.  CMC’s other mills, located in

Alabama, Arizona, South Carolina, and Texas, have melt shops.  Of these mills, only the Alabama mill

reportedly does not produce rebar.  Ibid.   24 The directional trend of other factory costs, however, can also be impacted by increases or

decreases in variable costs (e.g., electricity and natural gas) that are often classified as part of other

factory costs, as well as indirectly by changes in cost classification.  With respect to the information

reported to the Commission, as noted below, several companies specified higher energy costs as a

factor impacting the level of other factory costs.  ***.           25 ***.  RTAC’s postconference brief, Exhibit 1 (Attachment A).  ***.  July 24, 2014 submission by

Wiley Rein on behalf of ***.

***.  September 30, 2013 e‐mail with attachment from *** to USITC auditor.   

***.  July 24, 2014 submission by Wiley Rein on behalf of ***.

***.   July 24, 2014 submission by Wiley Rein on behalf of ***.   26 ***.  RTAC’s postconference brief, Exhibit 1 (Attachment A).  ***.  October 22, 2013 e‐mail from

Wiley Rein on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. ***.  July 24, 2014 submission by Wiley Rein on behalf of

***.  ***.  See also footnote 24.    27 July 24, 2014 submission by Wiley Rein on behalf of ***.
VI‐8

Direct labor, the smallest component of rebar COGS, ranged from a low of 7.1 percent

of total COGS to a high of 8.0 percent.

Overall metal margin (the difference between average sales value and average raw

material cost) was at its highest level as a ratio of sales in 2013, its lowest level in 2011, and its

second lowest level in interim 2014 (see table VI‐2).  As such and with some company‐specific

exceptions, the directional trend of the industry’s overall gross profit ratio (total gross profit or

(loss) divided by total revenue) during the full‐year period appears to be more directly related

to positive and negative changes in the level of other factory costs as a share of total COGS.  In

contrast, lower overall gross profitability in interim 2014 compared to interim 2013 reflects

both a reduced metal margin and higher other factory costs as a ratio of sales.  ***.28   

SG&A expenses and operating income or (loss)

Table VI‐2 shows that, while company‐specific SG&A expense ratios (SG&A expenses

divided by total revenue) were not uniform, large‐volume rebar producers reported SG&A

expense ratios which were generally in a similar range.29  As noted above, large‐volume

producers have similar sales structures in which rebar is sold to independent rebar fabricators

and distributors, as well as to related fabricators.   

The industry’s overall SG&A expense ratio remained within a relatively narrow range

during the full year period and was at its highest in interim 2013.30 31  Overall operating profit

reached its highest level on an absolute basis and as a share of sales in 2012 and then declined

in 2013 and was essentially just above breakeven in interim 2014.  With respect to the large‐

volume producers, table VI‐2 shows that ***.  While there are likely a number of distinguishing

characteristics and factors which help to explain ***, underlying product focus and primary

markets may provide at least part of the explanation; e.g., while all have downstream

fabrication operations, *** has a somewhat larger share of its rebar sales dedicated to this

channel.  On an overall basis, *** mills are also somewhat more focused on rebar as compared

to *** (see footnote 2 and footnote 12).

 

28 ***.  July 24, 2014 submission by Wiley Rein on behalf of ***.

29 ***.  RTAC’s postconference brief, Exhibit 1 (Attachment A).    30 Like “other factory costs,” SG&A expenses reflect a combination of costs that are variable, mixed

(elements of fixed and variable costs), and fixed.     31 ***.  Staff verification report, Gerdau, p. 6.  
VI‐9

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES

Table VI‐4 presents company‐specific capital expenditures and research and

development (R&D) expenses related to U.S. rebar operations.32 As shown in table VI‐4, the

absolute level of company‐specific capital expenditures varied with *** accounting for the ***

share of total capital expenditures (*** percent), followed by *** (*** percent) and CMC (***

percent).33  The remaining producers accounted for relatively small company‐specific share

ranging from *** percent (***) to *** percent (***).   

Table VI-4 

Rebar: Capital expenditures and research and development expenses, by firm, 2011-13, JanuaryMarch 2013, and January-March 2014

* * * * * * *

Table VI‐4 shows that company‐specific R&D expenses were limited and mostly

intermittent with ***.34 35

CAPITAL AND INVESTMENT

The Commission requested that U.S. producers describe any actual or potential negative

effects of imports of rebar from Mexico and Turkey on their growth, investment, ability to raise

capital, development and production efforts, or the scale of capital investments.  The responses

of U.S. producers are as follow.  

Actual negative effects

* * * * * * *

Anticipated negative effects

* * * * * * *

 

32 As reported by the U.S. industry, total assets were $1.6 billion in 2011, $1.6 billion in 2012, and

$1.7 billion in 2013.  With respect to a company’s overall operations, staff notes that a total asset value

(i.e., the bottom line value on the asset side of a company’s balance sheet) reflects an aggregation of a

number assets which, for the most part, are not product specific.  Accordingly and with respect to most

U.S. rebar producers, it can be reasonably assumed that high‐level allocation factors would be required

in order to report a total asset value for rebar operations.  ***.  Staff verification report, Gerdau, p. 6.  

Staff verification report, Nucor, p. 7.  ***.   33 ***.  July 24, 2014 submission by Wiley Rein on behalf of ***.   

***.  July 24, 2014 submission by Wiley Rein on behalf of ***.

***.  July 24, 2014 submission by Wiley Rein on behalf of ***.   34 RTAC’s postconference brief, Exhibit 1 (Attachment A).   35 ***.  September 30, 2013 e‐mail with attachment from *** to USITC auditor.  

VII‐1

PART VII: THREAT CONSIDERATIONS AND INFORMATION ON

NONSUBJECT COUNTRIES

Section 771(7)(F)(i) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(i)) provides that—

In determining whether an industry in the United States is threatened

with material injury by reason of imports (or sales for importation) of the

subject merchandise, the Commission shall consider, among other

relevant economic factors1‐‐ 

(I) if a countervailable subsidy is involved, such information as may

be presented to it by the administering authority as to the nature

of the subsidy (particularly as to whether the countervailable

subsidy is a subsidy described in Article 3 or 6.1 of the Subsidies

Agreement), and whether imports of the subject merchandise are

likely to increase,

(II) any existing unused production capacity or imminent, substantial

increase in production capacity in the exporting country indicating

the likelihood of substantially increased imports of the subject

merchandise into the United States, taking into account the

availability of other export markets to absorb any additional

exports,

(III) a significant rate of increase of the volume or market penetration

of imports of the subject merchandise indicating the likelihood of

substantially increased imports,

(IV) whether imports of the subject merchandise are entering at prices

that are likely to have a significant depressing or suppressing

effect on domestic prices, and are likely to increase demand for

further imports,

(V) inventories of the subject merchandise,

                                                            

1 Section 771(7)(F)(ii) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii)) provides that “The Commission shall

consider {these factors} . . . as a whole in making a determination of whether further dumped or

subsidized imports are imminent and whether material injury by reason of imports would occur unless

an order is issued or a suspension agreement is accepted under this title. The presence or absence of

any factor which the Commission is required to consider . . . shall not necessarily give decisive guidance

with respect to the determination. Such a determination may not be made on the basis of mere

conjecture or supposition.”
VII‐2

(VI) 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,

(VII) in any investigation under this title which involves imports of both

a raw agricultural product (within the meaning of paragraph

(4)(E)(iv)) and any product processed from such raw agricultural

product, the likelihood that there will be increased imports, by

reason of product shifting, if there is an affirmative determination

by the Commission under section 705(b)(1) or 735(b)(1) with

respect to either the raw agricultural product or the processed

agricultural product (but not both),

(VIII) the actual and potential negative effects on the existing

development and production efforts of the domestic industry,

including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version

of the domestic like product, and

(IX) any other demonstrable adverse trends that indicate the

probability that there is likely to be material injury by reason of

imports (or sale for importation) of the subject merchandise

(whether or not it is actually being imported at the time).2

Information on the volume and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise is

presented in Parts IV and V; and information on the effects of imports of the subject

merchandise on U.S. producers’ existing development and production efforts is presented in

Part VI. Information on inventories of the subject merchandise; foreign producers’ operations,

including the potential for “product‐shifting”; any other threat indicators, if applicable; and any

dumping in third‐country markets, follows. Also presented in this section of the report is

information obtained for consideration by the Commission on nonsubject countries.  

THE INDUSTRY IN MEXICO

The Commission issued foreign producers’ or exporters’ questionnaires to ten firms

believed to produce and/or export rebar from Mexico.3 Usable responses to the Commission’s

questionnaire were received from seven firms: ArcelorMittal Las Truchas, Deacero, Grupo

                                                            

2 Section 771(7)(F)(iii) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(iii)) further provides that, in antidumping

investigations, “. . . the Commission shall consider whether dumping in the markets of foreign countries

(as evidenced by dumping findings or antidumping remedies in other WTO member markets against the

same class or kind of merchandise manufactured or exported by the same party as under investigation)

suggests a threat of material injury to the domestic industry.”

3 These firms were identified through a review of information submitted in the petition.  
VII‐3

Acerero S.A. de C.V. (“Acerero”), Grupo Simec S.A.B. (“Simec”), Sidertul S.A. de C.V. (“Sidertul”),

Talleres y Aceros S.A. de C.V. (“Talleres”), and Ternium Mexico S.A. de C.V. (“Ternium”). These

firms’ exports to the United States accounted for virtually all of U.S. imports of rebar from

Mexico since 2011.4 According to estimates requested of the responding Mexican producers,

the production of rebar in Mexico reported by these seven firms accounts for all rebar

production in Mexico in 2013. Sidertul reported that *** percent of its total sales in its most

recent fiscal year were sales of rebar. Deacero reported that *** percent of its total sales in its

most recent fiscal year were sales of rebar. ArcelorMittal Las Truchas reported that *** percent

of its total sales in its most recent fiscal year were sales of rebar. Acerero reported that ***

percent of its total sales in its most recent fiscal year were sales of rebar. Ternium reported that

*** percent of its total sales in its most recent fiscal year were sales of rebar. Talleres reported

that *** percent of its total sales in its most recent fiscal year were sales of rebar. *** reported

that *** percent of its total sales in its most recent fiscal year were sales of rebar.

Deacero reported that it began construction of a new plant (Ramos Arizpe Steel Mill

(“Ramos mill”)) in September 2010 and began production operations in February 2012.5

According to Deacero, the Ramos mill, which includes a hot‐rolling mill of 400,000 metric ton

(441,000 short tons) of installed annual capacity, was constructed primarily to produce

structural shapes (i.e., channels, rounds, squares, flat bars, beams, and angles).6 The plant did,

however, produce straight rebar on its hot‐rolling mill while it was moving up the learning curve

for producing merchant bar.7 Specifically, Deacero reported the following:

 In 2012, structural shapes and merchant bars accounted for *** percent (***

short tons) of the mill’s production on its hot‐rolling mill, while rebar accounted

for *** percent (*** short tons);

 In 2013, structural shapes and merchant bars accounted for *** percent (***

short tons) of the mill’s production on its hot‐rolling mill, while rebar accounted

for *** percent (*** short tons);

 In January‐March 2014, structural shapes and merchant bars accounted for ***

percent (*** short tons) of the mill’s production on its hot‐rolling mill, while

rebar accounted for *** percent (*** short tons);

                                                            

4 Deacero estimated that its rebar exports to the United States accounted for approximately ***

percent of all such exports of rebar from Mexico reported in 2013; *** estimated that its exports to the

United States accounted for approximately *** percent of all such exports in 2013; *** estimated that

its exports to the United States accounted for *** percent of all such exports in 2013. *** reported that

it exported *** short tons to the United States in 2011. *** reported that *** to the United States

during 2011‐March 2014. *** reported that it exported *** short tons of rebar to the United States in

2011 and *** short tons of rebar to the United States in 2012. 5 Questionnaire response of Deacero, II‐2.

6 Conference transcript, pp. 180‐181 (Noriega); Deacero’s posthearing brief, p. 47 (response to

question 7). 7 Hearing transcript, p. 150 (Gutierrez).
VII‐4

 In July‐August 2014, structural shapes and merchant bars accounted for ***

percent (*** short tons) of the mill’s production on its hot‐rolling mill.8

According to Deacero, the Ramos facility’s hot‐rolling mill has not produced rebar since

May 2014.9 Deacero also stated that the Ramos plant did not export any rebar to the United

States.10 Deacero also reported that in January 2013, it ***. Deacero reported that ***.11

Operations on rebar

Table VII‐1 presents information on the rebar operations of the seven responding

producers in Mexico. Reported capacity in Mexico increased by *** percent from 2011 to 2013

and was *** percent higher in January‐March 2014 than in January‐March 2013. Reported

capacity is projected to increase by *** percent from 2013 to 2014 and to be *** percent

higher in 2015 than in 2013. Reported production in Mexico increased by *** percent from

2011 to 2012, resulting in an overall increase of *** percent from 2011 to 2013. Production was

*** percent lower in January‐March 2014 than in January‐March 2013. Production is projected

to increase by *** percent in 2014 compared to 2013, with slightly *** projections for 2015

compared with 2014. Capacity utilization mirrored production, increasing from *** percent in

2011 to *** percent in 2012 before falling to *** percent in 2013. Capacity utilization rates

were higher in January‐March 2013 than in January‐March 2014, *** percent and *** percent,

respectively. Capacity utilization rates are projected to be *** percent in 2014 and *** percent

in 2015.12

                                                            

8 Deacero’s posthearing brief, p. 47 (response to question 7) and exh. 21.

9 Deacero’s posthearing brief, p. 47 (response to question 7) and exh. 21.

10 Conference transcript, p. 270 (Gutierrez). 11 Questionnaire response of Deacero, II‐2. 12 With respect to production constraints, ArcelorMittal Las Truchas reported ***. Deacero reported

***. Sidertul reported ***. Ternium reported ***. Talleres reported ***. Grupo Acerero reported that

***. Simec reported that ***.
VII‐5

Table VII-1 

Rebar: Data for producers in Mexico, 2011-13, January-March 2013, January-March 2014, and 

projected 2014-15 

* * * * * * *

Exports of rebar from Mexico to the United States as a share of total Mexican shipments

ranged from *** percent to *** percent during 2011‐January‐March 2014.13 Exports of rebar

from Mexico to the United States increased by *** percent from 2011 to 2013 and were ***

percent higher in January‐March 2014 than in January‐March 2013. Exports to all other markets

as a share of total shipments increased from *** percent in 2011 to *** percent in 2013,

reflecting the *** percent increase in exports to all other markets during this period. Primary

other markets reported by subject producers include Central and South America and the

Caribbean.14

Alternative products

Table VII‐2 presents information on the total capacity and production of products made

on the same equipment and machinery used to produce rebar of the seven responding

producers in Mexico. ***. *** responding firms reported producing deformed steel wire on the

same equipment and machinery used to produce rebar. However, *** responding firms (***)

did report producing deformed steel wire on other equipment and machinery. Deacero, the

only subject producer that reported producing deformed steel wire meeting ASTM

A1064/A106M with bar markings or subject to an elongation test, estimates that its U.S.

imports of such wire from Mexico were at most *** short tons in 2011, *** short tons in 2012,

*** short tons in 2013, and *** short tons during January‐March 2014. For a summary of data

on such deformed steel wire, see appendix C.

Table VII-2 

Rebar: Mexican producers’ total capacity, production, and capacity utilization, by product, 2011-

13, January-March 2013, and January-March 2014 

* * * * * * *

Table VII‐3 presents the information provided by Mexican producers regarding their

constraints on product shifting.

                                                            

13 Apart from ***, subject producers generally reported exporting *** of rebar to the United States.

***. ***. ***. ***. ***. 14 ***. ***. ***. ***.
VII‐6

Table VII-3 

Rebar: Mexican producers’ constraints on product shifting 

* * * * * * * 

THE INDUSTRY IN TURKEY

The Commission issued foreign producers’ or exporters’ questionnaires to 41 firms

believed to produce and/or export rebar from Turkey.15 Usable responses to the Commission’s

questionnaire were received from seven firms: Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret

(“Kaptan”), Kroman Celik San A.S. (“Kroman”), Colakoglu, Ekinciler Demir Celik Sanaysi A.S.

(“Ekinciler”), Habas, Icdas, and Izmir Demir Celik Sanaysi A.S. (“Izmir”).16 These firms’ exports to

the United States (excluding those from nonsubject Habas) accounted for *** percent of U.S.

imports of rebar from Turkey in 2013 (*** percent of U.S. imports of rebar from Turkey

excluding those from Habas). According to estimates requested of the responding Turkish

producers, the production of rebar in Turkey by the responding firms accounts for *** of

overall production of rebar in Turkey in 2013.17 Colakoglu reported that *** percent of its total

sales in its most recent fiscal year were sales of rebar; Ekinciler reported that *** of its total

sales in its most recent fiscal year were sales of rebar; Icdas reported that *** percent of its

total sales in its most recent fiscal year were sales of rebar; Izmir reported that *** percent of

its total sales in its most recent fiscal year were sales of rebar; *** percent of their total sales in

their most recent fiscal year were sales of rebar.

***. ***. ***. In 2014, Turkish billet producer Yolbulan Bastug Metalurji reportedly

began trial production runs of rebar at its new rebar mill that has an annual capacity of 1.25

million metric tons (1.4 million short tons).18 In recent years, several Turkish steel

manufacturers have entered the U.S. market by forming U.S.‐based subsidiaries. Colakoglu

formed a wholly‐owned U.S. subsidiary named Medtrade LLC in Texas in late 2012 to source

U.S. scrap to Turkey, and to market and sell finished rebar products to U.S. consumers.19

                                                            

15 These firms were identified through a review of information submitted in the petition.   16 In its final determination, Commerce calculated a weighted‐average dumping margin of 0.00

percent and a de minimis subsidy rate for Habas. Accordingly, Habas is treated as a nonsubject source,

and its operations are excluded from the data in this section of the staff report. Data reported by Habas

appear in the section of the report entitled “Information on Nonsubject Sources.” 17 This figure is likely ***. ***.

18 “Turkish merchant billet producer starts rebar mill trials,” Kallanish Commodities, September 16,

2014, found at http://www.kallanish.com/articles/Turkish‐merchant‐billet‐producer‐starts.html,

retrieved September 18, 2014.

19 “In depth: Çolakoğlu Metalurji sets up trading company in US,” Steel Orbis, November 26, 2012,

found at http://www.steelorbis.com/steel‐news/interviews/in‐depth‐colakoglu‐metalurji‐sets‐up‐

trading‐company‐in‐us‐725582.htm, retrieved on October 21, 2013.  
VII‐7

Operations on rebar

Table VII‐4 presents information on the rebar operations of the six responding subject

producers (i.e., those other than Habas) in Turkey. Reported capacity in Turkey increased by

*** percent from 2011 to 2013 and was *** percent higher in January‐March 2014 than in

January‐March 2013. Reported capacity is projected to be slightly *** in 2014 compared to

2013, and moderately *** in 2015 than in 2014.20 Reported production in Turkey increased

steadily during 2011‐13, showing an overall increase of *** percent. Production was ***

percent lower in January‐March 2014 than in January‐March 2013. Reported production is

projected to be *** in 2014 compared to 2013, and moderately *** in 2015 than in 2014.21 The

capacity utilization rates mirrored the increases in production, increasing from *** percent in

2011 to *** percent in 2013. Capacity utilization was lower in January‐March 2014 (***

percent) compared to January‐March 2013 (*** percent). Capacity utilization rates are

projected to be *** percent in 2014 and *** percent in 2015.

Table VII-4 

Rebar: Data for subject producers in Turkey (excluding Habas), 2011-13, January-March 2013, 

January-March 2014, and projected 2014-15 

* * * * * * * 

Exports of rebar from Turkey to the United States as a share of total Turkish shipments,

by subject producers, increased from *** percent in 2011 to *** percent in 2013. Exports of

rebar from Turkey to the United States increased by *** percent from 2011 to 2012 and by ***

percent from 2012 to 2013, resulting in an overall increase of *** percent from 2011 to 2013.

Exports to the United States were *** percent higher in January‐March 2014 than in January‐

March 2013, and their share of total shipments, by subject Turkish producers, was *** percent

in January‐March 2014 compared to *** percent in January‐March 2013. Exports to all other

markets increased by *** percent from 2011 to 2013 and their share of total shipments, by

subject Turkish producers, ranged from *** percent to *** percent.

                                                            

20 Capacity projections for 2014 are higher in the final phase of these investigations than in the

preliminary phase of these investigations because *** additional firms (***) submitted responses to the

Commission questionnaire and provided projections in the final phase. 21 Production projections for 2014 are higher in the final phase of these investigations than in the

preliminary phase of these investigations because *** additional firms (***) submitted responses to the

Commission questionnaire and provided projections in the final phase.
VII‐8

Alternative products

Table VII‐5 presents information on the total capacity and production of products made

on the same equipment and machinery used to produce rebar of the six responding subject

producers in Turkey.22 *** reported producing other products on the same equipment and

machinery used to produce rebar.

Table VII-5 

Rebar: Subject Turkish producers’ (excluding Habas) total capacity, production, and capacity 

utilization, by product, 2011-2013, January-March 2013, and January-March 2014 

* * * * * * * 

Table VII‐6 presents the information provided by Turkish producers regarding their

constraints on product shifting.

Table VII-6 

Rebar: Turkish producers’ (excluding Habas) constraints on product shifting 

* * * * * * * 

SUBJECT COUNTRIES COMBINED

Table VII‐7 presents information on rebar operations of the reporting subject producers

in the subject countries. Estimates of projected capacity for 2014 and 2015 for subject

producers combined are ***.

Table VII-7 

Rebar: Data for subject producers combined (excluding Habas), 2011-13, January-March 2013, 

January-March 2014, and projected 2014-15 

* * * * * * * 

Table VII‐8 presents information on total capacity and production for reporting subject

producers in the subject countries.

                                                            

22 With respect to production constraints, Colakoglu reported ***, Icdas reported ***, and Izmir

Demir reported ***.
VII‐9

Table VII-8 

Rebar: Total capacity, production, and capacity utilization for subject producers combined 

(excluding Habas), 2011-13, January-March 2013, January-March 2014, and projected 2014-15 

* * * * * * * 

U.S. INVENTORIES OF IMPORTED MERCHANDISE

Table VII‐9 presents data on U.S. importers’ reported inventories of rebar.
VII‐10

Table VII-9 

Rebar: U.S. importers’ inventories, 2011-13, January-March 2013, and January-March 2014 

Item 

Calendar year January to March 

2011 2012 2013 2013 2014 

Imports from Mexico: 

 Inventories (short tons) *** *** *** *** ***

 Ratio to U.S. imports (percent) *** *** *** *** ***

 Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports 

 (percent) *** *** *** *** ***

 Imports from Turkey (other than Habas): 

 Inventories (short tons) *** *** *** *** ***

 Ratio to U.S. imports (percent) *** *** *** *** ***

 Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports 

 (percent) *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal (subject): 

 Inventories (short tons) *** *** *** *** ***

 Ratio to U.S. imports (percent) *** *** *** *** ***

 Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports 

 (percent) *** *** *** *** ***

 Imports from Turkey (Habas): 

 Inventories (short tons) *** *** *** *** ***

 Ratio to U.S. imports (percent) *** *** *** *** ***

 Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports 

 (percent) *** *** *** *** ***

 Imports from all other sources: 

 Inventories (short tons) *** *** *** *** ***

 Ratio to U.S. imports (percent) *** *** *** *** ***

 Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports 

 (percent) *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal (nonsubject): 

 Inventories (short tons) *** *** *** *** ***

 Ratio to U.S. imports (percent) *** *** *** *** ***

 Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports 

 (percent) *** *** *** *** ***

Total: 

 Inventories (short tons) 7,257 47,473 93,968 67,055 134,450

 Ratio to U.S. imports (percent) 0.9 5.1 8.1 7.7 7.9

 Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports 

 (percent) 1.0 5.6 8.8 9.3 8.6

 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

U.S. IMPORTERS’ OUTSTANDING ORDERS

The Commission requested importers to indicate whether they imported or arranged for

the importation of rebar from subject sources and all other sources after March 31, 2014. Table

VII‐10 presents U.S. import shipments of rebar arranged for importation after March 31, 2014.
VII‐11

Table VII-10 

Rebar: U.S. importers’ arranged imports, April 2014-March 2015 

* * * * * * * 

TRADE REMEDY MEASURES IN THIRD‐COUNTRY MARKETS

Rebar from subject countries has been subject to several trade remedy investigations. In

2011, the Dominican Republic imposed antidumping duties on imports of rebar from Turkey.23

In November 2012, Egypt imposed provisional safeguard measures for 200 days on imports of

all rebar.24 However, Egypt terminated the investigation in November 2013 without imposing a

definitive safeguard measure.25 Jordan has imposed a definitive safeguard measure, scheduled

to have begun June 16, 2013. 26 Turkey was identified as a leading exporting country affected by

the measure, while Mexico was listed as an excluded country due to being a developing country

with import share below 3 percent.27 In August 2013, Colombia initiated a safeguard

investigation into imports of rebar from WTO member countries, which includes both Mexico

and Turkey, and in September 2013 notified that it would be imposing a 200‐day provisional

safeguard measure.28 However, in April 2014, Colombia notified the WTO that it had

terminated the safeguard investigation without imposing a definitive safeguard measure,

effective March 31, 2014.29  In June 2014, Canada initiated investigations into allegedly

injurious dumped and subsidized rebar from China, Korea, and Turkey. In August 2014, Canada

preliminarily determined that there is a reasonable indication that imports of rebar from these

countries have caused injury or are threatening to cause injury to the Canadian industry.30 31 On

                                                            

23 Dominican Republic, Semi‐Annual Report Under Article 16.4 of the Agreement, WTO, Committee on

Anti‐Dumping Practices, October 14, 2013.   24 Egypt, Notification Under Article 12.4 of the Agreement on Safeguards Before Taking a Provisional

Safeguard Measure Referred to in Article 6 (No Definitive Safeguard Measure Imposed), WTO,

Committee on Safeguards, December 4, 2013.

25 Ibid.

26 Bars and Rods of Iron and Steel, Notification Under Article 12.1(B) of the Agreement on Safeguards

on Finding a Serious Injury or Threat Thereof Caused by Increased Imports, Notification of a Proposal to

Impose a Measure, Jordan, WTO, Committee on Safeguards, July 1, 2013.

27 Ibid.

28 Bars and Rods of Iron or Non‐Alloy Steel (Corrugated Bars and Rods) and Bars and Rods, Hot Rolled,

of Iron or Non‐Alloy Steel (Corrugated Bars and Rods, Hot Rolled), Notification Under Article 12.1(a) of

the Agreement on Safeguards on Initiation of and Investigation and the Reason for it, Columbia, WTO,

Committee on Safeguards, September 4, 2013.

29 Colombia, Notification Under Article 12.4 of the Agreement on Safeguards Before Taking a

Provisional Safeguard Measure Referred to in Article 6, WTO, Committee on Safeguards, April 29, 2014.

30 Canadian International Trade Tribunal, Dumping and Subsidizing Determination, Concrete

Reinforcing Bar, Preliminary Injury Inquiry No. PI‐2014‐001, August 12, 2014. The product scope

included hot‐rolled deformed steel concrete reinforcing bar in straight lengths or coils, in various

(continued...)
VII‐12

September 11, 2014, the Canadian authorities made preliminary determinations of dumping

and subsidization with respect to imports of rebar from China, Korea, and Turkey, and imposed

provisional duties.32

INFORMATION ON NONSUBJECT SOURCES

Rebar is produced in substantial quantities throughout the world. Global Trade Atlas

(GTA) publishes data on the global exports of steel concrete reinforcing bars for HS subheadings

7213.10 and 7214.20, sold in both straight lengths and coils. As shown in Table VII‐11, global

exports of rebar increased by 7.9 percent from 2011 to 2013.33 Turkey, Ukraine, Italy, Spain,

Germany, and Portugal accounted for nearly two‐thirds of global exports of rebar in 2013 from

countries other than China. Intra‐European trade accounts for a substantial portion of exports

of rebar from EU countries.

Leading exporters of rebar are discussed following table VII‐11, including nonsubject

Turkish producer Habas, Ukraine, Spain, Belarus, Portugal, Latvia, and Korea. The Dominican

Republic is also discussed.

                                                            

(...continued)

diameters up to and including 56.4 mm (approximately 2.22 inches), in various finishes, excluding plain

round bar and fabricated rebar products.

31 Petitioners in the case include Alta Steel, Edmonton, Alberta; ArcelorMittal Long Carbon North

America, Contrecoeur, Quebec; and Gerdau Long Steel North America, Whitby, Ontario. AMM, “Canada

rules rebar imports causing injury,” August 12, 2014.

32 Canadian Border Services Agency, Statement of Reasons Concerning the Preliminary

Determinations with Respect to the Dumping and Subsidizing of Certain Concrete Reinforcing Bar

Originating in or Exported to the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of Korea and the Republic of

Turkey, September 26, 2014.

33 This calculation does not include exports from China classified as hot‐rolled alloy bar.
VII‐13

Table VII-11 

Rebar: Global reported exports, 2011-13 

Country 

Calendar year

2011 2012 2013 

Quantity (short tons)

Turkey 7,743,756 9,375,757 9,162,646

Ukraine 2,390,088 2,688,068 2,739,646

Italy 1,182,895 1,771,018 2,092,024

Spain 1,528,684 1,749,047 1,990,336

Germany 1,233,102 1,245,407 1,305,621

Portugal 981,684 1,134,403 1,178,038

Mexico 495,345 656,753 986,024

Poland 929,509 1,191,896 982,009

Belarus 848,368 921,000 861,147

France 694,413 692,670 636,299

United States 578,224 666,794 546,247

Greece 895,978 590,182 427,318

Czech Republic 389,295 587,614 410,588

Brazil 472,657 304,248 386,923

South Korea 738,402 370,071 382,515

Russia 281,876 372,282 354,042

Norway 280,048 309,860 308,924

China 246,858 289,171 299,423

Latvia 626,566 879,189 293,151

Slovakia 62,106 290,962 287,399

All others 3,860,899 3,184,046 2,907,466

Total 26,460,752 29,270,439 28,537,788

Note 1.--Original data published in metric tons, which were converted to short tons by multiplying by 

1.1023. Because of rounding, totals may not add to the figures shown. 

Note 2.--The vast majority of rebar from China may be classified under HS subheading 7228.30 for hotrolled alloyed bar, rather than HS subheading 7214.20 for concrete reinforcing bars. See Steel Concrete 

Reinforcing Bar from Belarus, China, Indonesia, Moldova, Poland, and Ukraine, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-873-

875, 878-880 and 882 (Second Review), USITC Publication 4409, July 2013, p. IV-15. HS 7228.30 is a 

basket category that contains bars and rods made of tool steel, high-nickel alloy steel, alloy concrete 

reinforcing bars and other alloy steel bars. According to Global Trade Atlas, Chinese exports of hot-rolled 

alloy bar under HS subheading 7228.30 nearly tripled between 2011 and 2013, from 3,231,424 short tons 

in 2011 to 9,163,085 short tons in 2013). During the same period, Chinese exports of concrete reinforcing 

bars classified under HS subheadings 7214.20 and 7213.10 remained relatively steady. 

Source: Global Trade Atlas (accessed June 30, 2014), HS subheadings 7213.10 and 7214.20. 

Nonsubject Turkish producer Habas

According to ***, Habas has the second largest rebar rolling capacity in Turkey, second

only to subject Turkish producer Icdas.34 The Commission collected data on Habas’ rebar

operations prior to Commerce’s final determination in which it calculated a zero percent

                                                            

34 ***.
VII‐14

dumping margin and a de minimis subsidy rate with respect to Habas. Table VII‐12 presents

information on Habas’ rebar operations in Turkey. Table VII‐13 presents information on Habas’

total capacity and production of products made on the same equipment and machinery used to

produce rebar.

Table VII-12 

Rebar: Data for Habas, 2011-13, January-March 2013, January-March 2014, and projected 2014-15 

* * * * * * * 

Table VII-13 

Rebar: Habas’ total capacity, production, and capacity utilization, by product, 2011-13, JanuaryMarch 2013, January-March 2014, and projected 2014-15 

* * * * * * * 

Ukraine

Ukraine has been slow to recover from the global recession, which has contributed to

significantly contracted residential and non‐residential construction sectors since 2009.35

Ukraine rebar producers include ArcelorMittal Kryviy Rih (“AMK”), Dneprovsky Iron and Steel

Works, Kramatorsk Iron Works and Yenakiero Iron and Steel. AMK, Ukraine’s largest integrated

steel company, was previously a state‐owned company named Krivoi Rog Mining &

Metallurgical Integrated Works before being acquired by ArcelorMittal in 2005.36 In January

2013, AMK announced that its finished rolling capacity increased 11 percent from the previous

year to a total of 1.419 million metric tons, which also includes rebar.37 Dneprovsky Iron and

Steel Works has an annual capacity to produce 3.55 million metric tons of rolled steel in 2011.38

Yenakiieve Iron and Steel, a subsidiary of Ukraine‐based holding company named Metinvest

Group, has an annual capacity to produce 720,000 metric tons of finished rolled products,

                                                            

35 “Ukrainian construction market to decrease again in 2012,” PMR: Construction sector in Russia,

November 26, 2012, found at http://www.constructionrussia.com/177138/Ukrainian‐construction‐

market‐to‐decrease‐again‐in‐2012.shtml, retrieved on September 27, 2013.   36 Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Belarus, China, Indonesia, Korea, Latvia, Moldova, Poland, and

Ukraine, Inv. Nos. 731‐TA‐873‐875, 878‐880, and 882 (Second Review), USITC Publication 4409, July

2013.

37 “ArcelorMittal Kryvyi Rih’s crude steel output up 1.5 percent in January‐May,” Steel Orbis, June 12,

2013, found at http://www.steelorbis.com/steel‐news/latest‐news/arcelormittal‐kryvyi‐rihs‐crude‐steel‐

output‐up‐15‐percent‐in‐jan_may‐764265.htm, retrieved on September 27, 2013.   38 “PJSC Dneprovsky Integrated Iron & Steel Works named after Dzershinsky” Company Profile

(Ukraine),” Infomine Market Research Group, found at

http://eng.infomine.ru/files/catalog/355/file_355_eng.pdf, retrieved on September 27, 2013.  
VII‐15

including rebar.39 According to ***, the ongoing conflict in Ukraine has reportedly led to

production interruptions and mill closures. Raw materials deliveries have reportedly been

delayed due to damaged railways and roads, and fighting in eastern Ukraine has reportedly

resulted in stoppages of some of Ukraine’s largest mills, including Dneprovsky Iron and Steel

Works, Ilyich Iron and Steel Works, and Yenakiieve Iron and Steel.40 As shown in Table VII‐14,

Ukraine’s largest export markets for rebar are Russia and Iraq.

Table VII-14 

Rebar: Ukraine’s reported exports, 2011-13 

 Calendar year 

 2011 2012 2013 

Country Quantity (short tons) 

Russia 481,070 716,509 948,546

Iraq 760,938 978,758 839,991

Azerbaijan 179,156 233,776 277,787

Lebanon 176,806 161,551 143,020

Belarus 23,302 76,200 119,092

Turkmenistan 15,673 77,377 84,046

Georgia 70,619 63,596 74,359

India 163,384 44,937 71,253

Moldova 39,585 25,956 49,589

Armenia 40,893 36,010 35,903

Egypt 34,149 72,572 22,187

Nigeria 30,215 16,806 21,230

Ghana 25,883 20,066 12,398

Guinea 6,644 3,350 10,225

Senegal 7,140 5,916 8,619

Tunisia 0 0 5,329

Romania 58,038 23,326 4,267

Benin 5,440 1,760 4,146

Lithuania 6,041 2,609 2,464

Jordan 3,585 4,602 2,206

All others 261,531 122,389 2,989

Total 2,390,088 2,688,067 2,739,645

Note.-- Original data were published in metric tons, which was converted to short tons by multiplying by 

1.1023. Because of rounding, totals may not add to the figures shown. 

Source: Global Trade Atlas (accessed June 30, 2014), HS subheadings 7213.10 and 7214.20. 

                                                            

39 Metinvest Company website, “Our Facilities”, found at

http://emz.metinvestholding.com/en/about/structure, retrieved on September 27, 2013.   40 ***.
VII‐16

Spain

Spain’s domestic rebar market has been experiencing sluggish demand since 2008, and

Spanish rebar producers reportedly are selling rebar at deep discount to North African markets,

specifically Algeria.41 Grupo Alfonso Gallardo is the largest steel producer in Spain for rebar and

other long steel products. In May 2011, Brazilian flat‐rolled steelmaker, Companhia Siderurgica

Nacional (“CSN”) announced that it would acquire five companies from Grupo Alfonso Gallardo

for $772 million, including two rebar plants, Corrugados Azpeitia SL and Corrugados Lasao

SLU.42 In April 2013, Grupo Alfonso Gallardo said that it would cut 38 jobs at Corrugados Lasao

SLU and shut down Corrugados Azpeitia SL entirely due to lackluster demand for long steel

products.43 Moreover, Grupo Alfsonso stated that it would revise its job cuts production plan at

its Siderurgica Balboa plant in October 2013.44 Megasa, a Spanish‐based long steel producer,

maintains an annual capacity of its long steel products of 800,000 tons per year. Celsa Group, a

rebar manufacturer based in Barcelona, Spain, cut rebar production in April 2012.45 Weak

demand from the construction sector in southern Europe continues to plague Spanish rebar

producers into 2014, reportedly forcing them to turn to export markets.46 Table VII‐15 shows

that Algeria and Portugal are Spain’s largest export markets.

                                                            

41 “Spanish rebar exporters stir buyers with discounts,” Metal News, October 16, 2013, found at

http://europesteeltrade.com/market‐news, retrieved on October 24, 2013.   42 “CSN to purchase four Spanish steel companies,” Steel Orbis, May 23, 2011, found at

http://www.steelorbis.com/steel‐news/latest‐news/csn‐to‐purchase‐four‐spanish‐steel‐companies‐

601605.htm, retrieved on October 24, 2013.   43 Spain’s Grupo Alfonso Gallardo to cut jobs due to lackluster demand,” Steel Orbis, April 22, 2013,

found at http://www.steelorbis.com/steel‐news/latest‐news/spains‐grupo‐alfonso‐gallardo‐to‐cut‐jobs‐

due‐to‐lackluster‐demand‐754345.htm, retrieved on October 24, 2013.   44 “Grupo Alfonso revises job cuts plan for Siderurgica Balboa in Spain,” Steel First, October 4, 2013,

found at http://www.grupoag.es/en/portada/portada.php, retrieved on October 24, 2013.   45 Inside Metals Newsletter, April 4, 2012, found at

https://customers.reuters.com/community/newsletters/metals/IM_Apr_4_2012.pdf, retrieved on

October 24, 2013.   46 “Spanish rebar exporters watching US trade case against Turkey, Mexico,” Metal Bulletin, February

10, 2014;   “Construction lull clouds Southern Europe’s domestic rebar market,” Metal Bulletin,

September 24, 2014.
VII‐17

Table VII-15 

Rebar: Spain’s reported exports, 2011-13 

 Calendar year 

 2011 2012 2013 

Country Quantity (short tons) 

Algeria 823,000 978,883 1,158,996

Portugal 242,515 127,578 104,780

Singapore 11,891 98,495 103,368

France 108,929 112,063 99,712

Australia 16,540 79,788 87,040

Morocco 14,571 47,981 85,497

Israel 32,662 68,637 69,039

Angola 23,321 6,628 46,614

United Kingdom 65,804 50,248 46,196

Dominican Republic 1,076 20,267 32,979

Chile 44,643 0 30,135

Malaysia 640 8,628 28,766

Brazil 1 1,392 13,889

Germany 31,705 20,605 13,371

Ireland 33,019 13,409 10,668

Sweden 0 0 7,870

Belgium 1,263 4,813 6,989

Mauritius 3,774 7,348 6,919

Togo 0 0 6,549

Switzerland 187 10,963 5,344

All others 73,142 91,321 40,866

Total 1,528,686 1,749,048 2,005,585

Note.-- Original data were published in metric tons, which was converted to short tons by multiplying by 

1.1023. Because of rounding, totals may not add to the figures shown. 

Source: Global Trade Atlas (accessed June 30, 2014), HS subheadings 7213.10 and 7214.20. 
VII‐18

Belarus

Belarus has recently been investing in residential housing construction projects. The

construction market is further expected to grow because the Belarusian central government

plans to pass legislation to boost government spending for housing construction.47 Byelorussian

Steel Works (“BSW”) is the only known producer of rebar in Belarus. In July 2013, BSW

announced plans to open a new rolling mill that will eventually produce 1 million tons of rolled‐

steel products per year.48 BSW claimed that up to 13 percent of its production from the new

mill will be exported to former Soviet Union countries, and two‐thirds to other global markets.

BSW plans to produce a total of 3 million metric tons per year of rolled products by 2015, as a

result of the modernization of its existing steel plants. As shown in Table VII‐16, Russia was

Belarus’ largest rebar export market, accounting for 75.2 percent of Belarus’ total exports of

rebar in 2013.   

                                                            

47 “Recession registered in Belarus,” Belarus in Focus, May 21, 2013, found at

http://belarusinfocus.info/p/5895, retrieved on September 27, 2013; and “ International Monetary

Fund: Republic of Belarus: Selected Issues,” International Monetary Fund, April 19, 2012, found at

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2012/cr12114.pdf, retrieved on September 27, 2013.   48 Byelorussian Steel Works website, “Eurasian Bank of Development and Belarusbank SB jointly

finance the erection of a new rolling mill” July 19, 2013, found at

http://belsteel.com/eng/press/news.php?id=549, retrieved on September 27, 2013.  
VII‐19

Table VII-16 

Rebar: Belarus’ reported exports, 2011-13 

 Calendar year 

 2011 2012 2013 

Country Quantity (short tons) 

Russia 443,341 599,998 652,181

Lithuania 66,429 90,479 84,349

Finland 22,308 32,820 32,077

Latvia 15,450 21,636 20,713

Estonia 220 4,583 15,529

Ghana 44,921 21,486 14,618

Iceland 3,618 873 8,466

Jordan 20,180 10,579 5,744

Norway 10,753 12,982 5,698

Turkey 0 0 5,437

Poland 14,989 1,845 5,093

Sweden 15,146 24,284 4,870

Mauritania 2,179 0 3,325

Senegal 13,603 5,819 3,156

Gabon 4,936 2,622 2,682

Ukraine 0 365 1,179

Chad 0 0 1,035

Cameroon 0 0 619

Burkina Faso 5,079 0 441

Cote d’Ivoire 601 0 367

All others 164,614 90,630 3

Total 848,368 921,001 867,582

Note.-- Original data were published in metric tons, which was converted to short tons by multiplying by 

1.1023. Because of rounding, totals may not add to the figures shown. 

Source: Global Trade Atlas (accessed August 14, 2014), HS subheadings 7213.10 and 7214.20. 
VII‐20

Portugal

Portugal’s rebar industry has been hit hard by the country’s depressed construction

industry, which is the country’s largest employer.49 As a result, Portugal rebar producers have

sought increasingly to export to other foreign markets, specifically Algeria, in order to prop

their sales. In June 2013, the Portuguese government signed four agreements with its Algerian

counterparts worth in excess of 4 billion euros, in which Portuguese companies agreed to build

75,000 social housing units and middle class homes, as well as supply building materials, to

Algeria.50 There are two major rebar producers in Portugal, which are both foreign‐owned.

Bollinghaus Steel is a German‐based steel company that has since moved its manufacturing

operations exclusively to Portugal. According to Bollinghaus Steel’s website, the company is

investing over $3 million over the next three years to increase production capacity at its rolling

mill in Vieira de Leiria, Portugal.51 Siderurgica Nacional Longos Sexial (“SN Longos) is majority

owned by Megasa, a Spanish steel producer. SN Longos is capable of producing 900,000 metric

tons of rebar and wire rod annually.52  According to Table VII‐17, exports to Algeria accounted

for 30.8 percent of total rebar exports from Portugal in 2013.  

                                                            

49 “Portugal construction bleeds job, threatens banks,” Reuters, June 28, 2012, found at

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/28/us‐portugal‐construction‐debt‐idUSBRE85R18T20120628,

retrieved on October 24, 2013.   50 “Algeria lifeline for Portuguese construction industry,” The Portugal News Online, February 20,

2013, found at http://theportugalnews.com/news/algeria‐throws‐portuguese‐construction‐industry‐a‐

four‐billion‐euro‐lifeline/27806, retrieved on October 24, 2013.   51 Bollinghaus Steel’s website, found at http://www.boellinghaus.de/57.html, retrieved on October

24, 2013.   52 Megasa Company Profile, Steel Orbis, found at http://www.steelorbis.com/steel‐

companies/megasa/, retrieved on October 24, 2013.  
VII‐21

Table VII-17 

Rebar: Portugal’s reported exports, 2011-13 

 Calendar year 

 2011 2012 2013 

Country Quantity (short tons) 

Algeria 234,063 295,756 363,154

Spain 427,039 295,965 253,986

United Kingdom 43,959 69,680 96,957

United States 0 0 89,928

Morocco 20,309 42,336 83,181

Angola 83,928 154,916 81,905

Ireland 37,829 61,220 54,501

Equatorial Guinea 5,818 14,748 48,602

Brazil 0 71,357 41,277

Senegal 10,423 11,885 11,899

Cape Verde 10,698 10,298 11,343

Congo 565 1,348 9,877

Mauritania 1,629 3,251 5,968

Gabon 6,768 6,820 5,545

Israel 0 33,623 4,709

Congo Dem. Rep. 2,808 4,862 4,002

Germany 11,536 2,665 2,614

Venezuela 0 8 1,766

France 2,312 460 1,510

Burkina Faso 658 222 1,031

All others 81,346 52,986 4,286

Total 981,687 1,134,406 1,178,039

Note.-- Original data were published in metric tons, which was converted to short tons by multiplying by 

1.1023. Because of rounding, totals may not add to the figures shown. 

Source: Global Trade Atlas (accessed August 14, 2014), HS subheadings 7213.10 and 7214.20. 
VII‐22

Latvia

Latvia is one of the fastest growing European economies, and the construction industry

accounted for 6.1 percent of its GDP in 2012.53 Liepajas Metalurgs (“Liepajas”) is the only

known Latvian producer of rebar and one of the largest companies in Latvia. Liepajas states on

its website that it exports 98 percent of its rebar to global markets.54 However, in April 2013,

Liepajas reportedly halted production of its rebar due to falling steel prices, solvency issues and

its inability to pay back a state‐guaranteed loan that was used to upgrade its production.55 In

August 2013, Liepajas was in the process of drafting a legal protection plan before it could

resume operations.56 In September 2013, Liepajas announced that it would lay off 500 workers

and increase prices for its steel products pursuant to its legal protection plan.57 In September

2014, Liepajas was acquired by KVV Group, a Ukrainian scrap producer.58 Table VII‐18 indicates

that Latvia’s largest export markets for rebar are Algeria and Poland.

                                                            

53 “Economy of Latvia,” Baltic Export, found at http://balticexport.com/?article=latvijas‐ekonomika,

retrieved on September 27, 2013.   54 “Polish journalists uncover possible fraud at Latvian steel plant,” News Wave, April 8, 2013, found

at http://newswave.eu/polish‐journalists‐uncover‐possible‐fraud‐at‐latvian‐steel‐plant/, retrieved on

September 27, 2013.   55 “Latvian steel mill seeks investors to avoid bankruptcy,” Baltic Business News, May 10, 2013, found

at http://www.balticbusinessnews.com/?PublicationId=73b599c4‐3a82‐4335‐b41f‐b7adc8a7b4be,

retrieved on September 27, 2013.   56 “Russian investor Dalpolimetall withdraws from talks on rescuing Liepajas metalurgs,” Baltic Export,

August 1, 2013, found at http://balticexport.com/?lang=en&article=portals‐krievijas‐investors‐

dalpolimetall‐izstajas‐no‐sarunam‐par‐lm‐glabsanu, retrieved on September 27, 2013.   57 “Liepajas Metalurgs begins selling off property, laying off 500 workers,” The Baltic Course,

September 16, 2013, found at http://www.baltic‐

course.com/eng/markets_and_companies/?doc=80627, retrieved on September 27, 2013.   58 “Latvia’s Liepajas Metalurgs sells to Ukrainian scrap group,” Kallanish Commodities, September 12,

2014, found at http://www.kallanish.com/articles/Liepajas‐metalurgs‐sells‐to‐Ukrainian.html.  
VII‐23

Table VII-18 

Rebar: Latvia’s reported exports, 2011-13 

 Calendar year 

 2011 2012 2013 

Country Quantity (short tons) 

Algeria 104,814 282,147 147,308

Poland 330,289 267,189 55,132

Estonia 53,017 48,195 28,932

Finland 31,778 31,870 15,551

Lithuania 41,517 44,283 11,480

Sweden 17,303 23,314 8,673

United Kingdom 9,029 52,152 5,898

Belgium 0 0 5,505

Russia 6,011 23,302 4,917

Germany 15,923 10,233 3,030

Denmark 6,843 10,880 2,314

Norway 1,114 2,406 2,057

Netherlands 1,541 524 1,519

Iceland 2,401 5,527 559

Belarus 374 14,988 143

Cyprus 0 568 130

Czech Republic 396 0 0

Azerbaijan 0 425 0

France 0 0 0

Ireland 1,171 86 0

All others 3,047 61,108 0

Total 626,567 879,194 293,149

Note.-- Original data were published in metric tons, which was converted to short tons by multiplying by 

1.1023. Because of rounding, totals may not add to the figures shown. 

Source: Global Trade Atlas (accessed June 30, 2014), HS subheadings 7213.10 and 7214.20. 
VII‐24

Korea

The Korean residential housing construction market has remained sluggish since the

2008 global recession.59 However, it reportedly is set to expand in the near future, driven

mostly by infrastructure construction projects in preparation for the 2018 Winter Olympics.60

The Korean rebar industry focuses on manufacturing high‐strength rebar that is earthquake

resistant and can be used in nuclear power plant construction.61 Korea mostly produces coiled

rebar.62 The average capacity utilization for Korean rebar producers was above 70 percent in

2012.63 Hyundai Steel, a Korean producer of rebar, developed a niche to produce ultra‐high

strength rebars and earthquake resistant rebars in 2011. Dongkuk Steel planned to open a new

rolling mill in 2012 to increase its rebar production from 1.4 million tons to 2.2 million tons.64

Daehan Steel started a new rolling mill for coiled rebar production in 2011, and plans to

increase its rebar processing facilities throughout Korea.65 Korean steel producer, YK Steel,

reduced its rebar production in June 2012 because of facility repairs at its steelmaking mills.66

YK Steel claimed that its monthly output was 75,000 metric tons in 2012.67 As shown in Table

VII‐19, the largest export markets for rebar from Korea in 2013 were Singapore, Canada, and

Malaysia.  

                                                            

59 “Stagnant South Korea Property Drags on Growth Rebound: Economy,” Bloomberg, August 4, 2013,

found at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013‐08‐05/stagnant‐south‐korea‐property‐drags‐on‐

growth‐rebound‐economy.html, retrieved on September 27, 2013.   60 “South Korea's construction industry prepares for the 2018 Winter Olympics,” Building, August 6,

2013, found at http://www.building.ca/news/south‐koreas‐construction‐industry‐prepares‐for‐the‐

2018‐winter‐olympics/1002521299/, retrieved on September 27, 2013.   61 “South Korean rebar producers to target niche market,” Steel Orbis, February 3, 2012, found at

http://www.steelorbis.com/steel‐news/latest‐news/south‐korean‐rebar‐producers‐to‐target‐niche‐

markets‐660104.htm, retrieved on September 27, 2013.   62 Id.   63 “South Korea rebar mills’ capacity usage to exceed 70% in July,” Steel Orbis, July 20, 2012, found at

http://www.steelorbis.com/steel‐news/latest‐news/south‐korean‐rebar‐mills‐capacity‐usage‐to‐exceed‐

70‐in‐july‐700943.htm, retrieved on September 27, 2013.   64 “South Korean rebar producers to target niche market,” Steel Orbis, February 3, 2012, found at

http://www.steelorbis.com/steel‐news/latest‐news/south‐korean‐rebar‐producers‐to‐target‐niche‐

markets‐660104.htm, retrieved on September 27, 2013.   65 Id.   66 “South Korea rebar mills’ capacity usage to exceed 70% in July,” Steel Orbis, July 20, 2012, found at

http://www.steelorbis.com/steel‐news/latest‐news/south‐korean‐rebar‐mills‐capacity‐usage‐to‐exceed‐

70‐in‐july‐700943.htm, retrieved on September 27, 2013.

67 Ibid.
VII‐25

Table VII-19 

Rebar: Korea’s reported exports, 2011-13 

 Calendar year 

 2011 2012 2013 

Country Quantity (short tons) 

Singapore 262,354 165,736 87,019

Canada 28,367 45,431 61,446

Malaysia 51 13,928 47,553

United Arab Emirates 9,139 27,131 38,426

United States 0 4,752 34,871

Kuwait 0 6 20,034

Philippines 518 332 14,755

Australia 0 2,625 11,024

Hong Kong 240,052 27,129 9,825

Vietnam 21,639 10,170 6,633

Taiwan 6,732 6,542 6,264

Ghana 0 0 4,764

Dominican Republic 0 0 4,370

Sri Lanka 0 0 3,832

Panama 5,842 0 3,778

Guam 7,088 4,611 3,567

South Africa 5,456 0 3,312

Uzbekistan 0 0 3,287

Myanmar 85,738 45,173 3,082

Uruguay 0 0 2,841

All others 65,425 16,504 11,834

Total 738,401 370,069 382,517

Note.-- Original data were published in metric tons, which was converted to short tons by multiplying by 

1.1023. Because of rounding, totals may not add to the figures shown. 

Source: Global Trade Atlas (accessed June 30, 2014), HS subheadings 7213.10 and 7214.20. 
VII‐26

Dominican Republic

The Dominican Republic experienced a notable increase in residential and non‐

residential construction over the last decade and therefore an increase in demand for rebar,

propelled by an increase in tourism and hotel‐related projects.68 There are two known

producers of rebar in the Dominican Republic: Industrias Nacionales CxA (INCA), and Metaldom.

INCA merged with Brazilian‐based company, Gerdau, resulting in Gerdau owning a 49‐percent

share and INCA owning a 51‐percent share in the company. In 2007, INCA invested $125 million

to build a rolling mill to increase annual installed capacity from 300,000 metric tons to 720,000

metric tons of rolled products.69 Metaldom is one of the largest steelmakers in the Caribbean

region, and is owned by VICINI Group, a private asset management firm. Metaldom has a

capacity to make 400,000 tons of rolled steel products at its Santo Domingo plant.70 Reportedly,

Metaldom primarily exports its products to the Caribbean and South American markets.71 Table

VII‐20 shows that the largest export markets for rebar from the Dominican Republic in 2012

were Haiti, the United States, and Suriname.   

                                                            

68 Senior, Bolivar A., and Rodriguez, Tulio A., “Analyzing Barriers to Construction Productivity

Improvement in the Dominican Republic,” 20th Conference of the International Group for Lean

Construction, 2012, found at

http://www.iglc20.sdsu.edu/papers/wpcontent/uploads/2012/07/71%20P%20140.pdf, retrieved on

September 27, 2013.   69 Gerdau website, “Inca invests $125 million in the Dominican Republic,” November 29, 2007, found

at http://www.gerdau.com/media‐center/noticias‐detalhes.aspx?cd=36aa0bb3‐4e8f‐4713‐b811‐

efa424407670, retrieved on September 27, 2013.   70 “Developments in Steelmaking Capacity of Non‐OECD Economies 2010,” Organization for Economic

Co‐operation and Development, 2010, found at http://www.oecd‐ilibrary.org/industry‐and‐

services/developments‐in‐steelmaking‐capacity‐of‐non‐oecd‐countries_19991606, retrieved on

September 27, 2013. 71 “Metaldom to fuel rolling mill furnace with natural gas,” BNAmericas, December7, 2010, found at

http://www.bnamericas.com/news/metals/Metaldom_to_fuel_rolling_mill*s_furnace_with_natural_ga

s, retrieved on September 27, 2013.  
VII‐27

Table VII-20 

Rebar: Dominican Republic’s reported exports, 2010-121 

 Calendar year 

 2010 2011 2012 

Country Quantity (short tons) 

Haiti 48,886 87,161 22,106

United States 29,247 77,008 17,608

Suriname 7,207 11,048 7,405

Jamaica 25,313 23,142 1,536

Curacao 0 516 1,092

St. Lucia 2,487 3,082 1,078

Dominica 2,433 3,394 947

Antigua & Barbuda 2,568 2,525 785

Cayman Islands 1,008 1,151 340

Guyana 2,116 2,234 190

Turks & Caicos Islands 917 606 62

Barbados 29 0 57

Anguilla 388 594 31

British Virgin Islands 1,440 877 29

All others 31,201 30,078 0

Total 155,239 243,418 53,264

1

 2013 data are unavailable. 

Note.-- Original data were published in metric tons, which was converted to short tons by multiplying by 

1.1023. Because of rounding, totals may not add to the figures shown. 

Source: Global Trade Atlas (accessed September 30, 2014), HS subheadings 7213.10 and 7214.20. 

A‐1

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES  

A‐3

The Commission makes available notices relevant to its investigations and reviews on its

website, www.usitc.gov.  In addition, the following tabulation presents, in chronological order,

Federal Register notices issued by the Commission and Commerce during the current

proceeding.  

Citation Title Link

78 FR 55755

September 11, 2013

Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar

From Mexico and Turkey;

Institution of Antidumping and

Countervailing Duty Investigations

and Scheduling of Preliminary

Phase Investigations

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR‐

2013‐09‐11/pdf/2013‐22020.pdf

78 FR 60831

October 2, 2013

Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar

From Turkey: Initiation of

Countervailing Duty Investigation

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR‐

2013‐10‐02/pdf/2013‐23987.pdf

78 FR 60827

October 2, 2013

Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar

From Mexico and Turkey: Initiation

of Antidumping Duty Investigations

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR‐

2013‐10‐02/pdf/2013‐23983.pdf

78 FR 68090

November 13, 2013

Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar

From Turkey

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR‐

2013‐11‐13/pdf/2013‐27069.pdf  

79 FR 10771

February 26, 2014

Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar

From the Republic of Turkey:

Preliminary Negative

Countervailing Duty Determination,

Preliminary Negative Critical

Circumstances Determination, and

Alignment of Final Determination

With Final Antidumping

Determination

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR‐

2014‐02‐26/pdf/2014‐04221.pdf  

Tabulation continued on next page.   
A‐4

Citation Title Link

79 FR 22802

April 24, 2014

Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar

From Mexico: Preliminary

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value, Preliminary Affirmative

Determination of Critical

Circumstances, and Postponement

of Final Determination

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR‐

2014‐04‐24/pdf/2014‐09368.pdf  

79 FR 22804

April 24, 2014

Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar

From Turkey: Preliminary

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value, Preliminary Affirmative

Determination of Critical

Circumstances, and Postponement

of Final Determination

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR‐

2014‐04‐24/pdf/2014‐09372.pdf  

79 FR 31136

May 30, 2014

Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar

From Mexico and Turkey;

Scheduling of the Final Phase of the

Countervailing Duty and

Antidumping Investigations

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR‐

2014‐05‐30/pdf/2014‐12507.pdf  

79 FR 54963,

September 15, 2014

Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar

From the Republic of Turkey: Final

Affirmative Countervailing Duty

Determination Final Affirmative

Critical Circumstances

Determination

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR‐

2014‐09‐15/pdf/2014‐21989.pdf  

79 FR 54965,

September 15, 2014

Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from

Turkey: Final Negative

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value and Final Determination

of Critical Circumstances

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR‐

2014‐09‐15/pdf/2014‐21986.pdf  

Tabulation continued on next page.

 
A‐5

Citation Title Link

79 FR 54967,

September 15, 2014

Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar

From Mexico: Final Determination

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and

Final Affirmative Determination of

Critical Circumstances

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR‐

2014‐09‐15/pdf/2014‐21982.pdf  

79 FR 57131,

September 15, 2014

Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar

From Turkey; Termination of

Investigation

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR‐

2014‐09‐24/pdf/2014‐22692.pdf  

Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/

B-1 

APPENDIX B

LIST OF HEARING WITNESSES

B-3 

CALENDAR OF PUBLIC HEARING

 Those listed below appeared as witnesses at the United States International Trade 

Commission’s hearing:

Subject: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico and Turkey 

Inv. Nos.: 701-TA-502 and 731-TA-1227-1228 (Final) 

Date and Time: September 15, 2014 - 9:30 a.m. 

 Sessions were held in connection with these investigations in the Main Hearing Room 

(room 101), 500 E Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 

CONGRESSIONAL APPEARANCE:

The Honorable Amy Klobuchar, United States Senator, Minnesota 

STATE GOVERNMENT WITNESS: 

The Honorable Jim Pitts, State Representative of Texas, District 10 

EMBASSY WITNESSES: 

Embassy of Mexico 

Washington, D.C. 

Kenneth Smith Ramos, Head of Trade and NAFTA Office of the Ministry of 

Economy 

Salvador Behar, Legal Counsel for International Trade 

OPENING REMARKS: 

Petitioners (Alan H. Price, Wiley Rein LLP) 

Respondents (Matthew M. Nolan, Arent Fox LLP, Jay C. Campbell, 

 White & Case LLP) 

 
B-4 

In Support of the Imposition of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders: 

Wiley Rein LLP 

Washington, DC 

on behalf of 

The Rebar Trade Action Coalition 

 Jim Kerkvliet, Vice President of Sales and Marketing, Gerdau Long Steel 

North America 

Marcelo Canosa, Director, Rebar and Wire Rod, Gerdau Long Steel 

North America

Joseph Alvarado, President and Chief Executive Officer, Commercial 

Metals Company 

Tracy Porter, Senior Vice President, Commercial Metals Company 

and President, Commercial Metals Company Americas Division 

Jim Darsey, Executive Vice President of Bar Products, Nucor Corporation

Robert J. Stone, Commercial Director of Sales and Marketing, Long 

Products, Nucor Corporation 

Leo W. Gerard, International President, United Steel, Paper and Forestry, 

Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service 

Workers International Union 

Burke Byer, President and Chief Executive Officer, Byer Steel 

Chris Crowe, President, Magnolia Steel Company 

James R. Melvin, President, Re-Steel Supply Company, Inc.

Robert Webb, President, Southwestern Suppliers 

Dr. Seth Kaplan, Senior Economic Advisor, Capital Trade Inc. 

 Alan H. Price )

 ) – OF COUNSEL 

 John R. Shane )
B-5 

In Opposition to the Imposition of the 

 Antidumping Countervailing Duty Orders (coutinued):

White & Case 

Washington, DC 

on behalf of 

Deacero S.A. P. I. de C.V. (“Deacero”) 

Deacero USA, Inc. (“Deacero USA”) 

 Mauricio Gutierrez Noriega, Export Sales Director, Deacero 

Eugenio Gutierrez Noriega, Vice President of Finance & Trade 

Affairs, Deacero

Miguel Angel Bazan Briseno, Sales Manager, Deacero 

Luis Eugenio Leal Rangel, Trade Affairs Manager, Deacero 

Frank Bergren, Managing Director, Metal Partners Rebar 

David E. Bond ) 

 ) – OF COUNSEL 

 Jay C. Campbell )

Arent Fox 

Washington, DC 

on behalf of 

Turkish Steel Exporters Association 

Icdas Celik Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim Sanayi A.S. 

Colakoglu Metalurji A.S. (“Turkish Exporters and Producers”) 

 

 Uğur Dalbeler, Turkish Steel Exporter’s Association (CIB) Board 

 Member and Chief Executive Officer, Colakoglu Metalurji 

Kamil Murat Cebecioğlu, Icdas Foreign Trade Manager 

 Matthew M. Nolan ) – OF COUNSEL 
B-6 

In Opposition to the Imposition of the 

 Antidumping Countervailing Duty Orders (coutinued):

Davis & Leiman P.C. 

Washington, DC 

on behalf of 

Grupo Acerero, SA de CV 

GASA Steel LLC 

 Carlos Diaz, Business Development Manager, GASA Steel, LLC 

 Humberto Abaroa, Chief Executive Officer/Director, Grupo 

Acerero SA

 Mark David Davis ) – OF COUNSEL 

 

REBUTTAL/CLOSING REMARKS:

Petitioners (Alan H. Price, Wiley Rein LLP) 

Respondents (Matthew M. Nolan, Arent Fox LLP and Jay C. Campbell, White & Case LLP) 

-END-
C‐1

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA

C-3

Table C-1

Rebar: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2011-13, January to March 2013, and January to March 2014

(Quantity=short tons; Value=1,000 dollars; Unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses=dollars per short ton; Period changes=percent--exceptions noted)

Report data Period changes

Calendar year January to March Calendar year Jan-Mar

U.S. consumption quantity:

2011 2012 2013 2013 2014 2011-13 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

Amount...................................................................... 6,538,663 7,390,806 7,729,673 1,846,024 2,005,322 18.2 13.0 4.6 8.6

Producers' share (fn1).............................................. 90.0 86.7 84.4 80.5 77.1 (5.6) (3.2) (2.4) (3.4)

Importers' share (fn1):

Mexico.................................................................... 4.3 4.0 4.4 4.2 4.2 0.0 (0.4) 0.4 (0.0)

Turkey (other than Habas)..................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal (subject)................................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Turkey (Habas)...................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

All others sources.................................................. 1.6 0.7 2.0 0.7 3.7 0.4 (0.9) 1.3 3.0

Subtotal (nonsubject).......................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total imports.................................................... 10.0 13.3 15.6 19.5 22.9 5.6 3.2 2.4 3.4

U.S. consumption value:

Amount...................................................................... 4,272,296 4,765,461 4,766,840 1,161,105 1,245,819 11.6 11.5 0.0 7.3

Producers' share (fn1).............................................. 90.4 87.3 85.6 82.5 78.8 (4.8) (3.0) (1.8) (3.7)

Importers' share (fn1):

Mexico.................................................................... 4.1 3.7 4.0 3.9 3.8 (0.1) (0.4) 0.3 (0.1)

Turkey (other than Habas)..................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal (subject)................................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Turkey (Habas)...................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

All others sources.................................................. 1.5 0.8 2.0 0.7 3.6 0.5 (0.7) 1.2 3.0

Subtotal (nonsubject).......................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total imports.................................................... 9.6 12.7 14.4 17.5 21.2 4.8 3.0 1.8 3.7

U.S. importers' U.S. imports from: 

Mexico:

Quantity.................................................................. 283,285 293,749 338,200 77,482 83,281 19.4 3.7 15.1 7.5

Value...................................................................... 174,697 174,015 188,960 44,855 46,938 8.2 (0.4) 8.6 4.6

Unit value............................................................... $617 $592 $559 $579 $564 (9.4) (3.9) (5.7) (2.6)

Ending inventory quantity...................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Turkey (other than Habas)

Quantity.................................................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value...................................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value............................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory quantity...................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal (subject)

Quantity.................................................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value...................................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value............................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory quantity...................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Turkey (Habas)

Quantity.................................................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value...................................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value............................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory quantity...................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

All other sources:

Quantity.................................................................. 104,752 52,064 154,142 12,326 73,813 47.1 (50.3) 196.1 498.9

Value...................................................................... 64,618 37,630 95,759 7,874 45,441 48.2 (41.8) 154.5 477.1

Unit value............................................................... $617 $723 $621 $639 $616 0.7 17.2 (14.0) (3.6)

Ending inventory quantity...................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal (nonsubject)

Quantity.................................................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value...................................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value............................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory quantity...................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total imports:

Quantity.................................................................. 655,418 979,431 1,208,898 360,186 460,117 84.4 49.4 23.4 27.7

Value...................................................................... 410,448 602,951 686,610 203,520 263,933 67.3 46.9 13.9 29.7

Unit value............................................................... $626 $616 $568 $565 $574 (9.3) (1.7) (7.7) 1.5

Ending inventory quantity...................................... 7,257 47,473 93,968 67,055 134,450 1,194.9 554.2 97.9 100.5

Table continued next page
C-4

Table C-1 -- continued

Rebar: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2011-13, January to March 2013, and January to March 2014

(Quantity=short tons; Value=1,000 dollars; Unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses=dollars per short ton; Period changes=percent--exceptions noted)

U.S. producers':

Notes:

fn1.--Report data are in percent and period changes are in percentage points. 

fn2.--Undefined.

Source : Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires, official U.S. import statistics, and proprietary ***.

Table C-2 

Deformed steel wire: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2011-13, January to March 2013, and January to March 2014 

* * * * * * * 

Table C-3 

Rebar and deformed steel wire: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2011-13, January to March 2013, and January to March 2014 

* * * * * * * 

Table C-4 

Deformed steel wire: Data on industry in Mexico, 2011-2013, January to March 2013, January to March 2014, and projected 2014-15

* * * * * * * 

Report data Period changes

2011

Calendar year 

2012 2013

January to March 

2013 2014 2011-13

Calendar year

2011-12 2012-13

Jan-Mar 

2013-14

Average capacity quantity........................................ 9,632,001 9,816,490 9,911,957 2,522,772 2,521,331 2.9 1.9 1.0 (0.1)

Production quantity................................................... 6,327,968 6,831,468 6,776,007 1,558,702 1,665,052 7.1 8.0 (0.8) 6.8

Capacity utilization (fn1)...........................................

U.S. shipments: 

Quantity..................................................................

65.7

5,883,245

69.6

6,411,375

68.4

6,520,775

61.8

1,485,838

66.0

1,545,205

2.7 

10.8

3.9

9.0

(1.2)

1.7

4.3

4.0

Value...................................................................... 3,861,848 4,162,510 4,080,230 957,585 981,886 5.7 7.8 (2.0) 2.5

Unit value............................................................... $656 $649 $626 $644 $635 (4.7) (1.1) (3.6) (1.4)

Export shipments:

Quantity.................................................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value...................................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value............................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory quantity......................................... 484,796 545,398 550,880 562,035 605,110 13.6 12.5 1.0 7.7

Inventories/total shipments (fn1).............................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Production workers................................................... 3,966 4,078 4,183 4,087 4,133 5.5 2.8 2.6 1.1

Hours worked (1,000s)............................................. 7,977 8,251 8,369 1,996 2,134 4.9 3.4 1.4 6.9

Wages paid ($1,000)................................................ 283,836 309,473 321,526 76,124 81,581 13.3 9.0 3.9 7.2

Hourly wages............................................................ $35.58 $37.51 $38.42 $38.14 $38.23 8.0 5.4 2.4 0.2

Productivity (short tons per 1,000 hours)................. 793 828 810 781 780 2.1 4.4 (2.2) (0.1)

Unit labor costs.........................................................

Net sales: 

Quantity..................................................................

$44.85

6,252,358

$45.30

6,763,455

$47.45

6,762,561

$48.84

1,542,114

$49.00

1,610,824

5.8 

8.2

1.0

8.2

4.7

(0.0)

0.3

4.5

Value...................................................................... 4,096,256 4,401,929 4,266,236 994,583 1,021,690 4.1 7.5 (3.1) 2.7

Unit value............................................................... $655 $651 $631 $645 $634 (3.7) (0.7) (3.1) (1.7)

Cost of goods sold (COGS)...................................... 3,741,176 3,984,787 3,930,134 917,958 976,831 5.1 6.5 (1.4) 6.4

Gross profit of (loss)................................................. 355,080 417,142 336,102 76,625 44,859 (5.3) 17.5 (19.4) (41.5)

SG&A expenses....................................................... 177,046 176,581 177,621 43,396 43,175 0.3 (0.3) 0.6 (0.5)

Operating income or (loss)....................................... 178,034 240,561 158,481 33,229 1,684 (11.0) 35.1 (34.1) (94.9)

Capital expenditures................................................. 54,169 83,315 126,256 20,975 17,026 133.1 53.8 51.5 (18.8)

Unit COGS................................................................ $598 $589 $581 $595 $606 (2.9) (1.5) (1.4) 1.9

Unit SG&A expenses................................................ $28 $26 $26 $28 $27 (7.2) (7.8) 0.6 (4.8)

Unit operating income or (loss)................................ $28 $36 $23 $22 $1 (17.7) 24.9 (34.1) (95.1)

COGS/sales (fn1)..................................................... 91.3 90.5 92.1 92.3 95.6 0.8 (0.8) 1.6 3.3

Operating income or (loss)/sales (fn1)..................... 4.3 5.5 3.7 3.3 0.2 (0.6) 1.1 (1.8) (3.2)
D‐1

APPENDIX D

DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT ISSUES AND INFORMATION ON DEFORMED STEEL

WIRE

D‐3

The Commission’s decision regarding the appropriate domestic product(s) that are “like”

the subject imported product is based on a number of factors including: (1) physical

characteristics and uses; (2) common manufacturing facilities and production employees; (3)

interchangeability; (4) customer and producer perceptions; (5) channels of distribution; and (6)

price. Information regarding these factors is discussed below.1

Physical characteristics and uses

Petitioner argues that deformed steel wire produced to meet ASTM A1064 that has bar

markings and is subjected to an elongation test is a steel product that can be used for the same

purpose as rebar—to reinforce concrete. Petitioner contends that such deformed steel wire has

similar characteristics to rebar; both have markings (deformations) indicating the mill, size, and

grade of the rebar.2 Deacero argues that although both rebar and deformed steel wire can be

used to reinforce concrete, they differ significantly in terms of their physical characteristics and

uses. Deacero contends that deformed steel wire is more appropriately used to manufacture

wire products, such as wire mesh, wire reinforcement mats, and other shapes.3 D‐1 presents

the information provided by U.S. producers and purchasers on the comparison of the physical

characteristics and uses of rebar and deformed steel wire.

Table D-1 

Rebar and deformed steel wire: Comparison of physical characteristics and uses 

* * * * * * * 

Manufacturing facilities and production employees

Petitioner argues that deformed steel wire produced to ASTM A1064 that has bar

markings and is subjected to the elongation test can be manufactured in the same facilities,

have substantially similar production processes, and the same production employees.

Petitioner states that ***.4 Deacero argues that deformed steel wire is manufactured using a

different process and equipment than rebar. Deacero contends that whereas rebar is hot‐rolled

 

1 The Commission did not collect information from U.S. producers and purchasers on within‐scope

deformed steel wire (i.e., meeting ASTM A1064 with bar markings and with being subject to an

elongation test), but rather on a broader category of deformed steel wire (i.e., meeting ASTM A1064)

because the Commission issued questionnaires prior to the adoption of Commerce’s amended scope. As

a result, information provided by U.S. producers and purchasers concerns the broader category of

deformed steel wire. 2 RTAC’s posthearing brief, Exh. 1, p. 52‐53.

3 Deacero’s prehearing brief, p. 4. 4 RTAC’s posthearing brief, Exh. 1, p. 52.
D‐4

from steel billet, deformed steel wire is cold‐rolled from wire rod.5 Table D‐2 presents the

information provided by U.S. producers in their comparison of the manufacturing facilities,

processes, and employees of rebar and deformed steel wire. ***. ***.

Table D-2 

Rebar and deformed steel wire: Comparison of manufacturing facilities, processes, and 

employees 

* * * * * * * 

Interchangeability

Petitioner argues that deformed steel wire that meets ASTM A1064 that has bar

markings and is subjected to an elongation test is interchangeable with rebar, as both can be

used to reinforce concrete.6 Deacero argues that deformed steel wire is a limited substitute for

rebar, and is only interchangeable with rebar in limited circumstances. Deacero contends that

deformed steel wire cannot be used “as‐is” to substitute for rebar in those limited

circumstances; rather, welded wire mesh, which is made from deformed steel wire, can

substitute for rebar in those applications.7 Table D‐3 presents the information provided by U.S.

producers and purchasers on the interchangeability of rebar and deformed steel wire.

Table D-3 

Rebar and deformed steel wire: Assessment of interchangeability 

* * * * * * * 

Producer and customer perceptions

Petitioner argues that customers and producers perceive deformed steel wire that

meets ASTM A1064 that has bar markings and is subjected to an elongation test, as rebar as

similar products. Petitioner contends that this is evidenced from the fact that on its website,

Mexico rebar producer Deacero advertises and sells such deformed steel wire as “Varilla,”

which, when translated, means “rebar.”8 Deacero argues that deformed steel wire is not a

substitute for rebar from the perspective of the consumer. Deacero contends that deformed

steel wire and rebar are sold to different categories of customers and, due to their different

price points and predominant uses, are not perceived by U.S. purchasers to be reasonably

 

5 Deacero’s posthearing brief, p. 59.

6 RTAC’s posthearing brief, Exh. 1, p. 53. 7 Deacero’s prehearing brief, pp. 6‐7.

8 RTAC’s posthearing brief, Exh. 1, p. 53.
D‐5

interchangeable products.9 Table D‐4 presents the information provided by U.S. producers and

purchasers on producer and customer perceptions of rebar and deformed steel wire.

Table D-4 

Rebar and deformed steel wire: Assessment of producer and customer perceptions 

* * * * * * * 

Channels of distribution

Petitioner argues that deformed steel wire that meets ASTM A1064 that has bar

markings and that is subjected to an elongation test when sold for use as rebar will likely be

sold in the same channels of distribution as rebar.10 Deacero argues that deformed steel wire

and rebar generally utilize different channels of distribution. Deacero argues that rebar is sold

principally to steel wholesalers and construction contractors, whereas deformed steel wire is

sold directly to companies that manufacture welded wire reinforcement products.11 Table D‐5

presents the information provided by U.S. producers and purchasers on the channels of

distribution of rebar and deformed steel wire. U.S. producers of deformed steel wire reported

that *** percent of their U.S. shipments were to end users (e.g., wire mesh producers) during

the 2011‐2013 and January‐March 2014 periods.12 U.S. producers of rebar reported that 18.7‐

20.3 percent of their U.S. shipments were to distributors, 27.8‐29.2 percent of their U.S.

shipments were to end users, and 51.8‐52.2 percent of U.S. shipments were to firms that are

both distributors and end users.13

Table D-5 

Rebar and deformed steel wire: Comparison of channels of distribution 

* * * * * * * 

Price

Petitioner argues that deformed steel wire that meets ASTM A1064 and that has bar

markings and that is subjected to an elongation test may be slightly more expensive to produce

than rebar due to the additional processing involved in production.14 Deacero argues that

 

9 Deacero’s prehearing brief, p. 8.

10 RTAC’s posthearing brief, Exh. 1, p. 53. 11 Deacero’s prehearing brief, p. 8. 12 For summary data on deformed steel wire, see app. C.

13 For more information on channels of distribution, see Part II. 14 RTAC’s posthearing brief, Exh.1, p. 54.
D‐6

deformed steel wire is considerably more expensive than rebar, due to the more extensive

production process required for deformed steel wire.15  Table D‐6 presents the information

provided by U.S. producers and purchasers on the price of rebar and deformed steel wire. Table

D‐7 presents the unit values of domestic producers’ U.S. shipments of rebar and deformed steel

wire. The average unit values of deformed steel wire were *** than unit values of domestic

producers’ U.S. shipments of rebar during 2011‐13 and January‐March 2014.

Table D-6 

Rebar and deformed steel wire: Comparison of prices 

* * * * * * * 

Table D-7 

Rebar and deformed steel wire: Unit values of domestic producers’ U.S. shipments of rebar and 

deformed steel wire, 2011-2013, January-March 2013, and January-March 2014 

Item 

Calendar year January to March 

2011 2012 2013 2013 2014 

 Unit Value (dollars per short ton) 

Rebar $656 $649 $626 $644 $635

Deformed steel wire *** *** *** *** ***

 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

 

15 Deacero’s prehearing brief, p. 9.
E-1

APPENDIX E 

U.S. PRODUCERS’ COMMERCIAL AND TRANSFER SALES: 

AVERAGE PER SHORT TON VALUE 
 
E-3 

Table E-1 

Rebar: Results of operations of U.S. firms, by firm, 2011-13, January-March 2013, and JanuaryMarch 2014

* * * * * * *