Brass Sheet and Strip From Brazil, Canada,

France, Germany, Italy, and Japan

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-269 and 731-TA-311-314, 317,

and 379 ( Second Review)

Publication 3842 March 2006
U.S. International Trade Commission

Robert A. Rogowsky

Director of Operations

COMMISSIONERS

Address all communications to

Secretary to the Commission

United States International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436

Jennifer A. Hillman

Deanna Tanner Okun, Vice Chairman

Stephen Koplan, Chairman

Charlotte R. Lane

Daniel R. Pearson

Shara L. Aranoff

Staff assigned

Vincent Honnold, Investigator

Christopher Mapes, Industry Analyst

Kelly Clark, Economist

David Boyland, Accountant

Charles St. Charles, Attorney

Mara Alexander, Statistician

George Deyman, Supervisory Investigator
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436

March 2006

www.usitc.gov

Publication 3842

Brass Sheet and Strip From Brazil, Canada,

France, Germany, Italy, and Japan

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-269 and 731-TA-311-314, 317,

and 379 ( Second Review)
 
i

CONTENTS

Page

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

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

Dissenting views of Chairman Stephen Koplan and Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane with 

respect to Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

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

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

The original investigations and the first five-year reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2

Statutory criteria and organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-9

Commerce’s results of expedited reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

 Dumping margins applicable to subject countries other than Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

 Countervailable subsidy in Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

Commerce’s results of full reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

 Countervailable subsidy in France and dumping margins applicable to Germany . . . . . . . . . I-11

Commerce’s administrative reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

 Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

 Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

 France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

 Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

 Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

 Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

Distribution of Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-15

 The subject product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-15

Physical characteristics and uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-16

Manufacturing process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-17

 Channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-18

 Interchangeability, customer and producer perceptions, and price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-18

Domestic like product findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-18

U.S. market participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-19

U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-19

 U.S. importers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-21

 U.S. purchasers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-21

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-21

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

U.S. market segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1

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

Supply and demand considerations ................................................ II-2

U.S. supply ............................................................... II-2

U.S. demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-6

Substitutability issues .......................................................... II-8

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

Comparisons of domestic products, subject imports, and nonsubject imports ............ II-16

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

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

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

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

CONTENTS

Page

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

U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization .......................... III-1

U.S. producers’ domestic shipments, company transfers, and export shipments ............. III-2

U.S. producers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-5

U.S. producers’ imports and purchases of imports .................................... III-5

U.S. producers’ employment, wages, and productivity ................................ III-6

Financial experience of U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-8

Background ............................................................... III-8

Operations on brass sheet and strip ............................................. III-9

Capital expenditures and research and development expenses ........................ III-14

Assets and return on investment ............................................... III-14

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

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

U.S. importers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-7

U.S. imports for delivery after September 30, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-7

The industry in Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-8

The industry in Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-9

The industry in France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-10

The industry in Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-11

The industry in Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-13

The industry in Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-14

The world market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-15

Countervailing duty orders and antidumping duty orders on BSS in other countries . . . . . . . . . IV-16

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

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

Raw materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Transportation costs to the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3

U.S. inland transportation costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3

Exchange rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-4

Pricing practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-8

Pricing methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-8

Sales terms and discounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-9

Price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-9

Price trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-10

Price comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-11

Appendixes

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

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

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

D. U.S. producers’, U.S. importers’, U.S. purchasers’, and foreign producers’ comments

regarding the effects of the countervailing duty orders and the antidumping duty orders

and the likely effects of revocation; foreign producers’ comments regarding changes in factors 

 affecting supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

Note.–Information that would reveal confidential operations of individual concerns may not be published

and therefore has been deleted from this report. Such deletions are indicated by asterisks.
 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

 On March 2, 2006, the Commission terminated the five-year review of the countervailing duty order concerning

brass sheet and strip from France (investigation No. 701-TA-270 (Second Review)).

 3

 Chairman Stephen Koplan and Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane dissenting with respect to Brazil. 

1

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-269 and 731-TA-311-314, 317, and 379 (Second Review)

BRASS SHEET AND STRIP FROM BRAZIL, CANADA, FRANCE,

GERMANY, ITALY, AND JAPAN

DETERMINATIONS

On the basis of the record1

 developed in the subject five-year reviews, the United States

International Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of

1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)) (the Act), that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on brass sheet and

strip from France, Germany, Italy, and Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of

material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.2

 The

Commission further determines that revocation of the countervailing duty order on brass sheet and strip

from Brazil and the antidumping duty orders on brass sheet and strip from Brazil and Canada would not

be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within

a reasonably foreseeable time.3

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted these reviews on March 31, 2005 (70 F.R. 16519) and determined on

July 5, 2005 that it would conduct full reviews (70 F.R. 41427, July 19, 2005). Notice of the scheduling

of the Commission’s reviews and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by

posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission,

Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register on September 9, 2005 (70 F.R.

53688). The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on January 24, 2006, and all persons who requested

the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel.

 1

 Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Lane dissenting with respect to Brazil.

 2

 Certain Brass Sheet and Strip from Brazil, Canada, and the Republic of Korea, Inv. No. 701-TA-269 (Final),

731-TA-311, 312, and 315 (Final), USITC Pub. 1930 (Dec. 1986) (“Original Brazil/Canada/Korea Determinations”).

 3

 Antidumping duty orders: Brazil, 52 Fed. Reg. 1214; Korea, 52 Fed. Reg. 1215; Canada, 52 Fed. Reg. 1217

(Jan. 12, 1987). Countervailing duty order: Brazil, 52 Fed. Reg. 698 (Jan. 8, 1987).

 4

 Certain Brass Sheet and Strip from France, Italy, Sweden, and West Germany, Inv. No. 701-TA-270 (Final) and

731-TA-313, 314, 316, and 317 (Final), USITC Pub. 1951 (Feb. 1987) (“Original France/Italy/Sweden/Germany

Determinations”). The Commission’s determination with respect to Italy was affirmed in LMI-La Metalli

Industriale, S.p.A. v. United States, 13 CIT 305, 712 F. Supp. 959 (1989), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 912 F.2d 455

(Fed. Cir. 1990) (only Commerce issues were appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit). The

Commission’s affirmative determination with respect to Sweden was affirmed in Granges Metallverken AB v.

United States, 13 CIT 471, 716 F. Supp. 17 (1989).

 5

 Antidumping duty orders: France, 52 Fed. Reg. 6995; Italy, 52 Fed. Reg. 6997; Sweden, 52 Fed. Reg. 6998

(Mar. 6, 1987) (Italy amended 52 Fed. Reg. 11299 (Apr. 8, 1987). Countervailing duty order: France, 52 Fed. Reg.

6966 (Mar. 6, 1987).

 6

 Certain Brass Sheet and Strip from Japan and the Netherlands, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-379 and 380 (Final), USITC

Pub. 2099 (Jul. 1988) (“Original Japan/Netherlands Determinations”). The Commission’s determination with

respect to Japan was affirmed in Cambridge Lee Industries v. United States, 13 CIT 1052, 728 F. Supp. 748 (1989).

3

VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

Based on the record in these five-year reviews, we determine under section 751(c) of the Tariff

Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on brass sheet and

strip from France, Germany, Italy, and Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of

material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. We further

determine that revocation of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on brass sheet and strip

from Brazil and the antidumping duty order on brass sheet and strip from Canada would not be likely to

lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a

reasonably foreseeable time.1

I. BACKGROUND

In December 1986, the Commission determined that an industry in the United States was being

materially injured by reason of imports of brass sheet and strip from Brazil that were being subsidized by

the Government of Brazil and by reason of imports of brass sheet and strip from Brazil, Canada, and

Korea that were being sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV).2

 In January 1987, the

Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) issued a countervailing duty order on brass sheet and strip from

Brazil and antidumping duty orders with respect to Brazil, Canada, and Korea.3

 On February 19, 1987,

the Commission determined that an industry in the United States was being materially injured by reason

of subsidized imports of brass sheet and strip from France and LTFV imports of brass sheet and strip from

France, Germany, Italy, and Sweden.4

 In March 1987, Commerce issued a countervailing duty order on

brass sheet and strip from France and antidumping duty orders on brass sheet and strip from France,

Germany, Italy, and Sweden.5

 On July 29, 1988, the Commission determined that an industry in the

United States was being materially injured by reason of LTFV imports of brass sheet and strip from Japan

and the Netherlands.6

 In August 1988, Commerce issued antidumping duty orders with respect to brass 
 7

 Japan, 53 Fed. Reg. 30454; Netherlands, 53 Fed. Reg. 30455 (Aug. 12, 1988).

 8

 Certain Brass Sheet and Strip from Japan and the Netherlands, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-379 and 380 (Remand),

USITC Pub. 2255 (Jan. 1990). The Commission’s remand determination with respect to the Netherlands was

affirmed in large part in Metallverken Nederland B.V. and Outokumpu Metallverken, Inc. v. United States, 13 CIT

471, 716 F. Supp. 17 (1989), and remanded with respect to one Commissioner’s affirmative threat determination. 

The Commission’s affirmative remand result was affirmed by the Court in Metallverken Nederland B.V. and

Outokumpu Metallverken, Inc. v. United States, 14 CIT 481, 744 F. Supp. 281 (1990).

 9

 64 FR 4892 (Feb. 1, 1999).

 10 See Brass Sheet and Strip from Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, and

Sweden, Explanation of Commission Determinations of Adequacy (May 1999). 

 11 Brass Sheet and Strip from Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, and

Sweden, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-269 & 270 (Review) and 731-TA-317 and 379-380 (Review), USITC Pub. 3290 (April

2000). The Commission’s affirmative determinations in those first five-year reviews were affirmed in Olin Corp. v.

United States, 28 CIT ___, Slip Op. 04-04 (Jan. 9, 2004). 

 12 65 Fed. Reg. 25305 (May 1, 2000). 

 13 70 Fed. Reg. 16519 (March 31, 2005).

4

sheet and strip from Japan and the Netherlands.7

 In January 1990, the Commission determined again, on

remand from the Court of International Trade, that an industry in the United States was being materially

injured by reason of LTFV imports of brass sheet and strip from Japan and the Netherlands.8

On February 1, 1999, the Commission instituted reviews pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff

Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), to determine whether revocation of the countervailing duty orders

on brass sheet and strip from Brazil and France and the antidumping duty orders on brass sheet and strip

from Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, and Sweden would likely

lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to a domestic industry.9

 On May 6, 1999, the

Commission determined that the domestic interested party group response to its notice of institution was

adequate with respect to all reviews and that the respondent interested party group responses for Canada

and the Netherlands were adequate. The Commission further determined to conduct full reviews

concerning Canada and the Netherlands based on the adequate responses and to conduct full reviews

concerning Brazil, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, and Sweden to promote administrative

efficiency in light of its decision to conduct full five-year reviews concerning Canada and the

Netherlands.10 

On April 18, 2000, the Commission determined under section 751(c) of the Act that revocation of

the countervailing duty orders on brass sheet and strip from Brazil and France, and the antidumping duty

orders on brass sheet and strip from Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan would be likely to

lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a

reasonably foreseeable time. The Commission further determined that revocation of the antidumping

duty orders on brass sheet and strip from Korea, the Netherlands, and Sweden 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.11 Accordingly, Commerce revoked the orders on brass sheet and strip from Korea, the

Netherlands, and Sweden.12

On March 31, 2005, the Commission instituted these reviews to determine whether revocation of

the countervailing and antidumping duty orders on brass sheet and strip from Brazil, Canada, France,

Germany, Italy, and Japan would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury.13 On July 5,

2005, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party group response to its notice of

institution was adequate with respect to all reviews and that the respondent interested party group

response for Germany was adequate. The Commission further determined to conduct a full review

concerning Germany based on the adequate responses, and to conduct full reviews concerning Brazil,
 14 See Brass Sheet and Strip from Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan, Explanation of Commission

Determinations on Adequacy (July 2005). At the time of the decision to conduct full reviews, both a countervailing

and an antidumping duty order were outstanding with respect to France. The Commission terminated its review of

the countervailing duty order when Commerce terminated its concurrent review. 71 Fed. Reg. 12395 (Mar. 10,

2006), 71 Fed. Reg. 10651 (Mar. 2, 2006). 

 15 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 16 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10). See Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 19 CIT 450, 455 (1995); Timken Co. v. United

States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996); Torrington Co. v. United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 748-49 (Ct.

Int’l Trade 1990), aff’d, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also S. Rep. No. 249, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 90-91

(1979).

 17 See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Taiwan and the United

Kingdom, Inv. No. 701-TA-380-382 and 731-TA-797-804 (Review), USITC Pub. 3788 (July 2005) at 6; Crawfish

Tail Meat from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-752 (Review), USITC Pub. 3614 (July 2003) at 4; Steel Concrete

Reinforcing Bar from Turkey, Inv. No. 731-TA-745 (Review), USITC Pub. 3577 (Feb. 2003) at 4.

5

Canada, France, Italy, and Japan to promote administrative efficiency in light of its decision to conduct a

full five-year review concerning Germany.14

A number of respondent interested parties did not provide questionnaire responses and/or

participate in these reviews. In particular, no foreign producer or exporter provided questionnaire

responses or otherwise participated with respect to France, Italy, or Japan. Accordingly, where

appropriate, we have relied on the facts available in these reviews, which consist primarily of the

evidence in the record from the Commission’s original investigations and the first five-year reviews, the

information collected by the Commission since the institution of these reviews, and information submitted

by parties in these reviews. 

II. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT AND INDUSTRY

A. Domestic Like Product

In making its determination under section 751(c), the Commission defines the “domestic like

product” and the “industry.”15 The Act defines the “domestic like product” as “a product which is like, or

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

under this subtitle.”16 The Commission’s practice in five-year reviews is to look to the like product

definition from the original determination and any previous reviews and consider whether the record

indicates any reason to revisit that definition.17

Commerce described the merchandise subject to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders

under review (using virtually identical terms in each of its investigations) as brass sheet and strip, coiled,

wound-on-reels (traverse wound), and cut-to length, other than leaded and tinned, having a solid

rectangular cross section over 0.006 inch (0.15 millimeter) through 0.1888 inch (4.8 millimeters) in

finished thickness or gauge, regardless of width, currently defined in the Copper Development
 18 70 Fed. Reg. 45650, 45651 (Aug. 8, 2005) (final results of expedited sunset reviews of antidumping duty orders

on brass sheet and strip from Brazil, Canada, France, Italy, and Japan); 71 Fed. Reg. 4348, 4349 (Jan. 26, 2006)

(final results of full sunset review of antidumping duty order on brass sheet and strip from Germany); 70 Fed. Reg.

61604 (Oct. 25, 2005) (preliminary results of full sunset review of countervailing duty order on brass sheet and strip

from France); 70 Fed. Reg. 67139 (Nov. 4, 2005) (final results of expedited sunset review of countervailing duty

order on brass sheet and strip from Brazil); 71 Fed. Reg. 10651 (Mar. 2, 2006) (final results of full sunset review and

revocation of countervailing duty order on brass sheet and strip from France).

 19 This is the same definition of the subject merchandise as in the first reviews. See, e.g., 65 Fed. Reg. 735 (Jan.

6, 2000) (Netherlands) (Antidumping); 64 Fed. Reg. 66165 (Nov. 24, 1999) (Canada) (Antidumping); 64 Fed. Reg.

49767, 49768 (Sept. 14, 1999) (Germany) (Antidumping); 64 Fed. Reg. 49765 (Sept. 14, 1999) (Japan)

(Antidumping); 64 Fed. Reg. 49444 (Sept. 13, 1999) (Sweden) (Antidumping); 64 Fed. Reg. 48369, 48370 (Sept. 3,

1999) (France) (Countervailing); 64 Fed. Reg. 48367 (Sept. 3, 1999) (Brazil) (Countervailing); 64 Fed. Reg. 48351

(Sept. 3, 1999) (Brazil, France, Korea) (Antidumping); 64 Fed. Reg. 48348 (Sept. 3, 1999) (Italy) (all included in

Appendix A of USITC Pub. 3290). Commerce additionally stated that the scope of the orders does not include

products the chemical compositions of which are defined by other C.D.A. or U.N.S. series, and that the merchandise

is currently classifiable under item numbers 7409.21.00 and 7409.29.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (“HTSUS”). Id.

 20 CR at I-19, PR at I-16.

 21 Certain Brass Sheet and Strip from Brazil, Canada, and the Republic of Korea, Inv. No. 701-TA-269 (Final),

731-TA-311, 312, and 315 (Final), USITC Pub. 1930 (Dec. 1986) at 6. 

 22 CR at I-19, PR at I-16.

 23 Id.

 24 In the like product analysis for an investigation, the Commission generally considers a number of factors

including: (1) physical characteristics and uses; (2) interchangeability; (3) channels of distribution; (4) common

manufacturing facilities, production processes and production employees; (5) customer and producer perceptions;

and, where appropriate, (6) price. See The Timken Co. v. United States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (CIT 1996). No

single factor is dispositive, and the Commission may consider other factors relevant to a particular investigation. 

The Commission looks for clear dividing lines among possible like products, and disregards minor variations. See,

E.g. S. Rep. No. 249, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 90-91 (1979); Torrington, 747 F. Supp. at 748-49. 

 25 “Brass sheet and strip are products of a solid rectangular cross section that is over 0.006 inch but not over

0.188 inch thick, in coils or cut to length, whether or not corrugated or crimped. Sheet is over 20 inches wide, and

strip is not over 20 inches wide. The articles under investigation are brass sheet and strip known as the CDA 200 or

UNS C20000-series.” Certain Brass Sheet and Strip from Brazil, Canada, and the Republic of Korea, Inv. No. 701-

(continued...)

6

Association (“CDA”) 200 Series or the Unified Numbering System (“UNS”) C20000 series.18 19 The

distinction between brass sheet and brass strip is variously based on whether it is cut to length (sheet) or

coiled or wound on reels (strip),20 or on differences in the width of the product (e.g., over 20 inches being

sheet, not over 20 inches being strip21). The chief characteristics of C20000 series brass sheet and strip

are ease of manufacture because of excellent forming and drawing properties, attractive surface

appearance, fair electrical conductivity, good corrosion resistance, and good strength.22 Brass sheet and

strip is used in electronics, electronic terminals, automotive parts, apparel fasteners, cable wrap, eyelets,

jewelry and other ornamentation, building and lock hardware, radiators, transportation equipment,

coinage, medical devices, ammunition, telecommunications equipment, household products, industrial

machinery and equipment, stampers and component parts, welded tubes, and miscellaneous industrial

applications.23

The starting point of the Commission’s like product analysis in a five-year review is the like

product definition in the Commission’s original determination.24 In each of the original investigations,

the Commission defined the domestic like product as all brass sheet and strip, coterminous with the scope

of the subject merchandise.25 In the Brazil/Canada/Korea investigations and the
 25 (...continued)

TA-269 (Final), 731-TA-311, 312, and 315 (Final), USITC Pub. 1930 (Dec. 1986) at 5-9. Accord, Certain Brass

Sheet and Strip from France, Italy, Sweden, and West Germany, Inv. No. 701-TA-270 (Final), 731-TA-313, 314,

316, and 317 (Final), USITC Pub. 1951 (Feb. 1987) at 5-10; Certain Brass Sheet and Strip from Japan and the

Netherlands, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-379 and 380 (Final), USITC Pub. 2099 (Jul. 1988) at 3-10 (as in the prior

investigations, the like product defined as all U.N.S. C20000 domestically produced brass sheet and strip).

 26 Certain Brass Sheet and Strip from Brazil, Canada, and the Republic of Korea, Inv. No. 701-TA-269 (Final),

731-TA-311, 312, and 315 (Final), USITC Pub. 1930 (Dec. 1986) at 6-9. Accord, Certain Brass Sheet and Strip

from France, Italy, Sweden, and West Germany, Inv. No. 701-TA-270 (Final), 731-TA-313, 314, 316, and 317

(Final), USITC Pub. 1951 (Feb. 1987) at 6-7. Certain Brass Sheet and Strip from Japan and the Netherlands, Inv.

Nos. 731-TA-379 and 380 (Final), USITC Pub. 2099 (Jul. 1988) at 4, 10.

 27 Certain Brass Sheet and Strip from Brazil, Canada, and the Republic of Korea, Inv. No. 701-TA-269 (Final),

731-TA-311, 312, and 315 (Final), USITC Pub. 1930 (Dec. 1986) at 9. 

 28 Certain Brass Sheet and Strip from France, Italy, Sweden, and West Germany, Inv. No. 701-TA-270 (Final),

731-TA-313, 314, 316, and 317 (Final), USITC Pub. 1951 (Feb. 1987) at 9. 

 29 Certain Brass Sheet and Strip from Japan and the Netherlands, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-379 and 380 (Final), USITC

Pub. 2099 (Jul. 1988) at 5-11. It found that, although there may be a consumer preference in some architectural

applications for 48-inch widths, in light of the 16-inch distance between wall studs and similar supporting structures,

a 32-inch width, also a multiple of 16 inches, is technically substitutable for the 48-inch imports; consumer

preference alone is a poor basis for finding a separate like product; and there are no “clear dividing lines” between

the 48-inch and other widths, just as there were none in prior brass sheet and strip investigations, e.g., on the basis of

either the reroll/finished distinction or other quality and market considerations.

7

France/Italy/Sweden/Germany investigations, the Commission rejected arguments that brass sheet and

strip sold for rerolling (reroll) and the finished product be defined as separate like products.26 In the

Brazil/Canada/Korea investigations, the Commission found that reroll and finished products are

metallurgically identical and produced in the same manner.27 In the France/Italy/Sweden/Germany

investigations, the Commission explained that the majority of questionnaire responses stated that brass

sheet and strip for reroll could not be distinguished on the basis of physical characteristics and that reroll

could be used for something other than rerolling. It found that the degree of further processing, if any,

required to convert the reroll material into finished product depends on the intended end use for the

particular brass sheet or strip and, thus, there is no clear distinction between reroll and finished product.28

In the Japan/Netherlands investigations, the Commission rejected arguments that 48-inch-wide Muntz

metal and architectural bronze constituted a like product separate from other brass sheet and strip.29 

In the first five-year reviews, no party argued for a change in the domestic like product definition

and the Commission found that nothing in the record indicated any significant changes that would warrant

a different analysis. Accordingly, the Commission defined the domestic like product in those five-year

reviews as all UNS C20000 series brass sheet and strip. 

Again in these reviews, none of the parties proposes a definition of the domestic like product in

terms different from the definition in the original investigations and nothing in the record indicates any

significant changes that would warrant a different analysis. Accordingly, we define the domestic like

product in the instant five-year reviews to be all UNS C20000 series brass sheet and strip. 

B. Domestic Industry

Section 771(4)(A) of the 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
 30 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). 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, provided that adequate production-related activity is conducted

in the United States. See United States Steel Group v. United States, 873 F. Supp. 673, 682-83 (Ct. Int’l Trade

1994), aff’d, 96 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

 31 CR/PR at Table I-3.

 32 No party argues that rerollers do not perform sufficient production-related activities to be considered domestic

producers of the domestic like product. Consistent with our determinations in the original investigations and first

reviews, we include rerollers in the domestic industry. 

 33 The primary factors the Commission has examined in deciding whether appropriate circumstances exist to

exclude a related party include:

(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-a-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. 1161 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1992), aff’d without opinion, 991 F.2d

809 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

The Commission has also concluded that a domestic producer that does not itself import subject

merchandise, or does not share a corporate affiliation with an importer, may nonetheless be deemed a related party if

it controls large volumes of imports. The Commission has found such control to exist where the domestic producer

was responsible for a predominant proportion of an importer’s purchases and the importer’s purchases were

substantial. See, e.g., Foundry Coke from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-891 (Final), USITC Pub. 3449 (Sep. 2001) at

8-9.

 34 CR at I-25, PR at I-21. 

 35 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B).

 36 CR at I-24, PR at I-20.

 37 ***. German Interested Parties’ response to notice of institution (May 23, 2005) at 6-7.

 38 CR at D-4, PR at D-3.

 39 CR/PR at Table I-3.

8

constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”30 Current domestic

producers of brass sheet and strip include integrated producers Olin Brass, Outokumpu American Brass

(“OAB”), PMX Industries (“PMX”), and Revere Copper Products (“Revere”); rerollers Eagle Brass Co.,

Heyco Metals, and Wieland Metals; and integrated producer and reroller, Scott Brass.31

The only issue that arises in these second five-year reviews with respect to our definition of the

domestic industry is whether any producer should be excluded under the related parties provision, section

771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B)).32 Section 771(4)(B) of the Act allows the Commission, if

appropriate circumstances exist, to exclude from the domestic industry producers that are related to an

exporter or importer of subject merchandise, or which are themselves importers.33

Wieland Metals, a reroller in the United States, is owned by Wieland-Werke AG (“WielandWerke”), a German producer and exporter of subject merchandise.34 Based on this ownership interest,

Wieland-Werke is “legally or operationally in a position to exercise restraint or direction over” Wieland

Metals, and therefore, Wieland Metals is a related party.35 No party has argued that Wieland Metals

should be excluded from the industry. Wieland Metals’ U.S. production accounted for only *** percent

of total U.S. production in 2004.36 Wieland Metals had *** imports of subject merchandise during the

period of review;37 ***.38 Wieland Metals opposes continuation of the orders.39 Its performance was
 40 CR/PR at Table III-8. 

 41 In the first reviews, the Commission determined PMX and OAB to be related parties based on a Korean

producer’s ownership interest in PMX and a Dutch producer’s ownership interest in OAB. The Commission,

however, determined that appropriate circumstances did not exist to exclude either PMX or OAB from the domestic

industry. In these reviews, neither PMX nor OAB is a related party because the orders on Korea and the Netherlands

have been revoked.

 42 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7).

 43 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7).

 44 SAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. I (1994).

 45 For a discussion of the analytical framework of Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Hillman regarding the

application of the “no discernible adverse impact” provision, see Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from Brazil,

Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-278-280 (Review) and 731-TA-347-348 (Review) USITC

Pub. 3274 (Feb. 2000). For a further discussion of Chairman Koplan’s analytical framework, see Iron Metal

Construction Castings from India; Heavy Iron Construction Castings from Brazil; and Iron Construction Castings

from Brazil, Canada, and China, Inv. Nos. 303-TA-13 (Review); 701-TA-249 (Review); and 731-TA-262, 263, and

265 (Review) USITC Pub. 3247 (Oct. 1999) (Views of Commissioner Stephen Koplan Regarding Cumulation). 

9

***,40 suggesting that it did not derive any significant benefits, or operate in a manner that was

significantly different from other domestic producers, as a result of its related party status. On balance,

we find that appropriate circumstances do not exist to exclude Wieland Metals from the domestic

industry. 

Accordingly, we have included all domestic producers of brass sheet and strip, including Wieland

Metals, in the domestic industry.41

III. CUMULATION

A. Overview

Section 752(a) of the Act provides that:

the Commission may cumulatively assess the volume and effect of imports of the subject

merchandise from all countries with respect to which reviews under section 1675(b) or

(c) of this title were initiated on the same day, if such imports would be likely to compete

with each other and with domestic like products in the United States market. The

Commission shall not cumulatively assess the volume and effects of imports of the

subject merchandise in a case in which it determines that such imports are likely to have

no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.42

Thus, cumulation is discretionary in five-year reviews. The Commission may exercise its discretion to

cumulate only if the reviews are initiated on the same day and the Commission determines that the subject

imports are likely to compete with each other and the domestic like product in the U.S. market. The

statute precludes cumulation if the Commission finds that subject imports from a country are likely to

have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.43 We note that neither the statute nor the

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”) Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”) provides

specific guidance on what factors the Commission is to consider in determining that imports “are likely to

have no discernible adverse impact” on the domestic industry.44 With respect to this provision, the

Commission generally considers the likely volume of the subject imports and the likely impact of those

imports on the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time if the orders are revoked.45
 46 70 Fed. Reg. 16519 (March 31, 2005).

 47 The four factors generally considered by the Commission in assessing whether imports compete with each

other and with the domestic like product are: (1) the degree of fungibility between the imports from different

countries and between imports and the domestic like product, including consideration of specific customer

requirements and other quality related questions; (2) the presence of sales or offers to sell in the same geographical

markets of imports from different countries and the domestic like product; (3) the existence of common or similar

channels of distribution for imports from different countries and the domestic like product; and (4) whether the

imports are simultaneously present in the market. See, e.g., Wieland Werke, AG v. United States, 718 F. Supp. 50

(CIT 1989).

 48 See Mukand Ltd. v. United States, 937 F. Supp. 910, 916 (CIT 1996); Wieland Werke, AG, 718 F. Supp. at

52 (“Completely overlapping markets are not required.”); United States Steel Group v. United States, 873 F. Supp. 

673, 685 (CIT 1994), aff’d, 96 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1996). We note, however, that there have been investigations

where the Commission has found an insufficient overlap in competition and has declined to cumulate subject

imports. See, e.g., Live Cattle from Canada and Mexico, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-386 (Preliminary) and 731-TA-812-813

(Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3155 at 15 (Feb. 1999), aff’d sub nom, Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Foundation v.

United States, 74 F. Supp.2d 1353 (CIT 1999); Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from the Republic

of Korea and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-761-762 (Final), USITC Pub. 3098 at 13-15 (Apr. 1998).

 49 See, e.g., Torrington Co. v. United States, 790 F. Supp. at 1172 (affirming Commission's determination not to

cumulate for purposes of threat analysis when pricing and volume trends among subject countries were not uniform

and import penetration was extremely low for most of the subject countries); Metallverken Nederland B.V. v. United

States, 728 F. Supp. 730, 741-42 (CIT 1989); Asociacion Colombiana de Exportadores de Flores v. United States,

704 F. Supp. 1068, 1072 (CIT 1988).

10

In these reviews, the statutory requirement for cumulation that all reviews be initiated on the

same day is satisfied as the Commission initiated all the reviews on March 31, 2005.46

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

determining whether the imports compete with each other and with the domestic like product.47 Only a

“reasonable overlap” of competition is required.48 In five-year reviews, the relevant inquiry is whether

there likely would be competition even if none currently exists because the subject imports are absent

from the U.S. market. Moreover, because of the prospective nature of five-year reviews, we have

examined not only the Commission’s traditional competition factors, but also other significant conditions

of competition that are likely to prevail if the orders under review are terminated. The Commission has

considered factors in addition to its traditional competition factors in other contexts where cumulation is

discretionary.49

B. Likelihood of No Discernible Adverse Impact

Canada. We find that revocation of the order with respect to brass sheet and strip from Canada

would have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry and, therefore, we do not cumulate

subject brass sheet and strip from Canada with subject brass sheet and strip from any of the other subject

countries.

In 2002, Wolverine Ratcliffs, Inc., the last remaining brass sheet and strip producer in Canada, 

ceased all production of brass strip, liquidated substantially all of its inventory and net receivables, and

began selling off its production equipment. By the first quarter of 2004, all of the plant’s production

equipment had been sold. Accordingly, there are currently no known producers of brass sheet and strip in 
 50 CR at IV-13, PR at IV-9 - IV-10.

 51 CR at IV-13 - IV-14, PR at IV-10; id. CR at IV-14 n.17, PR at IV-10 n.17; and Original

France/Italy/Sweden/Germany Determinations, USITC Pub. 1951, at A-41, Table 13. 

 52 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 53 First Review Determination at IV-4 - IV-5. At the time of the first five-year reviews, ***. First Review

Determination at IV-4. It was unclear whether the firm produced brass sheet and strip outside the scope of the order. 

 54 After declining from 33.7 million pounds in 1999 to 24.3 million pounds in 2001, French producers’ exports of

rolled brass products increased to 36.0 million pounds in 2002, 48.1 million pounds in 2003, and 57.3 million

pounds in 2004. CR/PR at Table IV-9.

 55 Original France/Italy/Sweden/Germany Determinations at 15-16.

11

Canada and there is no information that would indicate that resumption of brass sheet and strip production

in Canada is likely.50 

In light of the closure of facilities at which the subject merchandise was formerly produced in

Canada, we find that removal of the order with respect to Canada will not result in any increased exports

of subject merchandise to the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. Accordingly, we find

that subject brass sheet and strip from Canada is likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the

producers of the domestic like product in the reasonably foreseeable future.

France. Record information with respect to the industry in France is limited in the absence of

responses to the Commission’s questionnaires from French interested parties. Information the

Commission gathered in the original investigations regarding French production of rolled brass products

generally indicated that French producers’ capacity ranged from *** million pounds in 1983 to ***

million pounds in 1985, and their production ranged from *** million pounds in 1985 to *** million

pounds in 1984. French producers’ total exports ranged from 42.9 million pounds in 1985 to 61.9 million

pounds in 1984, more than *** percent of French production in each year of the period of investigation,

with exports to the United States accounting for between *** percent and *** percent of the French

producers’ production from 1983 to 1985.51 The volume of imports from France has declined steeply

since the orders were issued, from a peak in the original investigations of 23.0 million pounds in 1984 to

relatively minimal current levels, ranging from 81,000 pounds in 1999 and zero in 2003, to 142,000

pounds in 2004.52 Six French brass sheet and strip producers were identified in the original

investigations. In 1995, one French producer, Trefimetaux, combined with the Italian producer La

Metalli and the German producer Kabelmetall AG to form KM Europa, with a combined sheet and strip

capacity of approximately 600 million pounds annually. Public information obtained in the first five-year

reviews indicated that this transnational firm planned to establish a presence in the U.S. market, either

through exports or direct investment in a U.S. production facility.53

United Nations data indicate significant volumes of exports by French producers of brass rolled

products during the current period of review,54 which data in themselves indicate substantial capacity and

production in France. 

Nothing on the record in these reviews indicates a limitation on the ability of the subject French

producers to increase exports to the United States if the order is revoked. We also take into account other

factors discussed below, including the vulnerability of the domestic industry, the substitutability of brass

sheet and strip from different sources, and underselling in the original investigations,55 which we find

likely to recur if the order is revoked. Accordingly, we do not find that subject imports from France

would likely have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry if the order were revoked. 

Germany. The German interested parties contend that subject imports from Germany will have

no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry if the order on brass sheet and strip from Germany
 56 German Interested Parties’ Prehearing Brief at 9-15. 

 57 CR/PR at Table I-1. Statistics on imports from Germany under tariff subheadings that would include subject

merchandise are believed to consist largely of nonsubject rolled brass products and, therefore, imports during the

review period would be considerably less than the totals indicated by the broader tariff category. See CR/PR at

Table I-4 and id. n.3.

 58 CR at IV-15, PR at IV-11, id. at n.21; and Original France/Italy/Sweden/Germany Determinations, USITC Pub.

1951, at A-45 - A-47, Table 16.

 59 Prymetall noted that it is ***. CR at IV-17 n.30, PR at IV-12 n.30. 

 60 CR/PR at Table IV-10.

 61 Id.

 62 CR/PR at Table III-2.

 63 CR/PR at Table IV-11.

 64 Wieland-Werke and Schwermetall questionnaire responses, question II-6c. *** have the largest capacity to

produce flat rolled copper and copper alloy in Germany. Domestic Interested Parties’ Prehearing Brief at 37 and

Exhibit 6. 

12

is revoked.56 Although subject imports from Germany have been at low levels during the review period,

information concerning the two largest German producers of subject merchandise indicates that they have

a large production capacity and significant unused capacity, and that they are highly export oriented.

The volume of subject imports from Germany has declined steeply since the orders were issued,

from a peak of 69.5 million pounds in 1984 to volumes in the current review period ranging from

5.3 million pounds in 2000 to 2.6 million pounds in 2004.57 In the original investigations, the seven firms

identified as producers of the subject merchandise reported combined capacity ranging from 543.9 million

pounds in 1983 to 564.5 million pounds in 1984, production ranging from 533.2 million pounds in 1983

to 572.8 million pounds in 1984, and total exports ranging from 135.1 million pounds in 1985 to 162.8

million pounds in 1984. Of total German exports in the original period of investigation, those to the

United States ranged from 43.9 million pounds in 1985 to 68.5 million pounds in 1984.58

Three producers – Wieland-Werke, Prymetall GmbH & Co. KG (“Prymetall”), and Schwermetall

Halbzeugwerk GmbH & Co. KG (“Schwermetall”) – accounted for *** percent of German production of

brass sheet and strip in 2004. They report that four other producers account for the remainder of German

production. Data for Wieland-Werke and Schwermetall59 show that capacity was *** pounds in 1999,

then peaked at *** pounds in 2002, and was *** pounds in 2004. Their production was *** pounds in

1999, then peaked at *** pounds in 2000, and was *** million pounds in 2004. Unused capacity was ***

percent in 1999, then peaked at *** percent in 2003, and was *** percent in 2004.60

Accordingly, the unused capacity allocated by those German producers to production of subject

brass sheet and strip was *** pounds in 1999, *** pounds in 2003, and *** pounds in 2004.61 These

totals are noteworthy in light of domestic producers’ total domestic shipments of 400.0 million pounds in

2003 and 428.9 million pounds in 2004.62

The German producers’ capacity increases markedly when the capacity allocated to production of

other products that can be produced on the same equipment and machinery is added. The two reporting

producers’ casting capacity for all copper and copper alloy products was *** pounds in 2004, while their

hot rolling capacity was *** pounds, their cold rolling capacity was *** pounds, and their annealing

capacity was *** pounds.63 Although Wieland-Werke operated ***.64 This *** capacity could also be

used to produce and export subject brass sheet and strip to the United States. 
 65 CR/PR at Table IV-10. Exports by those two producers as a share of their total shipments peaked in *** at ***

percent, compared with *** percent in ***. Their major export markets are ***. Exports to other markets

accounted for *** percent of their total shipments in 2004 and *** percent in interim 2005. Id.

 66 Original France/Italy/Sweden/Germany Determinations at 15-16.

 67 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 68 CR at IV-21 - IV-22, IV-21 n.32; PR at IV-13, IV-13 n.32; and staff report in original investigations on

France/Italy/Sweden/Germany, INV-K-009 (Feb. 2, 1987) at A-62, Table 14. 

 69 First Review Determination at IV-6.

 70 CR/PR at Table IV-12.

 71 Original France/Italy/Sweden/Germany Determinations at 15-16.

13

Total exports of the two reporting German producers ranged over this period of review from ***

pounds in 2003 to *** pounds in 2000, with exports as a share of their total shipments ranging from ***

percent in 2003 to *** percent in 2004.65

Given the large size and export orientation of the German producers, we do not find that subject

imports from Germany would likely have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry if the

order were revoked. In so concluding, we also take into account other factors discussed below, including

the vulnerability of the domestic industry, the substitutability of brass sheet and strip from different

sources, and underselling in the original investigations,66 which we find likely to recur if the order is

revoked. 

Italy. The volume of subject imports from Italy has declined steeply since the orders were issued,

from a peak of 10.5 million pounds in 1985 to volumes in the current review period ranging from 297,000

pounds in 1999 to 114,000 pounds in 2003, and 182,000 pounds in 2004.67 At the time of the first fiveyear reviews, five firms were identified as producers of subject merchandise in Italy: (1) Europa

Metalli/LMI - La Metalli Industriale, SpA (“La Metalli”); (2) SA Eredi Gnutti Metalli SpA (“Gnutti”); (3)

Dalmet SpA; (4) Metallurgica San Marco SpA (“San Marco”); and (5) Trafilerie Carlo Gnutti SpA

(“Carlo Gnutti”). All of these except San Marco also were producers of some form of rolled brass

products in the original investigations. In both the original investigations and the first five-year reviews,

***.

The only response from possible Italian producers received in these reviews was a statement from

Carlo Gnutti that it ***. Information in the original investigations indicated that the capacity of subject

producers in Italy ranged from *** million pounds in 1983 to *** million pounds in 1985, and that

production ranged from *** million pounds in 1983 to *** million pounds in 1985. Italian exports of

subject merchandise increased in the original investigations from *** million pounds in 1983 to

*** million pounds in 1985, and accounted for *** percent of Italian producers’ production during the

period of investigation. Italian exports to the United States accounted for at least *** to *** percent of

the Italian producers’ production from 1983 to 1985.68

Published reports in the first reviews indicated that La Metalli was to bring on line a new coldrolling mill for copper and copper alloy strip at the end of 2000.69 United Nations data show that Italian

exports of brass rolled products more than doubled over the current period of review, from 42.5 million

pounds in 1999 to 97.6 million pounds in 2004.70

Nothing on the record in these reviews indicates a limitation on the ability of the subject Italian

producers to increase exports to the United States if the order is revoked. We also take into account other

factors discussed below, including the vulnerability of the domestic industry, the substitutability of brass

sheet and strip from different sources, and underselling in the original investigation,71 which we find

likely to recur if the order is revoked. Accordingly, we do not find that subject imports from Italy would

likely have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry if the order were revoked. 
 72 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 73 CR at IV-22 - IV-23, PR at IV-14.

 74 CR at IV-23, PR at IV-14.

 75 First Review Determination at Table IV-5.

 76 CR/PR at Table IV-13.

 77 USITC Pub. 2099 at 19.

 78 Because we decline to exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports from Brazil with subject imports

from other countries (see discussion infra), it is not necessary for the Commission to determine separately whether

subject imports from Brazil would be likely to have no discernible adverse impact in the event of revocation. 

 79 USITC Pub. 1930 at 12; USITC Pub. 1951 at 12-13; USITC Pub. 2099 at 16 (although imports from Japan

were cumulated in a subsequent review only with imports from the Netherlands, there was no indication there, and

none is argued or appears here, that would lead us to a conclusion of no reasonable overlap with respect to Japan and

these other subject countries).

14

Japan. The volume of subject imports from Japan has declined steeply since the orders were

issued, from a peak of 22.9 million pounds in 1986 to volumes in the current review period ranging from

5.0 million pounds in 1999 to 2.8 million pounds in 2003.72 In the original investigations, questionnaire

respondents reported that there were eight producers of brass sheet and strip in Japan: (1) Sambo Copper

Alloy Co., Ltd. (“Sambo”); (2) Nippon Mining & Metals Co., Ltd.; (3) Mitsubishi Shindoh Co., Ltd.;

(4) Mitsui Mining & Smelting Co., Ltd.; (5) Kobe Steel, Ltd.; (6) Furukawa Electric Co.; (7) Dowa

Mining; and (8) Fuji Brass & Copper. At the time of the first five-year reviews, all of these producers,

except Dowa Mining and Fuji Brass and Copper, continued to produce rolled brass products in Japan.73 

In response to questionnaires in these reviews addressed to Japanese producers of subject

merchandise, the Commission received only a partial response from Sambo.74 Information in the first

five-year reviews indicated that the capacity of subject producers in Japan was 211.4 million pounds in

1997 and 189.4 million pounds in 1998, and that production was 193.3 million pounds in 1997 and

165.2 million pounds in 1998.75 World Trade Atlas information shows Japanese producers’ total exports

of brass rolled products during the current period of review ranging from 63.2 million pounds in 1999 to

35.7 million pounds in 2001.76

Nothing on the record in these reviews indicates a limitation on the ability of the subject Japanese

producers to increase exports to the United States if the order is revoked. We also take into account other

factors discussed below, including the vulnerability of the domestic industry, the substitutability of brass

sheet and strip from different sources, and underselling in the original investigation,77 which we find

likely to recur if the order is revoked. Accordingly, we do not find that subject imports from Japan would

likely have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry if the order were revoked.78 

C. Likely Overlap of Competition

In the original France/Italy/Sweden/Germany determination, the Commission found that subject

imports from France, Italy, and Germany competed with each other and with the domestic like product

and cumulated the volume and price effects of those imports.79 The record in these reviews provides no
 80 We decline to exercise our discretion to include subject imports from Brazil among cumulated imports (see

discussion following), and would do so even if there were a reasonable overlap of competition among subject

imports from Brazil, other subject imports, and the domestic like product, and therefore do not make a finding

regarding likely competition with respect to Brazil.

 81 Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Lane find that the subject imports from Brazil, France, Germany, Italy,

and Japan are likely to compete with each other and the domestic like product in the U.S. market. See Dissenting

Views of Chairman Stephen Koplan and Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane with Respect to Brazil. 

 82 CR/PR at Table II-4. 

 83 CR/PR at Table II-6. 

 84 CR at II-23, PR at II-16; CR/PR at Table II-7.

 85 E.g., Transcript at 152-155 (Traa). 

 86 The German producers were asked at the hearing for the share of total production in Germany accounted for by

the higher-value product. Tr. at 245. They responded that such specialty products were “a small segment of overall

BSS (brass sheet and strip) production in Germany, around 10 percent,” (German Respondent Interested Parties’

Posthearing Brief at A-36), which leaves 90 percent of production in Germany that is presumably interchangeable

with other subject imports and the domestic like product. Moreover, questionnaire response data identify the subject

German merchandise as largely interchangeable with the domestic like product and other subject brass sheet and

strip. CR at II-23, PR at II-16; CR/PR at Table II-7. 

 87 CR at II-2, PR at II-1; CR/PR at Table II-1. Geographic overlap information for the current period is limited in

light of the limited volumes of subject imports and the limits of record data. However, questionnaire responses

indicate that the increasing volume of nonsubject imports compete nationwide and that there is some geographic

overlap among the subject imports as well. 

 88 CR/PR at II-1. Regarding likely competition, the German interested parties contend that domestic producers 

currently have substantial control over U.S. channels of distribution that would limit imports of the German product

(continued...)

15

reasons to depart from the prior overlap of competition findings concerning subject imports from France,

Germany, Italy, and Japan.80 81

Concerning fungibility, 20 of 29 purchasers identified price as the first or second most important

factor in selecting a supplier.82 The majority of purchasers reported that the domestic like product is

comparable to the subject merchandise from each subject country in meeting industry quality standards,

although, in the two purchaser comparisons of the U.S. and French products, one purchaser reported that

the U.S. product was comparable and one reported that it was inferior.83 Domestic producers, importers,

and purchasers reported in the majority of comparisons that imports from each of the subject countries are

interchangeable with subject imports from the other subject countries and with the domestic like

product.84 The German producers contend that they have shifted production to higher value-added subject

or nonsubject products and that this shift suggests that they will not compete with the domestic like

product if the order is revoked.85 However, the record indicates that the German producers produce a full

range of subject merchandise, that any specialized products are a small share of total German production,

and that the German product is interchangeable with other subject imports and the domestic like

product.86 

Analysis of current and prospective overlap of geographic markets is limited by low current

volumes of subject imports. Nonetheless, eight domestic producers report serving the national market.

Five importers report serving the Northeast, two the Midwest, and one each the Southeast, Southwest, and

West Coast.87 Moreover, nothing in the record would indicate that subject imports would not again be

marketed nationwide, as they were prior to issuance of the orders, should the orders be revoked. 

With respect to channels of distribution, domestic producers sell to distributors (*** of

shipments), end users (***), and rerollers (***), while importers shipped *** percent of the subject

merchandise to distributors.88 Analysis of current and prospective overlap of geographic markets and
 88 (...continued)

if the order were revoked. We find no indication of disproportionate control of the channels of distribution by the

domestic producers or that channels in the United States would not be open to imports generally or imports from

Germany specifically. Indeed, Wieland Metals, owned by Wieland Werke in Germany, is part of the domestic

industry and therefore currently would have ready access to U.S. channels of distribution. Other German firms (e.g.,

Thyssen, owned by ThyssenKrupp of Dusseldorf, Germany) likewise have substantial interests in U.S. channels

through which the subject merchandise could be sold. E-mail of Christopher Mapes (Jan. 27, 2006); see also

Domestic Interested Parties’ Posthearing Brief, Exhibit 1 at 67.

 89 Regarding likely simultaneous presence of the subject imports from France, Germany, Italy, and Japan and the

domestic like product, we note that the current small volumes from the four countries were all present in 2004 and

intersected in various months with other subject imports. CR/PR at Table IV-3.

 90 Eluma’s Posthearing Brief at 3. We also note the incentive of the Brazilian producers, when they export, to

focus on their Mercosul agreement partners (Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay) for which, in addition to being

nearer, imports from Brazil are free of normal tariffs. See, e.g., id. at 8. 

 91 CR/PR at Tables IV-8 - IV-13. In the absence of information that would permit segregation of subject and

nonsubject exports of brass rolled products from France, Italy, and Japan, these available data may overstate subject

exports to some extent. Moreover, the record data for the current period of review do not include data for the

French, Italian and Japanese producers’ total shipments (home market and export), preventing a calculation of their

exports as a share of total shipments. The German industry exported between *** percent of its shipments between

1999 and January–September 2005. CR/PR at Table IV-10.

16

channels of distribution is limited by low current volumes of subject imports. However, nothing in the

record would indicate that subject imports would not likely be marketed with a similar geographic

overlap and through similar channels of distribution as prior to issuance of the orders, should the orders

be revoked. 

Overall, we find that the subject imports from France, Germany, Italy, and Japan are fungible

with each other and with the domestic like product and that there will likely be a reasonable overlap of

geographic markets and channels of distribution if the orders are revoked, and that the subject imports

would be simultaneously present.89 

D. Other Considerations

As indicated above, the limited record in these five-year reviews does not indicate any significant

change since imposition of the orders in the conditions of competition under which imports from France,

Germany, Italy, and Japan would likely compete in the U.S. market if the orders were revoked. 

Accordingly, we exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports from these countries.

However, we find that subject imports from Brazil would likely face different conditions of

competition in the U.S. market than the subject imports from those four countries. Specifically, the

Brazilian producers are not significantly export oriented; instead their production is largely directed at

meeting increasing demand of the automotive, telecommunication equipment, and construction sectors in

the Brazilian home market.90 As a result, Brazilian producers’ export shipments accounted for less than

*** percent of their total shipments in each year since 2001. In 2004, Brazilian producers exported only

*** pounds of brass sheet and strip to all markets, whereas French producers exported 57.3 million

pounds of brass rolled products in 2004, German producers *** pounds of brass sheet and strip, Italian

producers 97.6 million pounds of brass rolled products, and Japanese producers 40.3 million pounds of

brass rolled products.91 On the basis of the very limited export orientation of the Brazilian producers,
 92 SINDICEL, the Brazilian trade association that covers brass producers in Brazil, submitted to the Commission

aggregate capacity, production, and shipment data for the entire Brazilian BSS industry. The Brazilian producers

represented by the SINDICEL data are Termomecanica, Eluma, Cecil S.A. Laminacao De Metais (“Cecil”), and

Industria Brasileira De Metais S.A. (“IBRAME”), and consist of all known producers of brass sheet and strip in

Brazil. CR at IV-9-IV-10, PR at IV-8 - IV-9. The President of SINDICEL certified to the accuracy of the response

provided by SINDICEL on February 8, 2006. EDIS document 247333.

 93 Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Lane exercise their discretion to cumulate likely subject imports from

Brazil with those from France, Germany, Italy, and Japan.

 94 Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Lane find that subject imports from Brazil would be likely to have a

discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry if the orders were revoked and exercise their discretion to

cumulate subject imports from Brazil with those from France, Germany, Italy, and Japan. See Dissenting Views of

Chairman Stephen Koplan and Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane with Respect to Brazil.

 95 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

 96 SAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. I, at 883-84 (1994). The SAA states that “[t]he likelihood of injury standard

applies regardless of the nature of the Commission’s original determination (material injury, threat of material injury,

or material retardation of an industry). Likewise, the standard applies to suspended investigations that were never

completed.” SAA at 883. 

17

contrasted with the high export orientation of the industries in France, Germany, Italy, and Japan, we do

not exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports from Brazil with other subject imports.92 93

E. Summary of Cumulation Conclusions

As discussed above, we find that subject imports from Canada would be likely to have no

discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry if that order were revoked. We also find significant

differences in the conditions of competition with respect to the subject imports from Brazil and the

conditions of competition with respect to subject imports from France, Germany, Italy, and Japan. 

Therefore, we do not exercise our discretion to cumulate the likely volume and price effects of subject

imports from Brazil with those for subject imports from France, Germany, Italy, and Japan.94

We do not find that subject imports from France, Germany, Italy, and Japan would be likely to

have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry if the orders were revoked. We also find a

likely reasonable overlap of competition among the subject imports from France, Germany, Italy, and

Japan and the domestic like product if the orders were revoked. 

IV. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY IF

THE COUNTERVAILING AND ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDERS ARE REVOKED

A. Legal Standard

In a five-year review conducted under section 751(c) of the Act, Commerce will revoke a

countervailing or antidumping duty order unless: (1) it makes a determination that dumping or

subsidization is likely to continue or recur, and (2) the Commission makes a determination that revocation

of the antidumping duty order “would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury

within a reasonably foreseeable time.”95 The SAA states that “under the likelihood standard, the

Commission will engage in a counter-factual analysis; it must decide the likely impact in the reasonably

foreseeable future of an important change in the status quo – the revocation or termination of a

proceeding and the elimination of its restraining effects on volumes and prices of imports.”96 Thus, the
 97 While the SAA states that “a separate determination regarding current material injury is not necessary,” it

indicates that “the Commission may consider relevant factors such as current and likely continued depressed

shipment levels and current and likely continued [sic] prices for the domestic like product in the U.S. market in

making its determination of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of material injury if the order is revoked.” 

SAA at 884.

 98 See NMB Singapore Ltd. v. United States, 288 F. Supp. 2d 1306, 1352 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2003) (“‘likely’ means

probable within the context of 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c) and 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)”), aff’d without opinion, 05-1019 (Fed.

Cir. August 3, 2005); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-153 at 7-8 (Ct. Int’l Trade Dec. 24, 2002)

(same); Usinor Industeel, S.A. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-152 at 4 n.3 & 5-6 n.6 (Ct. Int’l Trade Dec. 20, 2002)

(“more likely than not” standard is “consistent with the court’s opinion”; “the court has not interpreted ‘likely’ to

imply any particular degree of ‘certainty’”); Indorama Chemicals (Thailand) Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-105

at 20 (Ct. Int’l Trade Sept. 4, 2002) (“standard is based on a likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury, not a

certainty”); Usinor v. United States, Slip Op. 02-70 at 43-44 (Ct. Int’l Trade July 19, 2002) (“‘likely’ is tantamount

to ‘probable,’ not merely ‘possible’”).

 99 Vice Chairman Okun notes that, consistent with her dissenting views in Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from

Italy, Inv. No. AA1921-167 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 3698 (June 2004) at 15-17, she does not concur with the

U.S. Court of International Trade’s interpretation of “likely” to mean “probable.” See Usinor Industeel, S.A. et. al.

v. United States, No. 01-00006, Slip Op. 02-39 at 13 (Ct. Int’l Trade April 29, 2002). However, she will apply the

Court’s standard in this review and all subsequent reviews until either Congress clarifies the meaning or the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addresses the issue. See also Additional Views of Vice Chairman Deanna

Tanner Okun Concerning the “Likely” Standard in Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line and

Pressure Pipe from Argentina, Brazil, Germany, and Italy, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-362 (Review) and 731-TA-707-710

(Review)(Remand), USITC Pub. 3754 (Feb. 2005).

 100 Commissioner Lane notes that, consistent with her views in Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from Italy, Inv.

No. AA1921-167 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 3698 (June 2004), she does not concur with the U.S. Court of

International Trade’s interpretation of “likely,” but she will apply the Court’s standard in this review and all

subsequent reviews until either Congress clarifies the meaning or the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

addresses this issue. 

 101 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).

 102 SAA at 887. Among the factors that the Commission should consider in this regard are “the fungibility or

differentiation within the product in question, the level of substitutability between the imported and domestic

products, the channels of distribution used, the methods of contracting (such as spot sales or long-term contracts),

and lead times for delivery of goods, as well as other factors that may only manifest themselves in the longer term,

such as planned investment and the shifting of production facilities.” Id.

 103 In analyzing what constitutes a reasonably foreseeable time, Chairman Koplan examines all the current and

likely conditions of competition in the relevant industry. He defines “reasonably foreseeable time” as the length of

time it is likely to take for the market to adjust to a revocation or termination. In making this assessment, he

considers all factors that may accelerate or delay the market adjustment process including any lags in response by

foreign producers, importers, consumers, domestic producers, or others due to: lead times; methods of contracting;

the need to establish channels of distribution; product differentiation; and any other factors that may only manifest

themselves in the longer term. In other words, this analysis seeks to define “reasonably foreseeable time” by

reference to current and likely conditions of competition, but also seeks to avoid unwarranted speculation that may

(continued...)

18

likelihood standard is prospective in nature.97 The U.S. Court of International Trade has found that

“likely,” as used in the sunset review provisions of the Act, means “probable,” and the Commission

applies that standard in five-year reviews.98 99 100

The statute states that “the Commission shall consider that the effects of revocation or termination

may not be imminent, but may manifest themselves only over a longer period of time.”101 According to

the SAA, a “‘reasonably foreseeable time’ will vary from case-to-case, but normally will exceed the

‘imminent’ timeframe applicable in a threat of injury analysis in original investigations.”102 103
 103 (...continued)

occur in predicting events into the more distant future.

 104 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

 105 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). There have been no duty absorption findings by Commerce with respect to the

orders under review. CR at I-13 - I-14, PR at I-10 - I-12. The statute further provides that the presence or absence

of any factor that the Commission is required to consider shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to

the Commission’s determination. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5). While the Commission must consider all factors, no one

factor is necessarily dispositive. SAA at 886.

 106 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 107 CR/PR at II-1.

 108 CR/PR at Table I-4. Apparent U.S. consumption stated in value terms increased by 11.4 percent between 1999

and 2004 and rose in interim 2005 compared with interim 2004. Id. The difference between the trend in quantity

and value terms is attributable to increased average unit values, which have been affected by increased production

(continued...)

19

Although the standard in a five-year review is not the same as the standard applied in an original

antidumping duty investigation, it contains some of the same fundamental elements. The statute provides

that the Commission is to “consider the likely volume, price effect, and impact of imports of the subject

merchandise on the industry if the orders are revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated.”104 It

directs the Commission to take into account its prior injury determination, whether any improvement in

the state of the industry is related to the order or the suspension agreement under review, whether the

industry is vulnerable to material injury if the orders are revoked or the suspension agreement is

terminated, and any findings by Commerce regarding duty absorption pursuant to 19 U.S.C. §

1675(a)(4).105

B. Conditions of Competition

In evaluating the likely impact of the subject imports on the domestic industry, the statute directs

the Commission to consider all relevant economic factors “within the context of the business cycle and

conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”106 The following conditions of

competition are relevant to our determination.

Demand. Brass sheet and strip is used in a wide variety of end-use products. Brass is harder and

stronger than either of its alloying elements, copper or zinc; it has high strength, corrosion resistance,

excellent formability, and good electrical properties. Common fabrication processes include drawing,

rolling, and stamping. The vast majority of the product is produced in a coil form known as brass strip,

and the remainder is furnished in cut-to-length sheets. The largest sectors using brass sheet and strip are

electrical and electronics (semiconductors, terminal connectors, flashlight shells, and lamp fixtures),

automotive (radiator tanks, odometer contacts, and electrical connectors), building and construction

(grillwork, door knobs, locks, and push and kick plates), ammunition (cartridge cases, shells, and

mechanical housings for lighters), and coinage. Other products made of BSS include musical

instruments, plumbing accessories, bathroom fixtures, fasteners, heat exchangers (and other industrial

applications), washers, and stencils.107

Apparent U.S. consumption in the original investigations fluctuated irregularly between a low of

521.2 million pounds in 1985 to a high of 639.9 million pounds in 1984. Apparent U.S. consumption

remained in that range in the first five-year review period at 553.3 million pounds in 1997 and

554.2 million pounds in 1998. After increasing to 602.2 million pounds in 1999, apparent U.S.

consumption decreased irregularly over the current period of review to 502.6 million pounds in 2004, and

then declined further in interim 2005 to 345.7 million pounds, compared with 392.8 million pounds in

interim 2004.108 Reasons cited by U.S. producers for the decline in consumption over the period include
 108 (...continued)

costs, particularly raw material costs.

 109 CR at I-26, PR at I-24. Aluminum, steel, bronze, plastic, copper, and zinc are substitutes for brass sheet and

strip in certain applications. However, the potential for substitution is often limited by the time and effort required to

change the product design and manufacturing process. CR at II-12, PR at II-8. 

 110 CR/PR at Table I-5.

 111 Id.

 112 CR at II-8 - II-9, PR at II-6.

 113 CR/PR at II-1, CR/PR at Table I-2. Distributors and service centers have increasingly consolidated over the

last decades. See, e.g., ***.

 114 CR at I-24 - I-25, PR at I-20 - I-21.

20

the movement of U.S. manufacturing to lower cost countries, particularly China, the high price of copper,

and the manufacturing recession during 2001-2003.109

Supply. The U.S. market is supplied by domestically produced brass sheet and strip and by brass

sheet and strip imported from subject and non-subject countries. U.S. producers’ share of the contracting

U.S. market declined irregularly from 92.6 percent in 1999 to 85.3 percent in 2004. U.S. producers’

market share was 86.2 percent in interim 2005, compared with 85.9 percent in interim 2004. Subject

imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption, including Brazil and Canada, remained small over the

review period, declining from 2.5 percent in 1999 to 1.2 percent in 2004, and was 1.2 percent in both the

2004 and the 2005 interim periods.110

The market share of nonsubject imports increased over the period of review from 4.9 percent in

1999 to 13.4 percent in 2004, then declined slightly in the interim period to 12.6 percent, compared with

12.9 percent in interim 2004.111 Domestic producers variously attributed the increased share of

nonsubject imports to the removal of the orders with respect to Korea, the Netherlands, and Sweden in

1999, and to the increased brass sheet and strip available from Bulgaria, Hungary, India, Mexico, Poland,

Turkey, and the countries of the former Yugoslavia.112

As already noted, U.S. integrated producers shipped *** of their brass sheet and strip to end

users, *** of their brass sheet and strip to distributors, and *** to rerollers during the period of review. 

Importers of subject merchandise from the cumulated subject countries shipped *** percent of their brass

sheet and strip to distributors during the period, and importers of nonsubject merchandise shipped *** of

their brass sheet and strip to end users in 2000 through 2005, although they did ship *** of their brass

sheet and strip to distributors in 1999.113

There have been numerous structural changes in the domestic industry since the original

investigations. Eight producers of brass sheet and strip were petitioners in the original investigations: 

American Brass; Bridgeport Brass Corp. (“Bridgeport”); Chase Brass and Copper Co. (“Chase”); Hussey

Copper Ltd. (“Hussey”); The Miller Co. (“Miller”); North Coast Brass & Copper Co. (“North Coast”);

Olin; and Revere. Wieland Metals began brass sheet and strip rerolling operations in 1987. Olin

purchased Bridgeport in 1988. In 1990, Eagle Brass Co. began rerolling operations, and Outokumpu

Copper Products Oy of Finland (“Outokumpu”) purchased American Brass, which operated thereafter as

Outokumpu American Brass (“OAB”). PMX was established as a greenfield operation in Cedar Rapids,

Iowa, in 1992, by Poongsan Corp., a Korean producer.114

Chase, Miller, and North Coast had gone out of business or had ceased production of brass sheet

and strip by the time of the first reviews and Hussey ceased production in 1999. OAB closed a plant in

Kenosha, Wisconsin, in 1999, and, in December 2002, Olin announced the closure of its integrated

Indianapolis plant because prolonged reduction in demand left it with unused capacity. In June 2005,

Outokumpu sold its fabricated copper products business, which includes OAB, to Nordic Capital. OAB

is reportedly allowed to operate under the Outokumpu Copper Products name for approximately a year
 115 CR at I-25 - I-26, PR at I-20 - I-21.

 116 CR/PR at V-1. All producers and importers reported that their metal prices tracked copper and zinc prices,

generally from the COMEX division of the New York Mercantile Exchange or the London Metal Exchange (LME).

 117 Tr. at 142-143 (Hartquist, Bartel). While certain domestic producers reported that they pass raw material costs

along to their customers, others indicated that there is not a 100-percent pass-through for raw material, energy, and

other price increases, and that the fabrication price may be reduced as a result of other price increases. CR/PR at V1 n.5.

 118 CR/PR at V-1 - V-2, id. nn.5-7. 

 119 CR/PR at Table II-5 (26 of 29 purchasers reported price as “very important” in their purchasing decisions). 

 120 CR at II-14, PR at II-8 - II -9.

 121 CR at II-23, PR at II-16; CR/PR at Table II-7. 

 122 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

21

after the sale. In January 2006, Olin announced the closure of its Waterbury rolling mill facility in

Waterbury, Connecticut, and the consolidation of its production activities into its East Alton, Illinois,

mill.115 As such, by the end of January 2006, there were four integrated producers, three rerollers, and

one integrated producer/reroller remaining in the U.S. industry.

Raw material costs are an important component of the total cost of producing brass sheet and

strip. Brass is an alloy of copper and zinc, and these metals, as well as scrap metal, comprise most of the

raw material cost. Prices of copper and copper scrap rose substantially beginning in late 2003 and almost

tripled in value between 1999 and late 2005. Zinc prices also rose in that period, and were approximately

60 percent higher in late 2005 than in 1999.116 Energy costs are another important factor in the

production of brass sheet and strip. Both natural gas prices and electricity prices were higher in 2005 than

in any of the full years between 1999 and 2004.

 The metal price and the fabrication price for brass sheet and strip are generally determined

separately. Energy and fuel surcharges are also used to some extent. Separate pricing for metal and other

production costs does not necessarily result in producers’ recovery of cost increases, however, because

there is downward pressure on fabrication prices as material prices increase.117 In part as a response to

increased material prices, tolling – in which the purchaser provides the metal to the producer for

fabrication – has become less common in the industry than in the original investigations.118

Price is an important factor in brass sheet and strip purchasing decisions.119 There is a high

degree of substitution between domestic and subject brass sheet and strip.120 There are established

industry standards for this product and, as already noted, producers, importers, and purchasers found all

subject sources to be always or frequently interchangeable.121

C. Revocation of the Orders on Subject Imports from France, Germany, Italy, and

Japan Is Likely to Lead to Continuation or Recurrence of Material Injury Within a

Reasonably Foreseeable Time

1. Likely Volume of the Cumulated Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely volume of imports of subject merchandise if the antidumping and

countervailing duty orders are revoked, the Commission is directed to consider whether the likely volume

of imports would be significant either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the

United States.122 In doing so, the Commission must consider “all relevant economic factors,” including

four enumerated factors: (1) any likely increase in production capacity or existing unused production

capacity in the exporting country; (2) existing inventories of the subject merchandise, or likely increases

in inventories; (3) the existence of barriers to the importation of the subject merchandise into countries
 123 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A-D).

 124 Original Brazil/Canada/Korea Determination, USITC Pub. 1930 at 14-15; Original

France/Germany/Italy/Sweden Determination, USITC Pub. 1951 at 13-14; Original Japan/Netherlands

Determination, USITC Pub. 2099 at 17-18.

 125 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 126 Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Lane note that cumulated import volume for the five countries, including

Brazil, was 94.7 million pounds in 1983, 134.6 million pounds in 1984, 98.0 million pounds in 1985, and

88.6 million pounds in 1986. In 1986, cumulated imports from these five countries accounted for 16.7 percent of

apparent U.S. consumption. 

 127 CR/PR at Table I-4. We note that these figures are likely overstated because they include nonsubject product

from Germany. CR/PR at Table IV-1 and note 3, CR/PR at Table I-5. 

 128 CR/PR at Table IV-10. The reduction in reported German capacity over the period of review does not

represent a physical reduction in capacity; rather, it reflects a greater share of capacity allocated to other products.

E.g., German Interested Parties’ Posthearing Brief at 5.

 129 USITC Pub. 3290 at Table IV-5. We did not use data on production of individual Japanese firms that was

submitted by German producers because the cited source of the data, the Japan Copper and Brass Association, did

not respond to a Commission staff request for data on Japanese capacity, production, home market shipments,

inventories, and exports. CR at IV-23 - IV-24, PR at IV-15. Thus the Commission could not establish the reliability

or accuracy of the data. 

 130 CR at IV-14 n.17, IV-21 n.32; PR at IV-10 n.17, IV-13 at n.32; and staff report in the original

France/Italy/Sweden/Germany investigation, INV-K-009 (Feb. 2, 1987)) at Tables 13 & 14. La Metalli was

expected to bring on line a new cold-rolling mill in 2000. USITC Pub. 3290 at IV-6.

22

other than the United States; and (4) the potential for product shifting if production facilities in the

foreign country, which can be used to produce the subject merchandise, are currently being used to

produce other products.123

In its original determinations, the Commission found that subject import volumes fluctuated

throughout the periods examined, but deemed subject import volumes to be significant.124 Cumulated

subject import volume for these four subject countries was 84.8 million pounds in 1983, 118.9 million

pounds in 1984, 90.4 million pounds in 1985, and 82.5 million pounds in 1986, the last full year before

the first set of orders went into effect. In 1986, the cumulated market penetration for these four countries,

measured by quantity, was 15.5 percent.125 126 

Current subject import volumes are much smaller than in the original investigations. Cumulated

subject import volume for France, Germany, Italy, and Japan declined from 9.9 million pounds in 1999 to

6.1 million pounds in 2004. The cumulated subject imports were 4.1 million pounds in interim 2005

compared with 4.8 million pounds in interim 2004.127 

Although the volume of cumulated subject imports is only a fraction of what it was during the

original investigations, we must nevertheless determine whether that volume is likely to be at significant

levels if the restraining effect of the antidumping duty orders is eliminated. For the following reasons, we

find that a significant import volume is likely if the orders were revoked.

The industries in the subject countries possess substantial capacity to produce brass sheet and

strip. For 2004, responding German producers reported production capacity of *** million pounds,

which is equivalent to over *** percent of U.S. consumption in that year.128 Japanese producers did not

provide data in the current reviews; during the first five-year reviews, Japanese producers reported

capacity averaging approximately 200 million pounds.129 French and Italian producers did not provide

any capacity or production data during these reviews or the first five-year reviews. According to data in

the original investigations, capacity averaged approximately *** million pounds in France and

*** million pounds in Italy.130 In the absence of current data for these producers, we find that substantial

capacity exists in France and Italy with which to increase production for export, based on capacity
 131 CR at IV-14, PR at IV-10 (KM Europa in France and Italy, together with KM Europa in Germany, formed

after the original investigations, have combined capacity of 600 million pounds); see also USITC Pub. 3290 at IV-6

(published reports in the first five-year reviews that La Metalli planned to add a cold-rolling mill in Italy at the end

of 2000). 

 132 CR/PR at Table IV-10.

 133 To this amount should be added at least a portion of Schwermetall’s total unused capacity that could be used to

produce brass sheet and strip ***. Moreover, while KM Europa in Germany currently may not be using capacity to

produce subject merchandise (CR at IV-16 n.25, PR at IV-11 - IV-12 n.25), it would be able to do so, as would its

counterparts in France and Italy. See CR at IV-14, PR at IV-10 (KM Europa’s combined subject and nonsubject

capacity of 600 million pounds); see also CR at IV-16 n.25, PR at IV-11 - IV-12 n.25 (domestic interested parties

contending that KM Europa in Germany is currently producing subject merchandise). 

 134 USITC Pub. 3290 at Table IV-5.

 135 See also CR at IV-14 n.17, IV-21 n.32; PR at IV-10 n.17, IV-13 n.32 (significant excess capacity in France

and Italy in the original investigations). We note that German producers reported *** inventories of brass sheet and

strip. CR/PR at Table IV-10. Producers in France, Italy, and Japan did not supply data on their inventories.

 136 CR/PR at Table IV-10.

 137 CR/PR at Tables IV-9 and IV-12.

 138 CR/PR at Table IV-13.

 139 CR/PR at Table I-1. 

 140 As noted above, we find that, notwithstanding assertions by German interested parties that they have shifted

their product mix into higher-value subject and nonsubject brass products, and that these are the only products they

would sell in the U.S. market if the order were revoked, those assertions are not borne out by the record and would

not in any event limit German producers’ ability to reenter the U.S. market in significant volumes if the order were

revoked. Also as discussed above, distribution channels in the United States are not generally foreclosed to foreign

producers and exporters.

(continued...)

23

information in the original investigations, along with public information on evolution of those industries

during the periods covered in the first five-year reviews and these reviews.131 We also find that

significant capacity exists in those countries based on the substantial level of their exports described

below.

The amount of capacity in the subject countries that is unused is significant as well. Capacity

utilization rates in Germany fluctuated over the period of review, but were between *** percent and ***

percent during the last three full years.132 German producers reported approximately *** million pounds

of excess capacity in 2004.133 During the first reviews, Japanese producers reported utilization rates

averaging approximately 90 percent, including 24 million pounds of excess capacity in 1998.134 In the

absence of current data from producers in France and Italy, we find that they possess substantial excess

capacity with which to increase production for export.135

The brass sheet and strip industries in the cumulated subject countries are export oriented. 

Exports accounted for approximately *** percent of German shipments over the period of review,

including *** million pounds of exports in 2004.136 French and Italian exports of brass rolled products

grew sharply over the period of review, to reach 57.3 million pounds and 97.6 million pounds in 2004,

respectively.137 Japanese exports of brass rolled products declined somewhat over the period but totaled a

still significant 40.3 million pounds in 2004.138 Thus each of the subject countries is focused on exports

to a significant degree. Each has maintained at least some U.S. market presence during the period of

review.139

Despite some recent decline in consumption, the U.S. market remains a large and attractive one. 

There do not appear to be significant structural constraints on subject producers’ ability to reenter the

U.S. market in the event of revocation.140 With respect to prices for brass sheet and strip in the United
 140 (...continued)

***, and that Wieland-Werke should be deemed to be operating at full capacity even when it is operating,

e.g., at only 90 percent capacity. German Interested Parties’ Posthearing Brief at A-5 - A-8. We do not find

Wieland’s arguments persuasive. In the original investigation period, when no order was in place, the volume of

subject German imports increased significantly and undersold the domestic like product in most comparisons. ***,

Wieland-Werke is not the only potential exporter of subject German merchandise to the United States, Wieland

Metals is not the only potential importer of subject German merchandise, and Wieland Metals’ imports would not

necessarily be limited to feedstock for its own operations. Indeed, Wieland Metals explains elsewhere on the record

that, with the order in place, it imported ***. See German Interested Parties’ response to notice of institution (May

23, 2005) at 6-7.

 141 Domestic Producers’ Posthearing Brief, Exhibit 1 at 24-28 and Exhibits 11 and 12. 

 142 Hearing transcript (Bartel), pp. 135-136 and German Interested Parties’ Posthearing Brief at 10.

 143 Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Lane concur in the majority’s analysis with regard to France, Germany,

Italy, and Japan, and find the same analysis equally applicable to likely import volumes from Brazil in the event of

revocation. See Dissenting Views of Chairman Stephen Koplan and Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane with Respect

to Brazil. 

 144 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(3). The SAA states that “[c]onsistent with its practice in investigations, in considering

the likely price effects of imports in the event of revocation and termination, the Commission may rely on

circumstantial, as well as direct, evidence of the adverse effects of unfairly traded imports on domestic prices.” SAA

at 886.

24

States relative to other global markets, the evidence on the record is mixed. Some U.S. producers

reported that fabrication prices in the United States are higher than fabrication prices in Brazil, China, and

Germany.141 OAB reported that fabrication prices for brass sheet and strip in the United States and

Europe are comparable. OAB and German producers reported, however, that, because of the current

euro-dollar exchange rate and other factors, fabrication prices in Europe are currently relatively higher

than fabrication prices in the United States.142 We find that this mixed information on relative prices

indicates that subject producers will have some incentive to produce and export more of their product to

the United States in order to use more fully their available capacity.

Thus, if the orders were revoked, producers in these subject countries would have the ability and

motivation to increase exports to the United States. Accordingly, we find that imports of brass sheet and

strip from these subject countries into the United States would be likely to increase significantly in the

reasonably foreseeable future if the antidumping and countervailing duty orders were revoked.143

2. Likely Price Effects of the Cumulated Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely price effects of cumulated subject imports if the antidumping and

countervailing duty orders are revoked, the Commission is directed to consider whether there is likely to

be significant underselling by the subject imports as compared to domestic like products and whether the

subject imports are likely to enter the United States at prices that otherwise would have a significant

depressing or suppressing effect on the price of domestic like products.144

In the original determinations, the Commission found widespread underselling by the subject

imports from France, Germany, Italy, and Japan. In the original France investigation, the data showed

underselling in all but one of the 35 direct quarterly price comparisons. In the original Germany

investigation, there was underselling in 43 of 58 direct quarterly price comparisons. In the original Italy
 145 USITC Pub. 1951 A-66 - A-77. 

 146 USITC Pub. 2099 at 19.

 147 Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Lane note that in the original Brazil investigation, there was underselling

in 23 of 27 direct quarterly comparisons. USITC Pub. 1930 at A-59. 

 148 Of the six products, comparison data were available only with respect to product 3 (wiring devices, lamp

shells, and sockets of certain specifications), only with respect to imports from Japan. Those data, reflecting both

the metal and the fabrication components of prices, show that imports from Japan oversold the domestic like product,

with metal prices similar in most quarters but fabrication prices *** higher for imports from Japan than for the U.S.

product. CR at V-14, PR at V-11; CR/PR at Table V-3. Because the available comparisons occurred under the

discipline of the orders, and related only to product 3 and only to very small quantities of imports from Japan, we do

not consider those comparisons particularly probative of likely pricing of the cumulated subject imports if the orders

were revoked. 

 149 CR at III-21 n.25, PR at III-12 n.25. 

 150 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-1.

25

investigation, there was underselling in all 30 quarterly price comparisons.145 In the original Japan

investigation, price comparisons showed underselling in 74 of 100 instances.146 147

In light of the significantly reduced volume of imports from all of the subject countries since the

orders were issued and the low questionnaire response rate from some countries, price comparison data

for the current period of review are quite limited.148 As discussed above in the section on Conditions of

Competition, the U.S. brass sheet and strip market is fairly price competitive and the domestic like

product, subject imports, and nonsubject imports are substitutable. Because of this, if the orders were

revoked the imports would need to be priced aggressively to regain market share. Thus, the pricing

patterns observed in the original investigations are likely to recur and the subject imports would likely

undersell the domestic like product so as to significantly depress or suppress domestic prices. As noted

above, we find that subject imports from France, Germany, Italy, and Japan are likely to increase

significantly in the reasonably foreseeable future if the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders

are revoked. At these likely volumes, the subject imports from these countries would be likely to have

significant depressing or suppressing effects on the prices of the domestic like product.

We find that the significant volumes of cumulated subject imports are also likely to suppress the

price increases necessary to compensate for the domestic industry’s increasing costs. Domestic

producers’ prices have not kept up with increases in cost of goods sold in recent years, and producers’

conversion margins have declined.149 We note in this regard that currently high average prices in the U.S.

market are indicative of high material costs.150 In the event of revocation, those high prices would not be

likely to be maintained due to increased volumes of dumped or subsidized imports. 

We therefore find that there likely would be underselling by the subject imports that, when

combined with increased volumes of subject imports, would likely lead to significant adverse price

effects.

3. Likely Impact of the Cumulated Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely impact of cumulated imports of subject merchandise if the antidumping

orders are revoked, the Commission is directed to consider all relevant economic factors that are likely to

have a bearing on the state of the industry in the United States, including but not limited to: (1) likely

declines in output, sales, market share, profits, productivity, return on investments, and utilization of

capacity; (2) likely negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to raise

capital, and investment; and (3) likely negative effects on the existing development and production efforts

of the industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version of the domestic like
 151 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 152 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). Section 752(a)(6) of the Act states that “the Commission may consider the

magnitude of the margin of dumping” in making its determination in a five-year review. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(6). 

The statute defines the “magnitude of the margin of dumping” to be used by the Commission in five-year reviews as

“the dumping margin or margins determined by the administering authority under section 1675a(c)(3) of this title.” 

19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)(C)(iv). See also SAA at 887.

Commerce found the following dumping and net subsidy margins (for Brazil and Canada as well as the

cumulated imports): Brazil (dumping) 40.62 percent; Brazil (subsidy) no basis on which to determine; Canada

(dumping) 8.10 - 11.54 percent; France (dumping) 42.24 percent; Germany (dumping) 3.81 - 7.30 percent; Italy

(dumping) 5.44 percent; Japan (dumping) 13.30 - 57.98 percent. CR at I-13 - I-14, PR at I-11 - I-12. 

 153 The SAA states that in assessing whether the domestic industry is vulnerable to injury if the order is revoked,

the Commission “considers, in addition to imports, other factors that may be contributing to overall injury. While

these factors, in some cases, may account for the injury to the domestic industry, they may also demonstrate that an

industry is facing difficulties from a variety of sources and is vulnerable to dumped or subsidized imports.” SAA at

885.

 154 CR/PR at Table III-1. Capacity was affected by the fact that, as noted above, OAB closed a plant in Kenosha,

Wisconsin, in 1999, Olin announced the closure of its integrated Indianapolis plant in December 2002, and, in

January 2006, Olin announced the closure of its Waterbury rolling mill facility in Waterbury, Connecticut, and the

consolidation of its production activities into its East Alton, Illinois, mill. CR at I-25 - I-26, PR at I-21.

 155 CR/PR at Table III-1. Rerollers, on the other hand, experienced a modest net increase in capacity over the

period, from 58.9 million pounds in 1999 to 60.3 million pounds in 2004, and constant capacity of 45.2 million

pounds in interim 2004 and 2005. Rerollers’ production declined, however, from 45.3 million pounds in 1999 to

30.1 million pounds in 2004, and declined further to 20.6 million pounds in interim 2005 compared with 24.5 million

pounds in interim 2004. Rerollers also experienced a net decrease in their capacity utilization, from 77.0 percent in

1999 to 50.0 percent in 2004, and to 45.6 percent in interim 2005 compared with 54.1 percent in interim 2004. Id.

 156 CR/PR at Table I-5. German interested parties argue that domestic producers’ declining capacity utilization

and market share are not evidence of vulnerability because, they point out, domestic producers were responsible for

nearly all of the increase in nonsubject imports. German Interested Parties’ Posthearing Brief at 3-4. Nonsubject

import volume increased from 29.5 million pounds in 1999 to 67.4 million pounds in 2004, and grew in market share

from 4.9 percent in 1999 to 13.4 percent in 2004. CR/PR at Table I-5. We note that a majority of the increase in

nonsubject imports was product from the Netherlands, consisting of radiator strip brass sheet and strip, a product

which, while within the scope of the now-revoked order, is not produced domestically. See USITC Pub. 3290 at

(continued...)

26

product.151 All relevant economic factors are to be considered within the context of the business cycle

and the conditions of competition that are distinctive to the industry.152 As instructed by the statute, we

have considered the extent to which any improvement in the state of the domestic industry is related to

the order at issue and whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the orders are revoked.153

We conclude that the domestic industry is currently vulnerable to injury by increased subject

imports. Several factors highlight the weakened condition of the industry. As discussed below, the

industry’s capacity, production, market share, operating income, unit operating income, and employment

all declined between 1999 and 2004.

The basic (integrated) producers’ capacity decreased from 634.8 million pounds in 1999 to

607.0 million pounds in 2004, and their capacity declined to 448.1 million pounds in interim 2005

compared with 456.4 million pounds in interim 2004.154 The basic producers’ production declined from

574.0 million pounds in 1999 to 441.1 million pounds in 2004, and to 302.9 million pounds in interim

2005 compared with 347.0 million pounds in interim 2004. Accordingly, capacity utilization of the basic

producers dropped from 90.4 percent in 1999 to 72.7 percent in 2004, and declined further to 67.6 percent

in interim 2005 compared with 76.0 percent in interim 2004.155

U.S. producers’ market share declined from 92.6 percent in 1999 to 85.3 percent in 2004, then

increased somewhat to 86.2 percent in interim 2005 compared with 85.9 percent in interim 2004.156
 156 (...continued)

19-21. The next largest source of increased non-subject imports was Poland, with the largest volume entering in

2004, which ***. See Domestic Interested Parties’ Posthearing Brief, Exhibit 1 at 20.

 157 CR/PR at Table III-8.

 158 CR/PR at Table III-5.

 159 CR/PR at Table III-9.

 160 E.g., CR at III-21 n.25, PR at III-12 n.25. 

 161 As domestic producers testified at the hearing : “At the end of the day, the customer is concerned about what

is the total acquisition price that they’re going to pay, and that’s what they’re taking to the market to our competitors

. . . Everything that is above the commodity price is negotiated, and it is the total of the value that is above the

commodity price that is subject to negotiation.” Tr. at 67-68 (Bartel).

 162 Id. and CR/PR at Table III-6.

 163 German interested parties claim that the domestic industry is insulated from the effects of subject imports by

virtue of the substantial share of its shipments that is not sold in the commercial market. They point to domestic

industry shipments made to toll producers, or via internal consumption or transfers to related firms to be further

processed into downstream products. German Interested Parties’ Posthearing Brief at 11-12. We note that the

domestic industry had substantial toll, internal consumption and related firm shipments during the original

investigations, but this did not prevent the industry from being materially injured by the subject imports. 

Compare INV-J-186 (Dec. 9, 1986) at Table 4 with CR/PR at Table III-2. In both the original period of

investigation and current period of review, a substantial share of domestic shipments was non-toll commercial

shipments. Moreover, the share of domestic shipments that was toll shipments declined from the original period of

investigation to the current period of review. Compare INV-J-186, Dec. 9, 1986 at Table 4 (toll shipments

accounted for *** percent of domestic shipments in 1985) with CR/PR at Table III-2 (toll shipments accounted for

*** percent of domestic shipments in 2004).

German respondents also assert that improved U.S. demand conditions in late 2005 and early 2006 make

the domestic industry less vulnerable. German Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at 14. Any very recent uptick in

demand would not outweigh the longer-term decline in consumption that occurred over the period of review. For

example, apparent U.S. consumption fell 16.5 percent from 1999 to 2004, and 12.0 percent from interim 2004 to

interim 2005. CR/PR at Table I-5. These declining trends help explain the domestic industry’s relatively weak

performance over the period of review. 

27

Domestic producers’ operating income decreased from $48.9 million in 1999 to $14.2 million in 2004,

then declined further, to $2.3 million in interim 2005 compared with $11.0 million in interim 2004. Four

of eight domestic producers reported losses in interim 2005. Operating income as a percent of net sales

decreased from 7.4 percent in 1999 to 2.1 percent in 2004, then declined further to 0.4 percent in interim

2005 compared with 2.1 percent in interim 2004.157 The number of production workers in the industry

decreased from 1,682 workers in 1999 to 1,299 in 2004, then decreased further to 1,207 in interim 2005

compared with 1,313 in interim 2004.158 Capital expenditures also declined significantly over the period,

while research and development expenses were nearly ***.159

Domestic producers’ prices have not kept pace with cost increases, notwithstanding the domestic

industry’s use of various surcharges to offset higher costs and the practice of separating the price for

conversion from material costs.160 The practice of separating metal prices from fabrication or conversion

prices does not insulate the domestic producers from pricing pressure.161 Producers’ profitability was

considerably lower in 2004 than in 2000, primarily because of reduced conversion margins.162 Thus, the

industry is vulnerable to continuation or recurrence of material injury in the event of revocation.163

We have concluded that revocation of the antidumping duty orders with respect to France,

Germany, Italy, and Japan would lead to significant increases in the volume of cumulated subject imports 
 164 Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Lane concur in the majority’s analysis with regard to France, Germany,

Italy, and Japan, and find the analysis equally applicable to likely cumulated import volumes from Brazil, France,

Germany, Italy, and Japan in the event of revocation. 

 165 USITC Pub. 1930 at 16, USITC Pub. 1951 at 17 (also citing impact of imports on U.S. producers’ shipments

and financial performance).

 166 CR/PR at Tables I-1, I-4. With no production in Canada, recent U.S. imports from Canada are likely

shipments from inventories.

28

from those subject countries that would undersell the domestic like product and significantly depress or

suppress U.S. prices. In addition, the volume and price effects of the cumulated subject imports would

have a significant negative impact on the production, shipments, sales, market share, and revenues of the

domestic industry. This reduction in the industry’s production, shipments, sales, market share, and

revenues would adversely impact the industry’s profitability and ability to raise capital and maintain

necessary capital investments.164

Indeed, in the original investigations the Commission found that the increasing volumes of

imports that were underselling the domestic like product caused declines in the domestic industry’s

market share and material injury to the domestic industry.165 Based on the facts available in these

reviews, we conclude that if the orders were revoked, these circumstances would recur and there would be

a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry.

D. Revocation of the Order on Subject Imports from Canada Is Not Likely to Lead to

Continuation or Recurrence of Material Injury Within a Reasonably Foreseeable

Time

In the original investigations, the volume of imports from Canada increased from 9.7 million

pounds in 1983, to 13.4 million pounds in 1984, and then declined to 7.5 million pounds in 1985. After

the petitions were filed, imports from Canada were 4.0 million pounds in 1986 and 6.8 million pounds in

1987. In the period of review, the volume of subject imports from Canada decreased from 4.2 million

pounds in 1999 to 72,000 pounds in 2004. Subject imports from Canada declined to 18,000 pounds in

interim 2005 compared with 52,000 pounds in interim 2004.166

In our no discernible adverse impact finding concerning Canada, supra, we noted that the

Canadian facilities that previously produced subject brass sheet and strip have been shut down and the

productive assets have been liquidated. We also find no indication that the facilities would resume

subject production within a reasonably foreseeable time in the event of revocation. Consistent with those

findings, we find that the volume of subject imports from Canada would not likely be significant within a

reasonably foreseeable time if the order were revoked. We also find, therefore, that significant price

effects would not be likely and that subject imports from Canada would not be likely to have a significant

adverse impact on the domestic industry’s output, sales, market share, profits, or return on investment, if

the order were revoked. We, therefore, find that revocation of the antidumping duty order on Canada is

not likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to the U.S. brass sheet and strip

industry within a reasonably foreseeable time if the order were revoked.
 167 Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Lane do not join the majority views with respect to the likely volume,

price, and impact of subject imports from Brazil, in the event of revocation. 

 168 CR/PR at Tables I-1, I-4.

 169 Eluma’s Posthearing Brief at 3 and Exhibit 1 (chart showing automobile production in Brazil increased by 58

percent during the review period, 1999-2004); Transcript at 210-211 (Baialuna and Bruno). 

 170 CR/PR at Table IV-8. We also find no evidence of an incentive for Brazilian producers to shift production

from nonsubject to subject rolled products in the event of revocation. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-7; Transcript at

176 (Baialuna) (“Eluma has always produced these three products {(copper, bronze and brass alloys)} and intends to

continue to produce them. Shifting production among these products is limited by the product blend that we must

maintain to supply our customers in all three markets”); Transcript at 202-203 (Baialuna). Nor are there any third

country trade barriers that would increase the likelihood of the United States becoming a destination for any

Brazilian exports if the orders were revoked. CR/PR at Table IV-8. 

 171 Transcript at 172-173 (Baialuna). We note that the incentive of the Brazilian producers, when they export, is

to focus on their Mercosul agreement partners (Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay). These destinations are more

attractive to Brazilian producers due to their proximity as well as the fact that exports from Brazil are not subject to

normal customs duties. See, e.g., Transcript at 250 (Bruno); Eluma Posthearing Brief at 8; Transcript at 175

(Baialuna) (“. . . exports to Latin America have absorbed any unused capacity that was not devoted to the domestic

market. It is our view that this trend will continue in the future”).

 172 Domestic Interested Parties’ Posthearing Brief at 5-6.

29

E. Revocation of the Orders on Subject Imports from Brazil Is Not Likely to Lead to

Continuation or Recurrence of Material Injury Within a Reasonably Foreseeable

Time167

1. Likely Volume of Subject Imports from Brazil

In the original investigations, the volume of imports from Brazil increased from 9.9 million

pounds in 1983 to 15.8 million pounds in 1984, and then declined to 7.6 million pounds in 1985. After

the petitions were filed, imports from Brazil declined to 6.0 million pounds in 1986 and to 654,000

pounds in 1987. The volume of subject imports in the review period declined from 697,000 pounds in

1999 to 12,000 pounds in 2004. Subject imports from Brazil were zero pounds in interim 2005 compared

with 12,000 pounds in interim 2004.168

As explained in our decision not to cumulate subject imports from Brazil with those from other

subject countries, Brazilian producers are not significantly export oriented. While both capacity and

production increased throughout the review period, these increases were directed largely at meeting

increasing demand in the Brazilian home market in the automotive, telecommunication equipment, and

construction sectors.169 Capacity to produce the subject product increased from *** million pounds in

1999 to *** million pounds in 2004, an increase of *** percent; production likewise increased, from ***

million pounds in 1999 to *** million pounds in 2004, an increase of *** percent. Nevertheless,

although Brazilian producers reported unused capacity throughout the review period, that excess capacity

has not been used to increase exports to other markets; instead, home market shipments consistently

accounted for the *** of total Brazilian shipments, even as new capacity was introduced annually. Total

Brazilian exports declined over the period of review such that export shipments accounted for less than

*** percent of total Brazilian shipments each year since 2001.170 Indeed, virtually all Brazilian

production is dedicated either to the home market or to Latin America.171 We do not agree with domestic

interested parties’ arguments that a decline in home market sales in interim 2005, and an increase in

unused capacity, compared to interim 2004 levels, suggests a trend away from the growth in home market

demand seen throughout the rest of the review period.172 Particularly given the strong growth in home
 173 Respondents did not report data for end-of-period inventories. Counsel for Eluma, in a letter dated January 20,

2006, stated that it is SINDICEL’s understanding that shipments were ***. We do not find, however, that this

affects our finding on likely volume.

 174 USITC Pub. 1930 at A-59.

 175 Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Lane dissenting. 

30

market demand in Brazil during 1999-2004, we do not find that the decline in the interim period is

indicative of the beginning of a longer-term trend.173

On the basis of the strong demand in the Brazilian home market and the limited export orientation

of the Brazilian producers, we find that the likely volume of subject imports from Brazil will not be

significant if the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders were revoked.

2. Likely Price Effects of the Subject Imports from Brazil

In the original investigations, subject imports from Brazil undersold the domestic product in 23 of

27 comparisons.174 There is no information on this record concerning whether or not subject imports from

Brazil undersold the domestic like product during either the first or second five-year review period.

Notwithstanding the high incidence of underselling in the original investigations, we find that

subject imports from Brazil are not likely to affect significantly domestic producers’ prices if the orders

are revoked. Rather, on the basis of our finding with respect to the likely volume of subject imports from

Brazil in the event of revocation, we also find that significant price effects would not be likely.

3. Likely Impact of the Subject Imports from Brazil

In line with our findings regarding the likely volume and price effects of subject imports from

Brazil, we find that subject imports from Brazil would not be likely to have a significant adverse impact

on the domestic industry’s output, sales, market share, profits, or return on investment, if the orders were

revoked. The small volume of subject imports from Brazil that would be likely upon revocation would

not be likely to have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry. We, therefore, find that

revocation of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on Brazil is not likely to lead to the

continuation or recurrence of material injury to the U.S. brass sheet and strip industry within a reasonably

foreseeable time if the orders were revoked.175

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on brass

sheet and strip from France, Germany, Italy, and Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. We

further conclude that revocation of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on brass sheet

and strip from Brazil and the antidumping duty order on brass sheet and strip from Canada would not be

likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a

reasonably foreseeable time.
 1

 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7).

 2

 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7).

 3

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

 4

 For a discussion of the analytical framework of Chairman Koplan regarding the application of the “no

discernible adverse impact” provision, see Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from Brazil, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and

Thailand, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-278-280 (Review) and 731-TA-347-348 (Review), USITC Pub. 3274 (Feb. 2000). For

a further discussion of Chairman Koplan’s analytical framework, see Iron Metal Construction Castings from India;

Heavy Iron Construction Castings from Brazil; and Iron Construction Castings from Brazil, Canada, and China, Inv.

Nos. 303-TA-13 (Review); 701-TA-249 (Review); and 731-TA-262, 263, and 265 (Review), USITC Pub. 3247 (Oct.

1999) (Views of Commissioner Stephen Koplan Regarding Cumulation). 

 5

 The four factors generally considered by the Commission in assessing whether imports compete with each other

and with the domestic like product are: (1) the degree of fungibility between the imports from different countries

and between imports and the domestic like product, including consideration of specific customer requirements and

other quality related questions; (2) the presence of sales or offers to sell in the same geographical markets of imports

from different countries and the domestic like product; (3) the existence of common or similar channels of

distribution for imports from different countries and the domestic like product; and (4) whether the imports are

(continued...)

31

DISSENTING VIEWS OF CHAIRMAN STEPHEN KOPLAN AND

COMMISSIONER CHARLOTTE R. LANE WITH RESPECT TO BRAZIL

CUMULATION

A. Overview

Section 752(a) of the Act provides that:

the Commission may cumulatively assess the volume and effect of imports of the subject

merchandise from all countries with respect to which reviews under section 1675(b) or

(c) of this title were initiated on the same day, if such imports would be likely to compete

with each other and with domestic like products in the United States market. The

Commission shall not cumulatively assess the volume and effects of imports of the

subject merchandise in a case in which it determines that such imports are likely to have

no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.1

Thus, cumulation is discretionary in five-year reviews. However, the Commission may exercise its

discretion to cumulate only if the reviews are initiated on the same day and the Commission determines

that the subject imports are likely to compete with each other and the domestic like product in the U.S.

market. The statute precludes cumulation if the Commission finds that subject imports from a country are

likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.2

 We note that neither the statute

nor the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”) Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”)

provides specific guidance on what factors the Commission is to consider in determining that imports “are

likely to have no discernible adverse impact” on the domestic industry.3

 With respect to this provision,

the Commission generally considers the likely volume of the subject imports and the likely impact of

those imports on the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time if the orders are revoked.4

In these reviews, the statutory requirement for cumulation that all reviews be initiated on the

same day is satisfied as all of these five year reviews were initiated on the same day. 

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

determining whether the imports compete with each other and with the domestic like product.5

 Only a
 5

 (...continued)

simultaneously present in the market. See, e.g., Wieland Werke, AG v. United States, 718 F. Supp. 50 (Ct. Int’l

Trade 1989).

 6

 See Mukand Ltd. v. United States, 937 F. Supp. 910, 916 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996); Wieland Werke, AG, 718 F.

Supp. at 52 (“Completely overlapping markets are not required.”); United States Steel Group v. United States, 873 F.

Supp. 673, 685 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1994), aff’d, 96 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1996). We note, however, that there have been

investigations where the Commission has found an insufficient overlap in competition and has declined to cumulate

subject imports. See, e.g., Live Cattle from Canada and Mexico, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-386 (Preliminary) and 731-TA812-813 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3155 at 15 (Feb. 1999), aff’d sub nom, Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal

Foundation v. United States, 74 F. Supp.2d 1353 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1999); Static Random Access Memory

Semiconductors from the Republic of Korea and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-761-762 (Final), USITC Pub. 3098 at

13-15 (Apr. 1998).

 7

 See, e.g., Torrington Co. v. United States, 790 F. Supp. at 1172 (affirming Commission's determination not to

cumulate for purposes of threat analysis when pricing and volume trends among subject countries were not uniform

and import penetration was extremely low for most of the subject countries); Metallverken Nederland B.V. v. United

States, 728 F. Supp. 730, 741-42 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1989); Asociacion Colombiana de Exportadores de Flores v. United

States, 704 F. Supp. 1068, 1072 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1988).

 8

 Commissioner Thelma J. Askey dissenting with respect to Brazil and Canada. 

 9

 First Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 3290 at 11-12. 

32

“reasonable overlap” of competition is required.6

 In five-year reviews, the relevant inquiry is whether

there likely would be a reasonable overlap of competition even if none currently exists. Moreover,

because of the prospective nature of five-year reviews, we have examined not only the Commission’s

traditional competition factors, but also other significant conditions of competition that are likely to

prevail if the orders under review are terminated. The Commission has considered factors in addition to

its traditional competition factors in other contexts where cumulation is discretionary.7

In the original investigations, the Commission cumulated subject imports from Brazil, Canada,

France, Germany, Italy, and Japan for purposes of material injury analysis.8

 The Commission found a

moderate-to-high degree of substitutability between subject imports and the domestic like product. In the

first review, the Commission found nothing on the record to indicate that subject imports would not again

be marketed nationwide, in channels of distribution similar to those for the domestic like product, if the

orders were revoked.9

 In these reviews, the domestic interested parties argue that the Commission should

exercise its discretion to cumulate subject imports from all subject countries except Canada. The

Brazilian respondent Eluma contends that the Commission should exercise its discretion not to cumulate

subject imports from Brazil with those from the other subject countries, and maintains that revocation of

the orders on subject imports from Brazil will likely have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic

industry. It also argues that likely conditions of competition differ with respect to subject imports from

Brazil, and imports from other subject countries.

B. Likelihood of No Discernible Adverse Impact

We do not find that revocation of the antidumping duty order and the countervailing duty order

on subject imports from Brazil would be likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic

industry.

Subject imports from Brazil fell precipitously from 1984-1986 levels following the filing of

antidumping and countervailing duty petitions in March 1986 and imposition of the duties in January 
 10 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 11 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 12 CR/PR at Table IV-8.

 13 Eluma’s Prehearing Brief at 7-8. 

 14 ***. Counsel for Eluma clarified that capacity for different products that are produced on the same equipment

is allocated in proportion to relative production volume. Posthearing Brief, Responses to Questions from the

Commission, at 2. 

 15 CR/PR at Table IV-8.

33

1987.10 During the current period of review, which encompasses January 1999 through September 2005,

subject imports have remained in the U.S. market at very low levels. The market penetration of subject

imports from Brazil has not reached 0.1 percent since 1999.11 

The record indicates that during the period of review capacity utilization in Brazil ranged from a

high of *** percent in *** to a low of *** percent in ***.12 The level of excess capacity available to

producers in Brazil in the first nine months of 2005 was *** million pounds, or *** million pounds when

annualized. This available excess capacity *** the volume of subject imports from Brazil in any year of

the original period of investigation. 

Eluma argues that Brazilian producers are responsive to the home market and would not be likely

to divert sales to the United States if the orders were revoked.13 Shipments to the Brazilian home market

represented more than *** percent of Brazilian domestic production and shipments in most years during

the period of review. Eluma asserts that capacity increases were to serve the home market, and that

without such increases, producers in Brazil would not have been capable of filling demand in the home

market. 

However, prior to imposition of the orders, the U.S. market served as a significant alternate

market for capacity and production in excess of that demanded by the Brazilian home market. Regardless

of the reason for the added capacity, in interim 2005, capacity utilization in Brazil declined to ***

percent. Excess capacity to produce the subject BSS exceeded *** million pounds on an annual basis. 

Additionally, producers in Brazil, like those in the other subject countries, have some excess capacity that

is nominally allocated to nonsubject copper and copper alloys that could be shifted to produce the subject

BSS without decreasing production of nonsubject products.14 

Further, the average unit value of sales in the Brazilian home market was *** in most years of the

period of review.15 The Department of Commerce has found that revocation of the antidumping and

countervailing duty orders on BSS from Brazil would result in sales at less than fair value, with the

dumping margin found by Commerce to be in excess of 40 percent. Consequently, we find it likely that

imports from Brazil would likely increase, given the current excess capacity and prevailing prices. 

In light of the restraining effects of the orders on imports from Brazil during the period of review,

and the moderate-to-high substitutability between brass sheet and strip produced in Brazil and the

domestic like product, revocation of the orders will likely result in a significant increase in imports. We

also take into account the current vulnerability of the domestic industry, and underselling in the original

investigation, which we find likely to reoccur if the orders are revoked. Therefore, we cannot conclude

that revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on subject imports from Brazil would

likely have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.

C. Likelihood of a Reasonable Overlap of Competition

The Commission generally has considered four factors in determining whether the imports

compete with each other and with the domestic like product: (1) fungibility; (2) sales or offers in the 
 16 CR/PR at Table II-7.

 17 First Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 3290 at 12. 

 18 CR/PR at II-1. 

 19 Eluma Posthearing Brief at 2. 

 20 Domestic Interested Parties’ Prehearing Brief at Exhibit 2. 

34

same geographic markets; (3) common or similar channels of distribution; and (4) simultaneous presence

in the market. Based on these factors, we find a likely reasonable overlap of competition among subject

imports from Brazil and other subject countries and between subject imports and the domestic like

product if the orders were to be revoked. 

In the original determinations, the Commission considered these same four factors and

determined that imports from each subject country generally competed with each other and with the

domestic like product. In the current reviews, the majority of responding producers, importers, and

purchasers characterized the domestic like product and subject imports from Brazil as always or

frequently interchangeable.16

In the first reviews, the Commission noted that its analysis of the overlap in geographic markets

was limited by the low volume of current imports, but that there was nothing in the record to indicate that

subject imports would not again be marketed nationally. Also, in the first reviews, the Commission noted

that domestic producers sell to distributors, end users, and re-rollers, with direct sales generally to larger

end users, but that there was no indication of significant differences in channels of distribution among

subject imports or between subject imports and the domestic like product.17 In the current reviews,

domestic producers reported *** of sales to end users, *** of sales to distributors, and the remainder to

re-rollers. Importers of the subject product reported *** percent of sales to distributors, and importers of

nonsubject brass sheet and strip reported *** of sales were to distributors in 1999, with *** of sales to

end users since that time.18 

In its initial determinations, the Commission found that there was a reasonable overlap in

competition among imports of brass sheet and strip from all countries subject to these reviews, and

between subject imports and the domestic like product. There is no information on the record that the

range of products produced in the subject countries has narrowed over the period of review. Nothing in

the record suggests that, if the orders are revoked, subject imports from Brazil would be so limited in

product range, geographic presence, or simultaneous presence in the market as to prevent a reasonable

overlap of competition between imports from Brazil and either domestic merchandise or other subject

imports. 

D. Other Considerations

In determining whether to exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports from Brazil with

imports from the other subject countries, we assess whether the subject imports from each country are

likely to compete under similar or different conditions of competition in the U.S. market. 

The Brazilian interested party has pointed to several considerations that it maintains support a

conclusion that subject imports from Brazil will likely compete under different conditions of competition. 

 They first assert that subject imports from Brazil began declining prior to imposition of the orders, and

that therefore, the decline was not due to imposition of the orders.19 In fact, imports of brass sheet and

strip from all countries subject to these reviews except Japan were higher in 1984 than in 1983, and

subject imports from all except Italy and Japan declined from 1984 to 1985.20 In the original
 21 Original Determinations, USITC Pub. 1930 at 10. 

 22 Eluma Prehearing Brief at 10. 

 23 CR/PR at Table I-1. 

 24 CR at I-3, I-4; PR at I-3.

35

investigation, the Commission noted that demand for the subject brass was higher in 1984 than in either

1983 or 1985. U.S. domestic production also increased from 1983 to 1984, and then declined in 1985.21 

Next, the Brazilian interested party argues that imports from Brazil declined to an insignificant

level during the period of investigation, and have remained at low levels during the period of review,

while imports from Canada, Germany, and Japan have continued to enter at “commercially significant

levels.”22 Following the imposition of the antidumping orders, subject imports from Brazil declined

significantly. Subject imports from Brazil were 7.6 million pounds in 1985, the last full year before filing

of antidumping and countervailing duty petitions, fell to 6.0 million pounds in 1986, and were less than 1

million pounds in each year since that time.23 We note that Commerce found lower dumping margins for

producers in Germany and Canada, as well as Italy, and one producer in Japan than for producers in

Brazil.24 Consequently, the difference in import levels since imposition of the orders is likely due to

differences in the dumping margins. 

In sum, we find that there is a reasonable overlap of competition among subject imports from

Brazil, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan, and the domestic like product during the period of review. 

Accordingly, we have exercised our discretion to cumulate the subject imports from Brazil with subject

imports from France, Germany, Italy, and Japan.

 1

 A complete description of the product subject to investigation is presented in The Subject Product section of this

part of the report.

 2

 The Commission’s notice of institution, notice to conduct full reviews, scheduling notice, and statement on

adequacy appear in app. A and may also be found at the Commission’s web site (internet address www.usitc.gov). 

Commissioners’ votes on whether to conduct expedited or full reviews may also be found at the web site.

Commerce’s notices of final results of expedited and full reviews also appear in app. A.

I-1

PART I: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

BACKGROUND

On March 31, 2005, the International Trade Commission (“Commission”) gave notice, pursuant

to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act), that it had instituted reviews to determine whether

revocation of the countervailing duty orders on brass sheet and strip1

 (“BSS”) from Brazil and France and

the antidumping duty orders on BSS from Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan would likely

lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to a domestic industry within a reasonably

foreseeable time. On July 5, 2005, the Commission determined that it would conduct full reviews

pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Act. Information relating to the background and schedule of the

reviews is provided in the following tabulation.2
 3

 North Coast Brass & Copper Co. was added as a petitioner in 1988. 

I-2

Effective date Action

January 8, 1987 Commerce’s countervailing duty order on Brazil (52 FR 698) 

January 12, 1987 Commerce’s antidumping duty orders on Brazil, Canada, and Korea (52 FR 1214)

March 6, 1987 Commerce’s countervailing duty order on France (52 FR 6995)

March 6, 1987 Commerce’s antidumping duty orders on France, Germany, Italy, and Sweden (52 FR

6995)1

August 12, 1988 Commerce’s antidumping duty orders on Japan and the Netherlands (53 FR 30454) 

November 8, 1991 Commerce’s partial revocation of the antidumping duty order with respect to Canada (56

FR 57317)

February 1, 1999 Commission’s institution of first five-year reviews (64 FR 4892)

January 1, 2000 Commerce’s revocation of the antidumping duty orders with respect to Korea, the

Netherlands, and Sweden (65 FR 25305, May 1, 2000)

May 1, 2000 Commerce’s continuation of the antidumping duty orders and countervailing duty orders

with respect to Brazil, Canada, France, Italy, Germany, and Japan (65 FR 25304)

March 31, 2005 Commission’s institution of second five-year reviews (70 FR 16519)

July 5, 2005 Commission’s decision to conduct full reviews (70 FR 41427, July 19, 2005)

August 8, 2005 Commerce’s final results of expedited reviews of the antidumping duty orders with

respect to Brazil, Canada, France, Italy, and Japan (70 FR 45650)

September 1, 2005 Commission’s scheduling of the reviews (70 FR 53688, September 9, 2005)

November 4, 2005 Commerce’s final results of expedited review of the countervailing duty order with

respect to Brazil (70 FR 67139)

January 24, 2006 Commission’s hearing2

January 26, 2006 Commerce’s final results of full review of the antidumping duty order with respect to

Germany (71 FR 4348)

March 2, 2006 Commerce’s final results of full review of the countervailing duty order with respect to

France (71 FR 10651)

March 6, 2006 Commission’s vote

March 21, 2006 Commission’s determinations transmitted to Commerce

 1 The order on Italy was subsequently amended (52 FR 11299, April 8, 1987). 2 App. B contains a list of witnesses who appeared at the hearing.

THE ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND THE FIRST FIVE-YEAR REVIEWS

On March 10, 1986, Commerce and the Commission received countervailing duty and

antidumping petitions on behalf of American Brass, Buffalo, NY; Bridgeport Brass Corp., Indianapolis,

IN; Chase Brass and Copper Co., Cleveland, OH; Hussey Copper Ltd., Leetsdale PA; The Miller Co.,

Meriden, CT; Olin Corp. (Brass Group), East Alton, IL; Revere Copper Products, Inc., Rome, NY; the

Copper and Brass Fabricators Council, Inc.; the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace

Workers; the International Union, Allied Industrial Workers of America (AFL-CIO); the Mechanics

Educational Society of America (Local 56); and the United Steelworkers of America (AFL-CIO/CLC).3
 4 Certain Brass Sheet and Strip from Brazil, Canada, and the Republic of Korea, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-269 (Final)

and 731-TA-311, 312, and 315 (Final), USITC Publication 1930, December 1986; Certain Brass Sheet and Strip

from France, Italy, Sweden, and West Germany, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-270 (Final) and 731-TA-313, 314, 316, and 317

(Final), USITC Publication 1951, February 1987.

 5

 52 FR 698, January 8, 1987; 52 FR 6995, March 6, 1987.

 6

 52 FR 1214, January 12, 1987; 52 FR 6995, March 6, 1987.

 7

 The “all others” rate was 45.72 percent. 53 FR 23296, June 21, 1988.

I-3

The petitions alleged that BSS was being subsidized by the Governments of Brazil and France

and that such BSS from Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Korea, and Sweden was being sold in the

United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”). Final margins found by Commerce in its respective 

determinations are shown in the following tabulation.

 

Date of final determination Country Type of investigation Margin

November 3, 1986 Brazil Antidumping 40.62

Brazil Countervailing duty 3.471

Korea Antidumping 7.17

December 3, 1986 Canada Antidumping 2.51-11.542

January 5, 1987 France Antidumping 42.24

France Countervailing duty 7.24

Germany Antidumping 5.31-15.943

Italy Antidumping 12.08

Sweden Antidumping 9.49

 1

 Cash deposit or bond rate; Commerce found subsidies amounting to 6.13 percent.

 2

 “All others” rate was 8.10 percent.

 3

 “All others” rate was 8.87 percent.

Source: Staff Report to the Commission on Investigations Nos. 701-TA-269-270 (Review) and 731-TA-311-317

and 379-80 (Review), March 8, 2000.

The Commission reached final affirmative determinations on December 22, 1986 (for Brazil,

Canada, and Korea), and on February 19, 1987 (for France, Germany, Italy, and Sweden).4

 Commerce

issued countervailing duty orders on Brazil and France on January 8, 1987, and March 6, 1987,

respectively.5

 Commerce issued antidumping duty orders on January 12, 1987 (for Brazil, Canada, and

Korea), and March 6, 1987 (for France, Germany, Italy, and Sweden).6

On July 20, 1987, Commerce and the Commission received petitions on behalf of the same

petitioners alleging that imports of BSS from Japan and the Netherlands were being sold in the United

States at LTFV. On June 21, 1988, Commerce made its final affirmative determination with respect to

Japan, with margins ranging from 13.10 to 57.98 percent.7

 On June 22, 1988, Commerce made its final

affirmative determination with respect to the Netherlands, finding a margin of 16.99 percent. The

Commission made its final affirmative determinations concerning Japan and the Netherlands on July 29,
 8 Certain Brass Sheet and Strip from Japan and the Netherlands, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-379 and 380 (Final), USITC

Publication 2099, July 1988.

 9

 53 FR 30454, August 12, 1988.

 10 Certain Brass Sheet and Strip from Japan and the Netherlands, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-379 and 380 (Final)

(Remand), USITC Publication 2255, January 1990. 

 11 64 FR 48348 and 48367, September 3, 1999.

 12 64 FR 49444, September 13, 1999.

I-4

1988.8 Accordingly, antidumping duty orders were issued by Commerce on August 12, 1988, for both

countries.9

The Commission’s affirmative determination with respect to BSS from Sweden was affirmed in

Granges Metallverken AB v. United States, 13 CIT 471, 716 F. Supp. 17 (1989). The Commission’s

affirmative determination with respect to BSS from Japan was affirmed by the Court of International

Trade in Cambridge Lee Industries v. United States, 13 CIT 1052, 728 F. Supp. 748 (1989). The

Commission’s affirmative determination with respect to BSS from the Netherlands was affirmed in large

part in Metallverken Netherland B.V. and Outokumpu Metallverken, Inc. v. United States, 13 CIT 471,

716 F. Supp. 17 (1989), and was remanded with respect to certain aspects of the determination of one

Commissioner. The Commission determined on remand that an industry in the United States was being

materially injured by reason of LTFV imports of BSS from Japan and the Netherlands.10 The

Commission’s remand results were affirmed by the Court in Metallverken Netherland B.V. and

Outokumpu Metallverken, Inc. v. United States, 14 CIT 481, 744 F. Supp. 281 (1990).

The Commission instituted the first five-year reviews on February 1, 1999, and determined on

May 6, 1999, that it would conduct full five-year reviews. On September 3, 1999, Commerce found that

revocation of the countervailing duty orders on BSS from Brazil and France and the antidumping duty

orders on BSS from Brazil, France, Italy, and Korea would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of

countervailable subsidies and dumping.11 The margins found, by country and type of order, are presented

in the following tabulation.

 

Country Type of order Margin (percent)

Brazil Antidumping 40.62

Countervailing duty Undeterminable1

France Antidumping 42.24

Countervailing duty 7.24

Italy Antidumping 5.44

Korea Antidumping 7.17

 1

 Commerce stated that it was unable to determine the net countervailable subsidy likely to prevail in the event

of revocation because all known countervailable programs had been terminated.

On September 13, 1999, Commerce found that revocation of the antidumping duty order on BSS

from Sweden would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping. Commerce found a margin of

9.49 percent for all exporters.12 On September 14, 1999, Commerce found that revocation of the 
 13 64 FR 49765, September 14, 1999.

 14 The margin for Wieland reflected a finding of duty absorption by Commerce. Because Commerce found that

duty absorption existed on all of Wieland’s exports to the United States in the most recent administrative review, the

adjusted margin was double the administrative review margin of 16.18 percent.

 15 64 FR 66165, November 24, 1999; 65 FR 735, January 6, 2000.

 16 The order on Canada was revoked with respect to Ratcliffs on November 8, 1991 (56 FR 57317, November 8,

1991).

 17 65 FR 20832, April 18, 2000.

 18 65 FR 25304, May 1, 2000.

 19 The data for 1983 are from Investigation Nos. 701-TA-269 and 270 (Final) and 731-TA-311 through 317

(Final), Brass Sheet and Strip from Brazil, Canada, France, Italy, Korea, Sweden, and West Germany, final staff

report, December 9, 1986, INV-J-186. The data for 1984-87 are from the staff report to the Commission on

Investigation Nos. 731-TA-379 and 380 (Final), Certain Brass Sheet and Strip from Japan and the Netherlands, July

18, 1988, INV-L-051. Data for 1983 are thus not strictly comparable with data for 1984-87. The data for 1984-87

are the same historical data used in the staff report to the Commission in the first five-year reviews on BSS from

Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, and Sweden, March 8, 2000. 

 20 For the period 1999-2004, however, the financial data include the operations of both basic producers and

rerollers.

I-5

antidumping duty orders on BSS from Germany and Japan would likely lead to continuation or recurrence

of dumping.13 In the review involving Germany, Commerce found margins of 32.36 percent 

for Wieland-Werke AG (“Wieland”), and 7.30 percent for all other firms.14 In the review involving

Japan, Commerce found margins of 13.30 percent for Sambo Copper Alloy Co., Ltd. (“Sambo Copper”),

57.98 percent for Nippon Mining Co., Mitsubishi Shindoh Co., Ltd., and Kobe Steel, Ltd., and 45.72

percent for all other firms. Finally, on November 24, 1999, and January 6, 2000, Commerce found that

revocation of the antidumping duty orders on BSS from Canada and the Netherlands, respectively, would

likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping.15 With respect to Canada, the final margins were

11.54 percent for Wolverine Tube Canada, Inc. and 8.10 percent for all other producers and/or

exporters.16 With respect to the Netherlands, the final margin was 16.99 percent for Outokumpu Copper

Strip B.V. and all other producers and/or exporters. 

On April 18, 2000, the Commission determined that revocation of the countervailing duty orders

on brass sheet and strip from Brazil and France and the antidumping duty orders on brass sheet and strip

from Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan, would be likely to lead to continuation or

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

Commission further determined that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on brass sheet and strip

from Korea, the Netherlands, and Sweden 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.17 Consequently,

on May 1, 2000, the orders with respect to Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and 

Japan were continued, and the orders with respect to Korea, the Netherlands, and Sweden were revoked.18

Table I-1 presents a summary of data from the original investigations,19 the first five-year

reviews, and the current (second) reviews. Data in this table are limited to those submitted by integrated

producers of BSS (basic producers), i.e., firms that cast, roll, and finish BSS. Data presented here do not

include data from “rerollers,” or the rerolling operations of integrated producers.20 Rerollers are firms that

do not cast brass, but rather process unfinished products cast or rolled by other producers.
I-6

Table I-1BSS: Summary data from the original investigations, first reviews, and current reviews, 1983-87, 1997-98, and 1999-20

(Quantity=1,000 pounds; value=1,000 dollars; and unit values are per pound)

Item 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 20

U.S. consumption quantity 532,002 639,900 521,220 530,687 570,361 553,303 554,247 602,176 616,895 448,434 49Producers’ share1 76.7 71.2 72.3 75.1 82.7 93.9 91.8 92.6 89.6 85.2 

Importers’ share:1

 Brazil 1.9 2.4 1.5 1.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 (2) 0.0 

 Canada 1.8 2.0 1.4 0.8 1.2 0.5 2.4 0.7 0.8 1.0  France 1.5 3.6 2.3 1.6 (2) 0.0 (2) (2) (2) (2)  Germany 9.7 10.9 9.4 8.3 5.2 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.8  Italy 0.7 1.3 2.0 1.3 0.5 0.1 0.1 (2) (2) (2)  Japan 4.0 2.8 3.7 4.3 3.5 0.6 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 

 Subtotal 19.6 23.0 20.3 17.4 10.5 1.9 4.3 2.5 2.4 2.7 

 All other 3.7 5.7 7.4 7.5 6.9 4.2 3.9 4.9 8.0 12.1  Total imports 23.3 28.7 27.7 24.9 17.4 6.1 8.2 7.4 10.4 14.8 U.S. imports from--

Brazil: Quantity 9,867 15,793 7,590 6,048 654 0 0 697 43 0  Value 8,618 13,860 6,735 5,043 579 0 0 735 52 0  Unit value $0.87 $0.88 $0.89 $0.83 $0.89 -- -- $1.05 $1.20 -- Canada: Quantity 9,656 13,354 7,502 4,016 6,823 2,498 13,424 4,193 4,756 4,478  Value 10,020 13,639 7,554 3,826 7,344 4,478 14,335 5,233 7,693 5,843 

 Unit value $1.04 $1.02 $1.01 $0.95 $1.08 $1.79 $1.07 $1.25 $1.62 $1.31  France:

 Quantity 7,990 22,952 11,775 8,328 47 0 83 81 41 54 

 Value 6,592 19,193 9,973 7,402 43 0 120 99 53 62 

 Unit value $0.83 $0.83 $0.85 $0.89 $0.91 -- $1.46 $1.23 $1.29 $1.15 $3Table continued on next page.
I-7

Table I-1--ContinuedBSS: Summary data from the original investigations, first reviews, and current reviews, 1983-87, 1997-98, and 1999-20

(Quantity=1,000 pounds; value=1,000 dollars; and unit values are per pound)

Item 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 20

U.S. imports from-- Germany:

 Quantity4 51,850 69,525 48,913 44,229 29,392 4,117 4,978 4,575 5,272 3,665 

 Value4 50,656 68,357 49,888 44,810 31,351 6,469 6,785 5,983 7,399 5,350  Unit value4 $0.98 $0.98 $1.02 $1.01 $1.07 $1.57 $1.36 $1.31 $1.40 $1.46 

 Italy: Quantity 3,749 8,444 10,502 7,031 3,107 648 564 297 296 178  Value 3,406 8,077 10,946 6,613 3,193 1,074 901 395 456 278  Unit value $0.91 $0.96 $1.04 $0.94 $1.03 $1.66 $1.60 $1.33 $1.54 $1.56  Japan: Quantity 21,233 17,934 19,194 22,919 19,968 3,527 4,945 4,994 4,666 3,672  Value 20,800 18,672 19,706 22,128 21,328 7,009 8,521 9,156 9,204 6,599  Unit value $0.98 $1.04 $1.03 $0.97 $1.07 $1.99 $1.72 $1.83 $1.97 $1.80 

 Subtotal:

 Quantity 104,345 148,002 105,476 92,571 59,991 10,790 23,994 14,837 15,074 12,046  Value 100,092 141,798 104,802 89,822 63,838 19,030 30,662 21,602 24,857 18,132 1 Unit value $0.96 $0.96 $0.99 $0.97 $1.06 $1.76 $1.28 $1.46 $1.65 $1.51 

 All other sources:

 Quantity 19,738 36,041 39,063 39,542 38,954 22,896 21,311 29,526 49,097 54,121 4 Value 20,266 37,740 39,433 37,597 39,509 31,404 25,606 32,854 57,742 64,254 5 Unit value $1.03 $1.05 $1.01 $0.95 $1.01 $1.37 $1.20 $1.11 $1.18 $1.19 

 All sources:

 Quantity 124,083 184,043 144,539 132,113 98,945 33,686 45,305 44,363 64,171 66,167 5 Value 120,358 179,538 144,235 127,419 103,347 50,434 56,268 54,456 82,599 82,386 6 Unit value $0.97 $0.98 $1.00 $0.96 $1.04 $1.50 $1.24 $1.23 $1.29 $1.25 

Table continued on next page.
I-8

Table I-1--ContinuedBSS: Summary data from the original investigations, first reviews, and current reviews, 1983-87, 1997-98, and 1999-20

(Quantity=1,000 pounds; value=1,000 dollars; and unit values are per pound)

Item 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 20

U.S. producers’-- Capacity 604,838 616,695 586,327 549,364 543,176 653,987 715,429 634,779 644,373 587,613 62 Production 411,929 455,783 382,206 404,681 462,286 545,128 514,907 573,981 558,227 387,191 44 Capacity utilization1 68.1 73.9 65.2 73.7 85.1 83.4 72.0 90.4 86.6 65.9 

 U.S. shipments:5

 Quantity 407,919 455,857 376,681 398,574 471,416 519,617 508,942 557,813 552,724 382,267 43

 Value 326,224 319,070 273,973 275,359 350,229 597,821 525,158 579,105 623,848 434,505 47Export shipments:

 Quantity *** *** *** *** *** 22,473 7,736 *** *** *** 

 Value *** *** *** *** *** 26,266 6,741 *** *** *** Production workers 1,728 1,745 1,435 1,472 1,481 2,838 2,829 1,560 1,466 1,281 Hours worked (000) 3,568 3,728 2,891 3,201 3,225 4,337 4,206 3,433 3,250 2,695 Net sales (value)6 *** 343,561 278,123 278,108 352,874 628,162 536,197 659,604 710,815 502,923 53

 COGS6 *** 304,472 254,290 262,453 319,609 566,529 477,976 585,341 634,186 468,186 49 Gross profit or (loss)6 *** 39,089 23,833 15,655 33,265 61,633 58,221 74,263 76,629 34,737 4 Operating income or (loss)6 *** 19,236 2,092 (9,124) 6,828 28,121 23,590 48,933 43,709 5,340  Operating income or  (loss)/sales1 *** 5.6 0.8 (3.3) 1.9 4.5 4.4 7.4 6.1 1.1 

1 In percent.

 2 Less than 0.05 percent. 3 Less than 500 pounds.

4 Based on information provided by German interested parties and by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”), it appears that only a small portion 

statistics for imports of brass sheet and strip from Germany is accounted for by C20000-series BSS. 

 5 Average unit values for U.S. shipments are not presented because U.S. shipments include both toll shipments and nontoll shipments. 

 6 Financial data for the original investigations and the first reviews include data only from basic producers; financial data for the current reviews include data 

and rerollers.Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.Note.--The data for 1983 are from Investigation Nos. 701-TA-269 and 270 (Final) and 731-TA-311 through 317 (Final), Brass Sheet and Strip from Brazil, CanSweden, and West Germany, final staff report, December 9, 1986, INV-J-186. The data for 1984-87 are from the staff report to the Commission on Investigat

380 (Final), Certain Brass Sheet and Strip from Japan and the Netherlands, July 18, 1988, INV-L-051. Data for 1983 are thus not strictly comparable with dat

1984-87 are the same historical data used in the staff report to the Commission in the first five-year reviews on BSS from Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, It

Netherlands, and Sweden, March 8, 2000.Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics.
I-9

STATUTORY CRITERIA AND ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

Section 751(c) of the Act requires the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) and the

Commission to conduct a review no later than five years after the issuance of an antidumping or

countervailing duty order or the suspension of an investigation to determine whether revocation of the

order or termination of the suspended investigation “would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence

of dumping or a countervailable subsidy (as the case may be) and of material injury.”

Section 752(a) of the Act provides that in making its determination of likelihood of continuation

or recurrence of material injury--

(1) IN GENERAL.-- . . . the Commission shall determine whether revocation of

an order, or termination of a suspended investigation, would be likely to lead to

continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. The

Commission shall consider the likely volume, price effect, and impact of imports of the

subject merchandise on the industry if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation

is terminated. The Commission shall take into account--

(A) its prior injury determinations, including the volume, price

effect, and impact of imports of the subject merchandise on the industry

before the order was issued or the suspension agreement was accepted, 

(B) whether any improvement in the state of the industry is

related to the order or the suspension agreement, 

(C) whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the

order is revoked or the suspension agreement is terminated, and 

(D) in an antidumping proceeding . . ., (Commerce’s findings)

regarding duty absorption . . ..

(2) VOLUME.--In evaluating the likely volume of imports of the subject

merchandise if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated, the

Commission shall consider whether the likely volume of imports of the subject

merchandise would be significant if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is

terminated, either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the

United States. In so doing, the Commission shall consider all relevant economic factors,

including--

(A) any likely increase in production capacity or existing unused

production capacity in the exporting country, 

(B) existing inventories of the subject merchandise, or likely

increases in inventories, 

(C) the existence of barriers to the importation of such

merchandise into countries other than the United States, and 

(D) the potential for product-shifting if production facilities in

the foreign country, which can be used to produce the subject

merchandise, are currently being used to produce other products.

(3) PRICE.--In evaluating the likely price effects of imports of the subject

merchandise if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated, the

Commission shall consider whether--

(A) there is likely to be significant price underselling by imports

of the subject merchandise as compared to domestic like products, and 
 21 Commerce’s notice is presented in app. A.

I-10

(B) imports of the subject merchandise are likely to enter the

United States at prices that otherwise would have a significant

depressing or suppressing effect on the price of domestic like products.

(4) IMPACT ON THE INDUSTRY.--In evaluating the likely impact of imports of

the subject merchandise on the industry if the order is revoked or the suspended

investigation is terminated, the Commission shall consider all relevant economic factors

which are likely to have a bearing on the state of the industry in the United States,

including, but not limited to--

(A) likely declines in output, sales, market share, profits,

productivity, return on investments, and utilization of capacity, 

(B) likely negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment,

wages, growth, ability to raise capital, and investment, and 

(C) likely negative effects on the existing development and

production efforts of the industry, including efforts to develop a

derivative or more advanced version of the domestic like product.

The Commission shall evaluate all such relevant economic factors . . . within the context

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

industry.

Section 752(a)(6) of the Act states further that in making its determination, “the Commission may

consider the magnitude of the margin of dumping or the magnitude of the net countervailable subsidy. If

a countervailable subsidy is involved, the Commission shall consider information regarding the nature of

the countervailable subsidy and whether the subsidy is a subsidy described in Article 3 or 6.1 of the

Subsidies Agreement.”

Information obtained during the course of these reviews that relates to the above factors is

presented throughout this report. A summary of data collected in these reviews is presented in appendix

C. U.S. industry data are based on questionnaire responses of eight firms (see table I-3) that accounted

for virtually all U.S. production of BSS during the review period. U.S. import data are based on official

Commerce statistics. Responses by U.S. producers, importers, purchasers, and foreign producers of BSS

to a series of questions concerning the significance of the existing countervailing duty orders and the

antidumping duty orders and the likely effects of revocation are presented in appendix D. Foreign

producers’ comments regarding changes in factors affecting supply are also presented in appendix D. 

COMMERCE’S RESULTS OF EXPEDITED REVIEWS

Dumping Margins Applicable to Subject Countries Other Than Germany

On August 8, 2005, Commerce determined that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on

BSS from Brazil, Canada, France, Italy, and Japan would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of

dumping.21 Commerce has not issued duty absorption determinations with respect to these orders. The

weighted-average dumping margins (in percent ad valorem), as reported by Commerce, that would occur

if the antidumping duty orders were to be revoked, are presented in the following tabulation. 
 22 Commerce’s notice is presented in app. A.

 23 Commerce’s notice is presented in app. A.

I-11

Country and firm Weighted-average margin (percent)

Brazil:

Eluma Corporation 40.62

All others 40.62

Canada:

Wolverine Tube, Inc. 11.54

All others 8.10

France:

Trefimetaux S.A. 42.24

All others 42.24

Italy:

LMI-La Metalli Industriale, SpA 5.44

All others 5.44

Japan:

Nippon Mining Co., Ltd. 57.98

Sambo Copper Alloy Co., Ltd. 13.30

Mitsubishi Shindoh Co., Ltd. 57.98

Kobe Steel, Ltd. 57.98

All others 45.72

Countervailable Subsidy in Brazil

On November 4, 2005, Commerce determined that revocation of the countervailing duty order on

BSS from Brazil would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy.22

However, as a result of the termination of all known countervailable programs, Commerce was unable to

determine the net countervailable subsidy likely to prevail.

COMMERCE’S RESULTS OF FULL REVIEWS

Countervailable Subsidy in France and Dumping Margins Applicable to Germany

On March 2, 2006, Commerce determined that revocation of the countervailing duty order on

BSS from France would not likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy.

Commerce, therefore, revoked the countervailing duty order on BSS from France.23 
 24 Commerce’s notice is presented in app. A.

I-12

On January 26, 2006, Commerce determined that revocation of the antidumping duty order on

BSS from Germany would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping.24 The weightedaverage dumping margins (in percent ad valorem) that would occur if the antidumping duty order were to

be revoked are 3.81 for Wieland and 7.30 for all others. Commerce has not issued a duty absorption

determination with respect to this order. 

COMMERCE’S ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS

Brazil

Commerce has conducted one administrative review of the countervailing duty order on BSS

from Brazil, as shown in the following tabulation. Commerce has not completed any administrative

reviews of the antidumping duty order with regard to BSS from Brazil.

Period of review Date results published Margin (percent) 

January 1, 1990 to

December 31, 1990 

November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56631) 0
I-13

Canada

Commerce has conducted ten administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on BSS from

Canada, as shown in the following tabulation.

Period of review Date results published Firms and margins (percent)

August 22, 1986 to

December 31, 1987

August 2, 1990 (55 FR 31414) Arrowhead 5.7

Noranda 21.32

Ratcliffs 0.04

January 1, 1988 to

December 31, 1988

August 2, 1990 (55 FR 31414) Ratcliffs 0

January 1, 1989 to

December 31, 1989

November 8, 1991 (56 FR 57317) Ratcliffs 0.46

January 1, 1990 to

December 31, 1990

May 13, 1992 (57 FR 20460) Wolverine 21.32

January 1, 1992 to

December 31, 1992

September 26, 1995 (60 FR 49582) Wolverine 25.49

January 1, 1994 to

December 31, 1994

September 4, 1996 (61 FR 46618) Wolverine 0

January 1, 1995 to

December 31, 1995

April 8, 1997 (62 FR 16759) Wolverine 0.22

January 1, 1996 to

December 31, 1996

June 17, 1998 (63 FR 33037) Wolverine 0.671

January 1, 1997 to

December 31, 1997

August 25, 1999 (64 FR 46344) Wolverine 0.832

January 1, 1998 to

December 31, 1998

June 15, 2000 (65 FR 37520) Wolverine Tube

(Canada) Inc.

3.38

 1 Amended rate (65 FR 10048).

 2 Amended rate (65 FR 280).

 

France

Commerce has not completed any administrative reviews of either the countervailing duty order

or the antidumping duty order with regard to BSS from France. 
I-14

Germany

Commerce has conducted eight administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on BSS

from Germany, as shown in the following tabulation.

Period of review Date results published Margins (percent)

August 22, 1986 to

February 29, 1988

November 27, 1991 (56 FR 60087) 14.651

March 1, 1990 to

February 28, 1991 

July 27, 1995 (60 FR 38542) 2.572

March 1, 1991 to

February 29, 1992 

July 27, 1995 (60 FR 38542) 2.372

March 1, 1992 to

February 28, 1993 

July 27, 1995 (60 FR 38542) 0.46

March 1, 1993 to

February 28, 1994 

July 25, 1995 (60 FR 38031) 0.495

March 1, 1994 to

February 28, 1995 

September 23, 1996 (61 FR 49727) 0

March 1, 1996 to

February 28, 1997 

August 11, 1998 (63 FR 42823) 16.18

March 1, 1997 to

February 28, 1998 

August 10, 1999 (64 FR 43342) 16.18

 1 Most recently amended rate (62 FR 38256).

 2 Amended rate (61 FR 18720). 

Italy

Commerce has conducted three administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on BSS

from Italy, as shown in the following tabulation.

Period of review Date results published Margins (percent)

August 22, 1986 to

February 29, 1988

March 17, 1992 (57 FR 9235) 9.49

March 1, 1989 to

February 28, 1990

March 17, 1992 (57 FR 9235) 4.70

March 1, 1991 to

February 29, 1992

November 23, 1992 (57 FR 54969) 9.49

Japan

Commerce has not completed any administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on BSS

from Japan. 
 25 Under the provisions of the CDSOA (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), the term “affected domestic producer” refers to any

producer or worker representative that (1) was a petitioner or interested party in support of the petition leading to

imposition of an antidumping or countervailing duty order, or antidumping finding, and (2) remains in operation.

I-15

DISTRIBUTION OF CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT FUNDS 

Under the provisions of the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (“CDSOA”),

commonly known as the “Byrd Amendment,” duties assessed pursuant to an antidumping or

countervailing duty order are distributed on an annual basis by Customs to “affected domestic firms.”25

Since the enactment of the CDSOA, one U.S. producer of BSS and one union have received fiscal year

disbursements as shown in the following tabulation. 

Item 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

U.S. dollars (actual)

Olin Brass 622,124 966,172 269,921 122,166 75,946

United Steelworkers of America 4,131 8,675 603 193 130

 

Source: Compiled from Customs CDSOA Annual Reports. Retrieved at www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import/add_cvd/.

These disbursements, broken out by country, are shown in the following tabulation.

Item 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

U.S. dollars (actual)

Brazil 0 0 0 0 0

Canada 139,543 431,979 146,022 992 4,298

France 0 0 2,458 333 0

Germany 82,243 7,089 17,741 1,568 5,062

Italy 64,280 0 0 19,949 0

Japan 340,189 535,779 104,303 99,517 66,716

Source: Compiled from Customs CDSOA Annual Reports. Retrieved at www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import/add_cvd/.

THE SUBJECT PRODUCT

The imported product subject to the countervailing duty and antidumping duty orders under

review, as defined by Commerce, is BSS, other than leaded and tinned BSS. The chemical composition

of the covered product is currently defined in the Copper Development Association (CDA) 200 Series or

the Unified Numbering System (UNS) C20000. These orders do not cover products the chemical

compositions of which are defined by other CDA or UNS series. In physical dimensions, the product

covered by these orders has a solid rectangular cross section over 0.006 inches (0.15 millimeters) through

0.188 inches (4.8 millimeters) in finished thickness or gauge, regardless of width. Coiled, wound-onreels (traverse wound), and cut-to-length products are included. The merchandise is currently provided

for under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) subheadings 7409.21.00 and
 26 70 FR 45650, August 8, 2005.

 27 The following discussion is from the first five-year reviews, unless otherwise noted. Brass Sheet and Strip

from Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, and Sweden, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-269 &

270 (Review) and 731-TA-311-317 and 379-380 (Review), USITC Publication 3290, April 2000, pp. I-15-I-16.

 28 The term “wrought” refers to products that have been rolled, forged, drawn, or extruded, and also refers to cast

or sintered products that have been machined or processed otherwise than by simple trimming, scalping, or

descaling. These products, however, are not sufficiently machined or processed to cause them to be treated as

articles of brass. 

 29 Brass is an alloy of copper (not including nickel silver) in which zinc is the principal alloying element, with or

without small quantities of other elements. There are three general categories of brasses: copper-zinc alloys

(brasses) covered by the UNS C20000 series; copper-zinc-lead alloys (leaded brasses) covered by the UNS C30000

series; and copper-zinc-tin alloys (tin brasses) covered by the UNS C40000 series. According to the Copper

Development Association, the UNS C20000 series represents the bulk (roughly 90 percent, and most of this is 26000

series “cartridge brass,” which is 70 percent copper and 30 percent zinc) of U.S. production of BSS. In the original

investigations, petitioners stated that leaded and tin brasses are essentially not competitive with UNS C20000 series

brasses. 

 30 Gauges of 0.006 inch and below are considered foil, and gauges over 0.188 inch are considered plate.

 31 The UNS is managed jointly by the American Society for Testing and Materials (“ASTM”) and the Society of

Automotive Engineers (“SAE”).

I-16

7409.29.00.26 BSS entered under HTS subheadings 7409.21.00 and 7409.29.00 has a normal trade

relations duty of 1.9 percent ad valorem, applicable to Brazil, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan. BSS

entered from Canada is eligible for duty-free entry under the North American Free Trade Agreement,

upon proper importer claim. Eligible products of Brazil may enter free of duty under the Generalized

System of Preferences under both subheadings, also upon proper importer claim. 

Physical Characteristics and Uses27

The subject product is wrought28 sheet and strip of brass,29 of solid rectangular cross section, over

0.006 inch (0.15 millimeters) but not over 0.188 inch (4.8 millimeters) in thickness,30 in coils or cut to

length, whether or not corrugated or crimped, but not cut, pressed, or stamped to non-rectangular shape,

meeting the composition specifications of the UNS C20000 series or the CDA 200 series.31 The chief

characteristics of C20000 series BSS are ease of manufacture because of excellent forming and drawing

properties, attractive surface appearance, fair electrical conductivity, good corrosion resistance, and good

strength. The generally accepted industry distinction between brass sheet and brass strip is that brass strip

consists of brass that is coiled or wound on reels of whatever gauge and width, and brass sheet consists of

brass that is no longer coiled or wound but has been cut to length.

BSS end uses include electronics, automotive parts, apparel fasteners, cablewrap, eyelets, jewelry

and other ornamentation, building and lock hardware, radiators, transportation equipment, coinage,

medical devices, ammunition, telecommunications equipment, electronic terminals, household products,

industrial machinery and equipment, stampers and component parts, and miscellaneous industrial

applications. BSS is also used to make welded tube, which is an intermediate product.
 32 The following discussion is from the first five-year reviews, unless otherwise noted. Brass Sheet and Strip

from Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, and Sweden, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-269 &

270 (Review) and 731-TA-311-317 and 379-380 (Review), USITC Publication 3290, April 2000, pp. I-15-I-16.

 33 Raw materials include copper cathodes, super high-grade zinc ingots, and high-grade brass scrap. When the

mix is remelted in a furnace, a sample will be taken to determine composition and quality. It then proceeds to a

holding furnace before being poured into a rectangular mold. The mold is then cooled with water and solidifies to

form 25-foot ingots. Most brass ingots are produced using this method; however, newer vertical casting technology

allows creation of near-continuous cast operations utilizing the direct chill technique. This overall procedure will

vary for each alloy of brass produced, in terms of the melt-down temperature, the type of cast, the cover used on the

molds, the “drop rate,” and the degree of cooling desired. ***.

 34 According to a brochure on the production process published by Olin Corp., in order to allow continued cold

reduction or to soften the metal for forming, it is necessary to anneal (or temper) the metal by heating. In strip

annealing, a coil of metal is unwound and fed continuously through a furnace. It is then cleaned, dried, and recoiled

in line with the furnace. In the bell annealing process, coils of metal are placed on a platform and covered by a retort

or bell; the metal is then heated in a protective atmosphere by a furnace placed over the bell. The choice of

annealing process is determined by such factors as strip thickness, alloy, and final product specifications. 

 35 Tinning, or coating brass with tin, can be done in two ways: by dipping brass into molten tin (“hot-dip”), or by

dipping it and then running an electro-magnetic current through the bath in order for the tin to adhere in a more even

way (“electro-reverse corrosion”). With hot-dip methods, the tin must be made even on the brass once the brass is

pulled out of the molten tin. There are two ways of doing this: by wiping the surface with metal knives 

(“mechanical wiping”) or by spraying hot air on the surface. The hot-air method is sometimes called HALT (hot air

levelled tin). European manufacturers generally favor the hot-dip/air-dry method, according to the CDA. Electroreverse corrosion tinning results in tin adhering more evenly to the brass, but in time can form a problem called

“whiskering,” when hairs of tin develop on the surface, ultimately conducting their own currents. The method of

preventing whiskering is “reflow” tinning: electrocoating and then heating the tinned piece so that the tin on the

surface becomes liquid again and pools. This removes whiskering, and it also gives the tinned piece a very shiny

mirror-like surface. Japanese manufacturers, in particular, use this method, according to the CDA, and Toyota and

Honda use reflow-tinned copper in their cars. Few American manufacturers use electrocoating production,

preferring hot-dipped methods, but some that supply Japanese car companies use the reflow-tin method. 

I-17

Manufacturing Process32

The manufacturing process for BSS consists of casting, rolling, and finishing operations. Prior to

casting, copper, zinc, and other metal raw materials (in unwrought or scrap form) are acquired by

purchase or through a “tolling” arrangement whereby customers provide the raw materials and pay a fee

for converting the materials into sheet and strip. Scrap is also obtained from captive operations, from

scrap dealers or scrap brokers, or from customers in buy-back arrangements. 

In the most common casting process, the raw materials33 are melted in a furnace and then cast into

ingots measuring 5 to 9 inches thick, 26 to 30 inches wide, and 25 feet long, and weighing over 10,000

pounds. Rolling consists of reducing the material’s thickness by a succession of passages through heavy

steel rollers. The first rolling, called hot-breakdown rolling, takes place when the metal is heated, and

rolls it down to a thickness of less than 0.5 inch. The material is then allowed to cool and is coil milled to

eliminate surface irregularities and remove oxides. While cool, it is again rolled (in a process called coldbreakdown rolling) to reduce its thickness to 0.188 inch or less. The product may then undergo a number

of finishing operations, such as cleaning, annealing,34 slitting (cutting to smaller widths), coating, or

tinning,35 depending on customer specifications. It is then packed and shipped, usually in coiled form,

although it may be cut to length. The typical process used by downstream industries to fabricate products

from BSS is stamping, whereby the material is punched with a die to form the desired shape.
I-18

Channels of Distribution

Information relating to U.S. producers’ and importers’ U.S. shipments of BSS by channels of

distribution is shown in table I-2. During the review period, roughly *** of U.S. producers’ U.S.

shipments of BSS went to end users, and ***. ***.

Table I-2

BSS: Channels of distribution for U.S. producers’ and U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments, 1999-2004,

January-September 2004, and January-September 2005 

Item

Calendar year Jan.-Sept.

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2004 2005

Share of quantity (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments–

 To rerollers *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 To distributors *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 To end users *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments from subject countries--

 To rerollers *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 To distributors *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 To end users *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments from nonsubject countries--

 To rerollers *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 To distributors *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 To end users *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Interchangeability, Customer and Producer Perceptions, and Price

Information on the interchangeability of BSS from U.S. producers and subject and nonsubject

sources, and on customer and producer perceptions, is presented in Part II of this report. Information on

the pricing of BSS is presented in Part V. 

DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT FINDINGS

In its original countervailing duty determinations concerning BSS from Brazil and France, and

antidumping duty determinations concerning BSS from Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Korea,

and Sweden, the Commission found one like product to include brass material to be re-rolled (reroll) and
 36 Certain Brass Sheet and Strip from Brazil, Canada, and the Republic of Korea, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-269 (Final)

and 731-TA-311, 312, and 315 (Final), USITC Publication 1930, December 1986, p. 9; Certain Brass Sheet and

Strip from France, Italy, Sweden, and West Germany, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-270 (Final) and 731-TA-313, 314, 316, and

317 (Final), USITC Publication 1951, February 1987, p. 10. 

 37 Certain Brass Sheet and Strip from Japan and the Netherlands, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-379 and 380 (Final), USITC

Publication 2099, July 1988, p. 10.

 38 Brass Sheet and Strip from Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, and

Sweden, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-269 & 270 (Review) and 731-TA-311-317 and 379-380 (Review), USITC Publication

3290, April 2000, p. 7.

 39 Domestic interested parties’ submission of May 23, 2005.

 40 German interested parties’ submission of May 23, 2005.

 41 The ninth firm, Hussey Copper Ltd., ceased production of BSS in 1999.

 42 A basic producer casts, rolls, and finishes BSS. A reroller purchases intermediate-to-heavy gauge BSS for

additional processing (which includes at least a series of rolling and annealing steps) into finished (final gauge) BSS.

I-19

finished BSS (finished products).36 In its original antidumping duty determinations37 concerning BSS

from Japan and the Netherlands, the Commission found the like product to be all UNS C20000

domestically produced BSS. In the first five-year reviews, the Commission found that the definition of

the domestic like product remained unchanged from that in the original determinations.38 In response to

the Commission’s notice of institution for these second five-year reviews, petitioners did not comment on

the definition of the domestic like product set forth in the previous investigations’ determinations.39

Counsel for German respondents also did not comment on the definition of the domestic like product.40

U.S. MARKET PARTICIPANTS

U.S. Producers

 The Commission sent producers’ questionnaires to nine firms, which accounted for virtually all

U.S. production of BSS during the period of review. Eight of these firms provided responses.41 Four

firms are basic producers of BSS; three firms are rerollers of BSS; and one firm is a basic producer and a

reroller of BSS.42 Table I-3 presents the list of U.S. producers with each company’s U.S. production

location(s), share of U.S. production in 2004, and position on the continuation of the countervailing duty

orders and the antidumping duty orders.
 43 Two other U.S. producers of BSS at the time of the original investigations (APD-Quincy Brass Mill and Plume

& Atwood) had also gone out of business or had ceased production of BSS by the time of the first reviews. Brass

Sheet and Strip from Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, and Sweden, Inv. Nos.

701-TA-269 & 270 (Review) and 731-TA-311-317 and 379-380 (Review), USITC Pub. 3290, April 2000, p. I-20.

I-20

Table I-3

BSS: U.S. producers, type of producer, U.S. production locations, shares of U.S. production in

2004, and positions on the continuation of the countervailing duty orders and the antidumping

duty orders 

Firm Type of producer 

Production

location(s)

Share of 2004

production1

(percent)

Position on

continuation of the

orders

Eagle Brass Co. Reroller Leesport, PA *** Support

Heyco Metals Reroller Reading, PA *** Support

Olin Brass Basic producer East Alton, IL

Waterbury, CT

Bryan, OH

Seymour, CT

*** Support

Outokumpu

American Brass

Basic producer Buffalo, NY *** Support

PMX Industries Basic producer Cedar Rapids, IA *** Support

Revere Copper

Products

Basic producer Rome, NY *** Support

Scott Brass Basic producer and

reroller

Cranston, RI

Mishawaka, IN

New Carlisle, IN

*** Support

Wieland Metals Reroller Wheeling, IL *** Oppose

 1

 Includes rerolled product.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

All the domestic producers other than Wieland Metals are “domestic interested parties” in these

reviews. Included in the domestic interested parties are the International Association of Machinists and

Aerospace Workers (“IAMAW”), Upper Marlboro, MD; the United Auto Workers (“UAW”) (Local

1024), Waterloo, IA; the UAW (Local 2367), Rome, NY; and the United Steelworkers of America (AFLCIO/CLC) (“USW”), Pittsburgh, PA. The large majority of workers at Olin Brass (“Olin”) is affiliated

with the IAMAW and a minority is affiliated with the USW. Workers at Outokumpu American Brass

(“OAB”) are affiliated with the USW, workers at PMX Industries (“PMX”) are affiliated with the UAW

(Local 1024), and workers at Revere Copper Products (“Revere”) are affiliated with the UAW (Local

2367).

Changes have occurred in the industry over the past 20 years. Eight producers of BSS

(American Brass; Bridgeport Brass Corp.; Chase Brass and Copper Co. (“Chase Brass”); Hussey Copper

Ltd.; The Miller Co.; North Coast Brass & Copper Co. (“North Coast”); Olin; and Revere) were

petitioners in the original investigations. Chase Brass, The Miller Co., and North Coast had gone out of

business or had ceased production of BSS by the time of the first reviews.43 Hussey Copper Ltd. ceased
 44 Domestic interested parties’ submission of May 23, 2005, p. 17.

 45 OAB has a sister company, Outokumpu Copper Strip B.V., which is a producer and exporter of BSS in the

Netherlands. ***.

 46 Brass Sheet and Strip from Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, and

Sweden, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-269 & 270 (Review) and 731-TA-311-317 and 379-380 (Review), USITC Publication

3290, April 2000, p. I-20.

 47 Retrieved at http://www.wielandus.com.

 48 German interested parties’ submission of May 23, 2005.

 49 ***.

 50 ***.

 51 Outokumpu to sell its fabricated copper products business to Nordic Capital, Outokumpu Copper press release,

www.outokumpucopper.com, retrieved October 13, 2005.

 52 Olin announces fourth quarter 2005 results, Olin press release, www.olin.com, retrieved February 1, 2006.

 53 Domestic interested parties’ submission of May 23, 2005, exh. 2.

I-21

production of BSS in 1999.44 Olin purchased Bridgeport Brass Corp. in 1988. In 1990, American Brass

was purchased by Outokumpu Copper Products Oy of Finland (“Outokumpu”), which continued to

operate it as a wholly owned subsidiary (OAB).45 The only completely new basic producer of BSS since

the time of the original investigations is PMX. This firm, established as a greenfield operation in Cedar

Rapids, IA, in 1992, is owned by Poongsan Corp., Seoul, Korea, a Korean producer.46 Wieland Metals

began rerolling of BSS in 1987.47 It is owned by a German producer and exporter of BSS, Wieland.48

Eagle Brass Co. (“Eagle Brass”) began operations in 1990.49 OAB closed a plant in Kenosha, WI, in

1999, and in December 2002, Olin announced the closure of its fully integrated Indianapolis plant due to

a prolonged reduction in market demand which resulted in excess capacity.50 In June 2005, Outokumpu

sold its fabricated copper products business, which includes OAB, to Nordic Capital. OAB is reportedly

allowed to operate under the Outokumpu Copper Products name for approximately a year after the sale.51 

In January 2006, Olin announced the closure of its Waterbury rolling mill facility in Waterbury, CT, and

the consolidation of its production activities into its East Alton, IL, mill.52 

U.S. Importers

For these second five-year reviews, counsel for petitioners identified 39 importers believed to be

importing BSS from Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan.53 The Commission identified

another 14 importers through proprietary Customs data that may have imported BSS from the subject

countries during the period. The Commission sent importer questionnaires to all of these importers, as

well as to all U.S. producers. Useable responses were received from 12 of these firms. Sixteen firms

reported that they had not imported BSS during the period of review. 

 

U.S. Purchasers

Staff mailed 78 purchaser questionnaires. In response, 29 purchasers supplied useable data. 

APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION AND MARKET SHARES

Table I-4 presents apparent U.S. consumption of BSS for the review period, and table I-5 presents

U.S. market shares. Apparent U.S. consumption of BSS decreased irregularly during the period, from

602.2 million pounds in 1999 to 502.6 million pounds in 2004. Apparent consumption declined by 
I-22

Table I-4

BSS: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. imports, and apparent U.S. consumption, 1999-

2004, January-September 2004, and January-September 2005

Item

Calendar year Jan.-Sept.

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2004 2005

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

U.S. producers’ U.S.

shipments 557,813 552,724 382,267 436,520 399,963 428,939 337,473 298,001

U.S. imports from--

 Brazil 697 43 0 115 44 12 12 0

 Canada1 4,193 4,756 4,478 1,435 37 72 52 18

 France 81 41 54 (2

) 0 142 113 33

 Germany3 4,575 5,272 3,665 4,044 3,006 2,648 1,948 1,736

 Italy 297 296 178 287 114 182 123 160

 Japan 4,994 4,666 3,672 3,547 2,824 3,163 2,591 2,165

 Subtotal1 14,837 15,074 12,046 9,428 6,025 6,218 4,840 4,112

 All other sources 29,526 49,097 54,121 49,501 52,975 67,425 50,479 43,600

 Total imports 44,363 64,171 66,167 58,930 58,999 73,643 55,318 47,712

Apparent consumption 602,176 616,895 448,434 495,450 458,962 502,582 392,791 345,713

Value ($1,000)

U.S. producers’ U.S.

shipments 579,105 623,848 434,505 476,451 447,739 592,521 463,234 481,621

U.S. imports from--

 Brazil 735 52 0 95 52 12 12 0

 Canada1 5,233 7,693 5,843 1,528 44 172 135 42

 France 99 53 62 4 0 231 183 63

 Germany3 5,983 7,399 5,350 5,079 4,317 4,464 3,329 3,847

 Italy 395 456 278 445 218 364 243 353

 Japan 9,156 9,204 6,599 5,979 4,876 6,620 5,425 5,039

 Subtotal1 21,602 24,857 18,132 13,129 9,507 11,863 9,327 9,343

 All other sources 32,854 57,742 64,254 56,168 62,242 101,568 74,822 75,838

 Total imports 54,456 82,599 82,386 69,297 71,749 113,431 84,148 85,182

Apparent consumption 633,561 706,447 516,891 545,748 519,488 705,952 547,382 566,803

 1

 Import data for Canada for 1999 include an unknown quantity and value of nonsubject merchandise produced by Ratcliffs. 

The order on Canada was revoked with respect to Ratcliffs in 1991.

 2 Less than 500 pounds.

 3

 Believed to consist principally of nonsubject brass sheet and strip.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics.
I-23

Table I-5

BSS: U.S. market shares, 1999-2004, January-September 2004, and January-September 2005

Item

Calendar year Jan.-Sept.

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2004 2005

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Apparent consumption 602,176 616,895 448,434 495,450 458,962 502,582 392,791 345,713

Value ($1,000 dollars)

Apparent consumption 633,561 706,447 516,891 545,748 519,488 705,952 547,382 566,803

Share of quantity (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S.

shipments 92.6 89.6 85.2 88.1 87.1 85.3 85.9 86.2

U.S. imports from--

Brazil 0.1 (1

) 0.0 (1) (1) (1) (1) 0.0

Canada2 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.3 (1

) (1) (1) (1)

France (

1

) (1) (1) (1) 0.0 (1) (1) (1)

Germany3 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5

Italy (1) (

1

) (1) 0.1 (1) (1) (1) (1)

Japan 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6

Subtotal2 2.5 2.4 2.7 1.9 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2

All other sources 4.9 8.0 12.1 10.0 11.5 13.4 12.9 12.6

 Total imports 7.4 10.4 14.8 11.9 12.9 14.7 14.1 13.8

Share of value (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S.

shipments 91.4 88.3 84.1 87.3 86.2 83.9 84.6 85.0

U.S. imports from--

Brazil 0.1 (1

) 0.0 (1) (1) (1) (1) 0.0

Canada2 0.8 1.1 1.1 0.3 (1

) (1) (1) (1)

France (

1

) (1) (1) (1) 0.0 (1) (1) (1)

Germany3 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.7

Italy 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 (1

) 0.1 (1) 0.1

Japan 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.9

Subtotal2 3.4 3.5 3.5 2.4 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.6

All other sources 5.2 8.2 12.4 10.3 12.0 14.4 13.7 13.4

 Total imports 8.6 11.7 15.9 12.7 13.8 16.1 15.4 15.0

 1 Less than 0.05 percent. 2 Import data for Canada for 1999 include an unknown quantity and value of nonsubject merchandise produced by Ratcliffs. 

 3 Believed to consist principally of nonsubject brass sheet and strip. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics.
 54 ***. 

I-24

12.0 percent in January-September 2005 compared with January-September 2004. Reasons cited by U.S.

producers for the decline in consumption during the period include the movement of U.S. manufacturing

to lower cost countries, particularly China, the high price of copper, and the manufacturing recession

during 2001-03.54 The value of apparent U.S. consumption of BSS, however, increased by 11.4 percent

between 1999 and 2004. The value of apparent consumption rose in interim 2005 compared with interim

2004. U.S. producers’ share of the market for BBS on a quantity basis declined from 92.6 percent in

1999 to 86.2 percent in January-September 2005. Subject imports’ share of the U.S. market also 

declined, from 2.5 percent in 1999 to 1.2 percent in interim 2005. Nonsubject imports’ share of the U.S.

market, meanwhile, grew from 4.9 percent in 1999 to 12.6 percent in interim 2005. 
 1

 Copper Development Association, http://www.copper.org/, retrieved December 1, 2005.

 2

 According to the U.S. Mint, the “golden dollar,” issued in 2000, is the only brass-based U.S. coin now in

circulation. See http://www.usmint.gov/about_the_mint/index.cfm?flash=yes&action=coin_specifications, retrieved

December 2, 2005. A move to create a new dollar coin to eventually replace the dollar bill has some support in

Congress. ***.

 3

 A.J. Oster is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Olin and accounts for approximately *** percent of the U.S.

distribution network for BSS. A.J. Oster has ***. Domestic producers’ posthearing brief, ex. 1, p. 67.

 4

 After growing throughout the 1990s, the distributors’ share of the BSS market has reached a plateau, and today,

distributors and service centers supply approximately 20 to 25 percent of the BSS market. ***.

 5

 Copper Development Association, http://www.copper.org, retrieved December 1, 2005.

II-1

PART II: CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION IN THE U.S. MARKET

U.S. MARKET SEGMENTS

BSS is used in a wide variety of end-use products. Brass is harder and stronger than either of its

alloying elements copper or zinc; it has high strength, corrosion resistance, excellent formability, and

good electrical properties.1

 Common fabrication processes include drawing, rolling, and stamping. The

vast majority of the subject product is produced in a coil form known as brass strip, and the remainder is

furnished in cut-to-length sheets. The largest sectors for BSS are concentrated in electrical and

electronics (semiconductors, terminal connectors, flashlight shells, and lamp fixtures), automotive

(radiator tanks, odometer contacts, and electrical connectors), building and construction (grillwork, door

knobs, locks, and push and kick plates), ammunition (cartridge cases, shells, and mechanical housings for

lighters), and coinage.2

 Other products made of BSS include musical instruments, plumbing accessories,

bathroom fixtures, fasteners, heat exchangers (and other industrial applications), washers, and stencils.

CHANNELS OF DISTRIBUTION

U.S. producers of BSS sell to distributors, end users, and rerollers. U.S. producers shipped *** of

their BSS to end users, *** of their BSS to distributors,3

 and *** to rerollers during the period of review

(see table I-2). Importers from subject countries shipped *** percent of their BSS to distributors during

the period, and importers from nonsubject countries shipped *** of their BSS to end users in 2000

through 2005, although they did ship *** of their BSS to distributors in 1999. Producers tend to have big

production runs, so direct sales to end users are usually for large-volume customers. Producers tend to

leave smaller volume customers and specialized requests to the reroller and distributor market.

Rerollers buy thicker, rougher, “reroll” product, which they then roll down into a thinner gauge

product. Distributors,4

 rather than mills, tend to supply smaller quantities of material because it is more

cost-effective for the mills to make runs of large quantities and distribute these to the various distributors.5

Distributors themselves may have different specialties relating to different alloys and gauges of BSS, and

many are able to offer cutting to size or other services as required.

U.S. producers and importers, as a whole, reported nationwide sales. All eight responding

producers reported serving the national market, and importers reported primarily serving the Northeast

and Midwest regions. Two importers reported serving the national market (see table II-1).

The responding producers and importers reported no sales of BSS over the internet, with the

exception of ***, which reported that internet sales are less than 5 percent of total sales. Only one, ***,

of the 29 responding purchasers reported buying BSS over the internet.
 6

 *** reported that tolling has become less of a factor in the BSS market since the price of copper has increased

dramatically since 2003. ***.

 7

 However, OAB, Olin, and PMX reported that they do not have an advantage from tolling because they do so

little of it. Hearing transcript (Bartel, Rupp, and Burkhardt), p. 124.

II-2

Table II-1

BSS: Geographic market areas in the United States served by domestic producers and importers1

Region Producers Importers

National 8 2

Northeast -- 5

Mid-Atlantic -- --

Midwest -- 2

Southeast -- 1

Southwest -- 1

Rocky Mountains -- --

West Coast -- 1

Northwest -- --

 1 In the original investigations, domestic producers as a whole generally served the national market, and

importers reported serving the national market as well as specific states and regions.

Note.–Eight producers and seven importers responded to this question. Firms were not limited to the number of

market areas that they could report.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and Brass Sheet and Strip from

Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, and Sweden, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-269-270

(Review) and 731-TA-311-317 and 379-380 (Review), USITC Publication No. 3290 (April 2000).

SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS

U.S. Supply

Raw materials, finished BSS, and scrap move back and forth among the producers, distributors,

and end users in the BSS market. Domestic producers generally use raw materials to make BSS and sell

to purchasers. However, some purchasers also have tolling arrangements in which they supply the

producer with at least some of the raw materials and the purchaser then buys only the finished BSS. 

Tolling purchasers only pay the fabrication price and not the metal price. This method is generally 

preferred by large-volume customers.6

 Some purchasers participate in scrap buy-back programs where a

producer arranges to buy back a certain percentage of scrap that a purchaser creates in its end use of BSS.

Toll arrangements have an effect on pricing (see part V of this report), as well as an effect on

competition between domestic and foreign producers. Three producers and two importers reported that

tolling gives U.S. producers advantages over foreign suppliers.7

 *** reported that it is not feasible to ship

scrap overseas to be processed and then shipped back to the United States because transportation costs

would be prohibitively expensive.
II-3

Supply of the Domestic Product

Based on available information, U.S. producers are likely to respond to changes in demand with

moderate-to-large changes in the quantity of shipments of U.S.-produced BSS to the U.S. market. The

main contributing factors to the moderate-to-high degree of responsiveness of supply are the availability

of some unused capacity, few export shipments, low levels of inventories, and numerous production

alternatives.

Industry capacity

Both basic producers and rerollers reported some excess capacity throughout the period for which

data were collected in these reviews. U.S. basic producers’ capacity utilization for BSS decreased

irregularly from 90.4 percent in 1999 to 72.7 percent in 2004 and was lower in January-September 2005

than it was in January-September 2004 (see table III-1). U.S. rerollers’ reported capacity utilization

decreased from 77.0 percent in 1999 to 50.0 percent in 2004.

Alternative markets

U.S. basic producers’ export shipments, as a share of total shipments, decreased from *** percent

in 1999 to *** percent in 2004 (see table III-2), but export shipments in January-September 2005 were

higher, at *** percent, than at any point during the period of review. Rerollers’ export shipments, as a

share of total shipments, decreased from *** percent in 1999 to *** percent in 2004. These relatively

low levels of exports during the period indicate that domestic basic producers and rerollers may be

somewhat constrained in their ability to shift shipments between the United States and other markets in

response to price changes. Indeed, *** producers and six responding importers reported that they are

unable or limited in their ability to shift sales of BSS between the U.S. market and alternative country

markets. *** reported that factors such as import duties, freight costs, logistics, and value-added taxes

make it difficult to shift sales of BSS between the U.S. market and alternative country markets. ***

reported that exchange rates, labor markets, credit risk, import duties, and environmental issues make it

difficult to shift sales. *** reported that it is not geared toward export sales. *** reported that they only

sell in the United States or that they do not export. 

Four producers and one importer reported that U.S. exports of BSS are subject to tariffs or nontariff barriers in other countries. *** reported that Brazil and China have import duties on U.S.-produced

BSS; *** reported that Brazil, China, the EU, India, South Korea, and Taiwan have import duties ranging

from 3.7 to 20 percent on U.S.-produced BSS; *** reported that many countries have a value-added tax;

and *** reported that Canada has a goods-and-services tax.

Inventory levels

U.S. basic producers’ inventories, as a share of total shipments, increased from *** percent in

1999 to *** percent in 2004 (see table III-3). U.S. rerollers’ inventories, as a share of total shipments,

increased from *** percent in 1999 to *** percent in 2004 and were higher in January-September 2005

than during the same period in 2004.
 8

 Domestic producers reported that the subject product is a “baseload” product and that lost volumes are not

necessarily replaced by other products, leading to decreased capacity utilization and decreased profitability. Hearing

transcript (Rupp), p. 22 and (Bartel) pp. 29-30.

 9

 *** reported that some existing producers are likely to fail if the orders are removed, and *** reported that as

imports gain market share, U.S. producers are likely to suffer consolidations and closures, but *** did not specify if

it was referring to subject or nonsubject imports.

 10 Olin, OAB, and PMX reported that some U.S. producers placed customers on allocation in 2000 and 2004,

primarily due to a ramp-up in production in response to increased demand. Hearing transcript (Rupp, Burkhardt, and

Bartel), pp. 112-114. Olin also reported that it had an outage in 2004 due to a fire and thus placed some customers

on allocation for a short period of time. Hearing transcript (Rupp), p. 113. Wieland reported that Olin refused to

supply its additional orders beginning in October 2005. Hearing transcript (Schuler), pp. 166-167, and German

respondents’ posthearing brief, p. A-30 and ex. 16.

 11 *** also reported that it has worked with *** to develop a comparable substitute but none has succeeded,

despite increased fabrication prices.

II-4

Production alternatives

All eight responding producers reported that they produce other products, such as various other

copper and brass series, on the same equipment and machinery used in the production of BSS.8

 Six

producers also reported that they are able to switch production to these other products in response to

relative price changes. *** reported simultaneous production of other alloys. *** reported that it is able

to switch, but that it would take time and money to switch one of its casting stations to other products. 

*** reported that it can switch easily but not to non-brass products.

Other factors affecting supply

Three producers and two importers reported that transportation costs, specifically diesel fuel,

have increased since 1999 and affected the availability of U.S.-produced BSS. Other producers and

importers reported that the availability of scrap, the relocation of customers to Asia, increased energy

costs, increased nonsubject imports, and increased demand and production in China have affected supply

since 1999. Five of the eight responding producers and six of the seven responding importers reported

that they do not anticipate any change in the availability of U.S.-produced BSS in the U.S. market in the

future. *** reported that they expect a decrease in the availability of BSS in the U.S. market in the future,

and *** reported that it expects an increase in availability.9

Purchasers also were asked if there have been changes in any factors that affected the availability

of BSS in the U.S. market since 1999. Thirteen of the 28 responding purchasers reported that there had

been changes, including increased raw material, energy, and transportation costs and increased global

demand, especially in China, which strained U.S. capacity. *** reported that in 2000 and 2004, U.S.

mills were allocating the amount of brass that customers could purchase,10 and *** reported that it was

able to export BSS in 2005.

Purchasers were asked to identify any improvements or changes in the U.S. BSS industry since

1999 and if any are anticipated in the future. Only two purchasers responded. *** reported that Wieland

AG is the only supplier able to meet its strip requirements, which exceed the industry standard by 50

percent or more. *** also reported that since it cannot purchase material from Wieland AG due to the AD

and CVD orders, it has been forced to stop making some of its long-range products, because it believes

the U.S. producers may not ever be capable of supplying gilding metal strip of the quality that it

requires.11 *** reported that improvements center on the U.S. mills’ investment in equipment and

methods to improve quality in order to become more competitive, considering the shrinking market due to

the shift to low-cost manufacturers who make parts outside the United States.
 12 Brazilian export shipments, as a share of total shipments, *** (see table IV-8). Brazilian producers reported

that almost all of Brazilian capacity to produce BSS is dedicated to their domestic market and to exports to other

Latin American countries. Hearing transcript (Baialuna), pp. 171-178.

 13 ***, in its foreign producer questionnaire response, reported that BSS products are covered by different

standards in different parts of the world, and production has to be adjusted for the product to comply with the various

standards when attempting to shift sales to different export markets.

II-5

Producers and importers reported that, generally, there have been no significant changes in the

product range, product mix, or marketing of BSS since 1999. However, *** reported that service centers

have bought increasing amounts of foreign BSS and formed depots of the material with lower prices; ***

reported that raw materials have been going to China for the production of finished products, which are

then shipped to end users in the U.S. market; and *** reported that the Internet is increasing competition

in the BSS market.

Supply of Subject Imports

The sensitivity of supply of subject imported BSS to changes in price depends upon such factors

as the existence of excess capacity, the levels of inventories, and the existence of export markets. 

Relevant information for Brazil and Germany follows, but there was not enough information from

questionnaire responses for producers from Canada, France, Italy, and Japan.

Brazil

Based on available information, Brazilian producers are likely to respond to changes in demand

with low-to-moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of BSS to the U.S. market. The main

contributing factors to the low-to-moderate degree of responsiveness of supply are *** exports and some

excess capacity. Reported Brazilian export shipments, as a share of total shipments, decreased from ***

percent in 1999 to *** percent in 2004 (see table IV-8).12 Brazilian producers’ capacity utilization for

BSS increased irregularly from *** percent in 1999 to *** percent in 2004. Reported capacity utilization

was *** percent in January to September 2005, down from *** percent during the same period in 2004. 

Data on Brazilian producers’ inventories were not available.

Germany

Based on available information, German producers are likely to respond to changes in demand

with moderate-to-large changes in the quantity of shipments of BSS to the U.S. market. The main

contributing factors to this degree of responsiveness of supply are the existence of alternate markets, low

levels of inventories, and some excess capacity. German export shipments, as a share of total shipments

of BSS, were relatively constant over the period, increasing from *** percent in 1999 to *** percent in

2004 (see table IV-10).13 German inventories were reportedly *** percent during the entire period. 

Capacity utilization was approximately the same in 1999, *** percent, and in 2004, *** percent, and was

*** percent in January to September 2005, down from *** percent during the same period in 2004.
 14 OAB reported that the Netherlands is supplying brass sheet and strip for automotive radiator applications. 

Hearing transcript (Bartel), p. 91.

 15 PMX reported importing BSS from Korea in 2004 for a short period of time in response to an increase in U.S.

demand. Hearing transcript (Burkhardt), p. 92.

 16 German respondents’ posthearing brief, pp. 3-4, A-18, A-19, and A-20. Respondent Eluma’s prehearing brief,

p. 14 and ex. 1.

II-6

Supply of Nonsubject Imports

Seven of the eight responding producers and three of the seven responding importers reported

that the availability of nonsubject BSS has changed since 1999. *** reported that the revocation of the

orders on imports from the Netherlands,14 Korea,15 and Sweden in 1999 has resulted in significant

increases in imports from those countries. Other producers cited increased BSS available from Hungary,

India, Mexico, Poland, Turkey, and the countries of the former Yugoslavia. *** reported that nonsubject

BSS availability has increased and will continue, citing a new brass mill in Bulgaria in 2006. German

and Brazilian producers reported that the increase in BSS imports from nonsubject countries during the

period is primarily due to increased imports or purchases by U.S. producers.16

U.S. Demand

Demand Characteristics

The overall demand for BSS primarily depends upon the demand for a variety of end-use

applications (see table II-2). When asked if the BSS market is subject to business cycles or conditions of

competition distinctive to BSS, 6 of the 28 responding purchasers reported that it is, explaining that the

market moves in tandem with the global business cycle, and more specifically, the overall copper market. 

*** reported that the BSS market is affected by both building/housing starts and automotive sales. Five

of the 28 responding purchasers reported that the emergence of new markets for BSS since 1999 affected

the business cycle or conditions of competition distinctive to BSS, with four of the five reporting that the

emergence of China as both a producer and consumer of BSS has affected the BSS market. *** reported

that Chinese growth has come at an expense to the U.S. market, but *** reported that the U.S. mills

appear to have benefitted from increased demand for BSS in China and other Asian economies.

Table II-2

BSS: Apparent consumption by end-use market, 1999-2005

* * * * * * *

Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked to list the end uses of BSS. The most

commonly reported uses were for electrical connectors and terminals, automotive electronics,

ammunition, drawn metal fasteners, plumbing hardware, fittings, ferrules, stampings, and fuse caps and

end plates. When asked if there had been any changes in the end uses of BSS since 1999, one producer

reported that the use of BSS in architectural applications has grown; one importer reported that there has

been a switch from BSS to aluminum for use in radiators; and one purchaser reported that it modified its

product design to use BSS. The vast majority of producers, importers, and purchasers do not anticipate

any changes in the end uses of BSS in the future, but one producer and one importer reported expecting a

continual switch to other products, another producer reported that there is a promising antimicrobial

initiative from the Copper Development Association, and one purchaser reported that technology may

eliminate some end uses for brass in the field of electronics.
 17 Olin reported that end users that manufacture electrical products and home building products have moved

offshore, but that end users that manufacture coinage and ammunition have remained in North America. Hearing

transcript (Rupp), pp. 57-58.

 18 U.S. producers reported that they estimate that *** per year of U.S. demand for BSS will be lost in the

foreseeable future. Domestic producers’ posthearing brief, ex. 1, pp. 59-60. German producers reported that

demand for BSS changes with changes in the overall economic cycle. German respondents’ posthearing brief, p. A49.

 19 Olin reported that the financial troubles in the automotive industry may cause auto manufacturers to make more

of their component parts, including those that use BSS, outside of the United States due to cost pressures, and OAB

reported that changing fuel and emission standards are causing a shift away from BSS and towards higher

performance alloys, which are not covered by the current orders. Hearing transcript (Rupp), p. 59 and (Bartel), p.

60.

II-7

Ten purchasers reported that demand for their final products using BSS has decreased since 1999,

with some reporting reduced consumption of the end-use products due, in part, to manufacturing leaving

the United States for low-cost countries. Three purchasers reported that demand for their end-use

products that use BSS increased, four reported that demand was unchanged, and one reported that demand

has varied during the period of review. Purchasers who distribute, reroll, or resell BSS listed job-shop

stampers; machine shops; hose manufacturers; stamping and sheet metal fabricators; other distributors;

and manufacturers of hardware, lighting, motors, automotive connectors, telecommunications, and

computer applications as consumers of their BSS.

Apparent U.S. consumption of BSS fluctuated in a generally downward trend from 1999 through

2003, and decreased from 602 million pounds in 1999 to 503 million pounds in 2004 (see table I-4). 

Apparent U.S. consumption was lower in January-September 2005 than during the same period in 2004. 

Seven producers, 2 importers, and 9 purchasers reported that demand decreased between 1999 and 2005,

while 1 importer and 11 purchasers reported that demand increased. Two importers and four purchasers

reported that demand has been unchanged during the period.

Of those reporting that demand decreased, most cited the relocation of BSS customers to lowercost countries, specifically China, as a factor.17 Other factors cited relating to a decrease in demand

included a slowdown in manufacturing in the United States, the high price of copper, and a conversion of

end-use applications to other materials. Of those reporting that demand increased, factors cited included

economic growth in other markets, specifically China, and the growth in end-use markets such as

electronics, cellular communications, and computers.

When asked if they anticipate future changes in BSS demand in the United States and the rest of

the world, 7 producers,18 2 importers, and 17 purchasers responded yes, and many explained that demand

will continue to decline as manufacturing continues to relocate from the United States to low-cost 

countries and with increased use of substitute products in certain end-use applications.19 Others reported

that there will be increased demand as the global economy continues to grow and as the trend to

automation continues.

Purchasers were asked whether their purchasing patterns for BSS from domestic, subject, and

nonsubject sources had changed since 1987. Five purchasers reported that the relative share of their total

purchases of BSS from domestic mills increased, and two stated that the relative share decreased. Two

purchasers noted that their purchases from German producers decreased due to the orders, one reported

that its purchases from German suppliers increased because of the pricing for fabrication, and three

reported that their purchases from nonsubject producers increased due to price and availability. Six of the

nine responding purchasers reported purchasing BSS from at least one of the subject countries prior to

1987. Five reported that they discontinued purchases from subject countries because of the orders, and

one reported that its purchasing pattern has been essentially unchanged.
 20 *** reported that examples where long-term substitution has occurred include the use of aluminum in

automotive radiators and the use of brass-plated steel for use in ammunition and builders’ hardware.

 21 *** reported that there are no price-based substitutes for BSS; prices for BSS have been increasing over the

past one to two years without any real decline in volume.

II-8

Eleven purchasers reported that their purchasing pattern from nonsubject sources was essentially

unchanged since 1987; 16 did not purchase from nonsubject sources before or after the orders; and 2

changed their purchasing pattern for reasons other than the orders.

Substitute Products

While there are reported substitutes for BSS, the potential for substitution is often limited due to

the time and effort it takes to change the product design and manufacturing process.20 Aluminum, steel,

bronze, plastic, copper, and zinc were listed as substitutes for BSS in certain applications. Three

producers, 3 importers, and 12 purchasers reported that there are no substitutes for BSS.21 Only two

purchasers reported that changes in the price of substitutes has affected the price of BSS. When asked if

there have been any changes in the number or type of products that can be substituted for BSS, ***

reported that the use of low-alloy steels has become popular, and *** reported that plastics are

increasingly being used over the long term. *** reported that high-performance alloys have been

introduced but are more expensive than BSS, and *** reported that the high cost of brass has forced end

users to switch to substitutes. One producer and two purchasers expect increased use of substitutes in the

future. The other producers and purchasers, as well as all of the importers, reported that there have been

no changes in the number or type of substitutes, nor do they expect any changes in the future.

Cost Share

BSS often accounts for a relatively large percentage of the total cost of end-use products, 

although the cost share does vary widely, depending on the end use. Producers reported that BSS

accounts for between 25 and 70 percent of the total cost of the end products in which BSS is used. In

ammunition and plumbing hardware, BSS represents 25 percent of the total cost of the end product, and

in general stampings and electrical and electronic products, BSS represents between 60 and 70 percent of

the total cost of the end product. Importers reported end uses for BSS – construction and architectural

applications, as well as nameplates – but not associated cost shares.

Purchasers reported that BSS accounts for between less than 1 percent and 100 percent of the

total cost of the end products in which BSS is used. In stampings, BSS represents 43 to 100 percent of

the total cost of the end product, whereas in electronics and electrical connections, BSS represents 18 to

100 percent. According to purchasers, BSS represents 60 to 70 percent of the total cost of fittings and

ferrules; 65 percent of the total cost of plumbing escutcheons and kitchen sink drains; and 35 percent of

the total cost of drawn metal fasteners.

SUBSTITUTABILITY ISSUES

The degree of substitution between domestic and imported products depends upon such factors as

relative prices, quality, and conditions of sale (e.g., price discounts/rebates, lead times between order and

delivery dates, payment terms, product services, etc.). Based on available data, staff believes that there

may be some differences between domestic and imported BSS, but overall, there is a high degree of
 22 Producers, importers, and purchasers reported that BSS from certain nonsubject countries is generally of lower

quality than BSS produced in the United States and the six subject countries.

 23 Purchasers who described themselves as end users reported that they use BSS to manufacture such items as

electrical and electronic connectors and terminals, hose couplings, brush holders, small-arm projectiles, stamped

parts, drawn metal fasteners, commercial faucets, and automotive circuitry parts.

 24 Purchasers who described themselves as distributors reported selling BSS to manufacturers of automotive,

decorative, and electrical parts and fabricators of light fixtures, wall switch plates, and door hardware.

 25 Purchasers who described themselves as rerollers reported selling BSS to manufacturers of automotive,

electrical, and builders’ hardware parts.

 26 Nineteen of the 29 responding purchasers reported purchasing only U.S.-produced BSS. Seven purchasers

reported purchasing both U.S.-produced BSS and BSS from nonsubject countries, and three purchasers reported

purchasing both U.S.-produced BSS and BSS from subject countries.

II-9

substitution between BSS produced in the United States and the subject countries and a moderate degree

of substitution between BSS produced in the United States and other import sources.22

This section is based primarily on the responses of 29 purchasers that accounted for

approximately *** percent of total U.S. consumption in 2004. Nineteen purchasers described themselves

as end users,23 six as distributors,24 three as rerollers,25 and one as both a distributor and reroller. These

purchasers tended to purchase primarily from U.S. sources, with none reporting purchases from Brazil,

France, or Italy (see table II-3). In the instances where purchasers bought some BSS from subject or

nonsubject sources, it generally was a small amount, as the majority of their BSS purchased was from

U.S. producers.26

Table II-3

BSS: Reported quantities purchased, by country1

 and by year, 1999-2004

Country 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

(1,000 pounds)

United States *** *** *** *** *** ***

Canada *** *** *** *** *** ***

Germany *** *** *** *** *** ***

Japan *** *** *** *** *** ***

Nonsubject 3,161 4,880 5,414 4,717 6,048 15,719

 1 Responding purchasers did not report any purchases from Brazil, France, or Italy. *** reported small

quantities purchased from distributors, for which the country of origin of the material was unknown, and those data

are not included in this table.

Note.--Not all purchasers reported data for each year.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Purchasers of BSS tend to buy frequently, and fewer than half have changed suppliers since 1999. 

Twenty-two of the 29 responding purchasers reported that they purchase daily or weekly, with four

purchasing monthly, one purchasing annually, and two on an as-needed basis. None of the 29 purchasers

reported that they expect this purchasing pattern to change in the next two years. Eleven responding
 27 *** specified that total cost, including price, transportation cost, and terms, was the most important factor.

II-10

purchasers reported changing suppliers since 1999; four of the changes related to cost and quality

concerns, and one change was the result of an effort to consolidate the purchaser’s supply base.

Factors Affecting Purchasing Decisions

Purchasers were asked to identify the three major factors considered by their firm in deciding

from whom to purchase BSS (table II-4). Quality and price were the most commonly cited factors

overall. Sixteen of the 26 responding purchasers reported that quality was the most important factor,

eight reported that price27 was the most important factor, and two reported that availability was the most

important factor. The next most commonly cited factor was delivery/service.

Table II-4

BSS: Most important factors in selecting a supplier, as reported by purchasers

Factor First Second Third

Quality 16 8 3

Price 8 12 7

Availability 2 2 3

Delivery/service 1 2 10

Other 2 5 6

Note.--Other category includes pre-arranged contracts, qualified supplier, reliability of supplier, lead times, surface

finish, and costs of ownership.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Purchasers were asked what factors determined the quality of BSS. Factors cited included

surface finish, thickness, gauge tolerance, drawability, chemistry, tensile strength, edge condition, coil

size, and formability. Nine purchasers cited the necessity of meeting the firm’s specifications or meeting

ASTM standards or another of the various industry standards. Twenty-eight of the 29 responding

purchasers reported that they require suppliers to become certified or prequalified and that these

requirements apply to all, or nearly all, of their purchases. Most of the requirements consist of standards

set by independent organizations, such as the ASTM or the International Organization for

Standardization. Other purchasers perform audits, require samples, or perform an on-site visit. Six of the

23 responding purchasers reported that they compete for sales with the manufacturers or importers from

whom they purchase BSS.

Purchasers were asked if they always, usually, sometimes, or never purchased the lowest-priced

BSS. Seventeen of the 28 responding purchasers reported always or usually purchasing the lowest-priced

product and five sometimes purchased the lowest-priced BSS. Six reported never purchasing the lowestpriced product.

Purchasers also were asked if they purchased BSS from one country in particular. Fourteen

purchasers responded, reporting reasons why they purchased from one country in particular. Reasons

provided included “Buy American” preferences, government work that requires a domestic supplier,

quality, technical assistance, availability and lead times, prices, the current antidumping duty orders, and

compliance with product specifications. 
 28 *** cited ***, and *** cited ***, but other purchasers cited U.S. producers or did not specify a producer in

their descriptions.

II-11

Seven purchasers reported that certain grades, types, or sizes of BSS are available only from a

single source, with *** citing surface finish; *** citing width; *** citing quality; and *** citing products

proprietary to the supplier.28

Purchasers also were asked if they purchased BSS from one source although a comparable

product was available from another source at a lower price. Twenty-two purchasers responded, reporting

reasons why they purchased from a source that might be more expensive. Reasons provided included the

importance of using a domestic source, lead times, quality, delivery, availability, reliability, minimum

order size requirements, and the existence of contracts or long-term agreements.

Fourteen purchasers reported that buying a product produced in the United States is an important

factor in their purchases of BSS, with 12 reporting that purchases of the domestic product are required for

reasons other than laws or the requirements of customers. These other reasons included lead times,

quality, quick delivery, unpredictable demand, lower cost, availability, and logistics costs. *** reported

that 100 percent of its domestic purchases are required by customers; *** reported that less than 10

percent of its domestic purchases are required by customers; *** reported that less than 5 percent of its

domestic purchases are required by law or regulation and less than 10 percent of its domestic purchases

are required by customers; and *** reported that 2 percent of its domestic purchases are required by law

or regulation and 20 percent of its domestic purchases are required by customers.

In rating the importance of 16 factors in their purchasing decisions (table II-5), 28 of the 29

responding purchasers rated product consistency as very important; 27 reported that availability and

reliability of supply were very important; 26 reported that price was very important; 25 reported that

quality meets industry standards was very important; 24 reported that delivery time was very important;

and 22 reported that surface finish was very important.

Purchasers were asked for a country-by-country comparison of the same 16 factors (table II-6). 

One purchaser completed this comparison for the United States and Brazil, one for the United States and

Canada, two for the United States and France, seven for the United States and Germany, two for the

United States and Italy, and five for the United States and Japan. The majority of purchasers stated that

the domestic and subject products were comparable for discounts offered, extension of credit, minimum

quantity requirements, packaging, product consistency, product range, quality meets industry standards,

quality exceeds industry standards, surface finish, and transportation costs. The majority of purchasers

rated the U.S. product superior for availability and delivery time.

Twenty-six purchasers reported factors they considered in qualifying a new supplier. Factors

considered included quality, delivery, price, availability, lead times, past performance/reputation, sample

approval, financial review, and meeting company specifications or industry standards. The time required

to qualify a new supplier was reported by 16 purchasers and ranged from one month to one year.

Purchasers were asked if any suppliers had failed to qualify their product or lost their approved

status. Two of the 29 responding firms reported that suppliers had failed to qualify. *** reported that

*** failed to qualify due to delivery and quality issues, and *** reported that all suppliers have failed to

qualify with regard to deep drawability.
II-12

Table II-5

BSS: Importance of purchase factors, as reported by purchasers1

Factor

Very important Somewhat important Not important

Number of firms responding

Availability 27 2 0

Delivery terms 17 10 2

Delivery time 24 5 0

Discounts offered 12 12 5

Extension of credit 10 14 5

Minimum quantity

requirements 8 16 5

Packaging 12 14 3

Price 26 3 0

Product consistency 28 1 0

Product range 7 16 4

Quality meets industry

standards 25 2 2

Quality exceeds industry

standards 14 13 2

Reliability of supply 27 2 0

Surface finish 22 7 0

Technical support/service 13 15 1

U.S. transportation costs 16 12 1

 1 Some purchasers listed other factors and rated their importance. They included: cycle time, very important;

deep drawability, very important; special alloys, very important; partnering, very important; vendor managed or onhand inventory, very important; response to emergency requirements, very important; financial stability, very

important; and warehouse capability and location, somewhat important.

Note.--Not all purchasers responded for each factor.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
II-13

Table II-6

BSS: Comparisons of product by source country, as reported by purchasers1

Factor

U.S. vs Brazil U.S. vs Canada U.S. vs France 

SC I SC I SC I

Number of firms responding 

Availability 010010 1 1 0

Delivery terms 010010 1 0 1

Delivery time 100000 1 1 0

Discounts offered 010010 0 1 1

Extension of credit 100010 0 2 0

Minimum quantity

requirements 010010 1 1 0

Packaging 010010 0 2 0

Price2

010001 1 0 1

Product consistency 100010 0 1 1

Product range 100010020

Quality meets industry

standards 010010 0 1 1

Quality exceeds industry

standards 100010 0 1 1

Reliability of supply 100010 1 1 0

Surface finish 010010 0 2 0

Technical support/service 100010110

U.S. transportation costs2

010010 1 1 0

Table continued on next page.
II-14

Table II-6--Continued

BSS: Comparisons of product by source country, as reported by purchasers1

Factor

U.S. vs Germany3 U.S. vs Italy U.S. vs Japan

SC I SC I SC I

Number of firms responding 

Availability 421200410

Delivery terms 3 4 0 1 0 1 4 1 0

Delivery time 5 1 1 1 1 0 5 0 0

Discounts offered 052011410

Extension of credit 0 6 1 0 2 0 4 1 0

Minimum quantity

requirements 340110320

Packaging 1 5 1 0 2 0 2 2 1

Price2

312101220

Product consistency 043020131

Product range 043110050

Quality meets industry

standards 052020140

Quality exceeds industry

standards 043110041

Reliability of supply 232110212

Surface finish 1 3 3 0 2 0 0 4 1

Technical support/service 232200320

U.S. transportation costs2 34011023 0

 1 Eight purchasers completed the comparison for the United States and nonsubject countries. These purchasers

generally found the U.S. product superior for availability, delivery time, and technical support and found the

nonsubject countries superior for lower price.

 2 A rating of “S” on price and U.S. transportation costs indicates that the first-named country has lower

prices/costs than the other country’s product.

 3

 *** reported that the German product is superior to the U.S. product for deep drawability.

Note.--S=first-listed country’s product is superior; C=both countries’ products are comparable; I=first-listed country’s

product is inferior.

Note.--Not all purchasers responded for every factor.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
II-15

Purchasers were asked how often they and their customers make purchasing decisions involving 

BSS based on the producer of the product they purchase and based on the country of origin of the BSS

they purchase. Their responses are summarized in the following tabulation:

Factor Always Usually Sometimes Never

Firm purchases based on producer? 13 4 7 5

Customers purchase based on producer? 4 2 8 12

Firm purchases based on country of origin? 9 4 5 11

Customers purchase based on country of origin? 2 2 6 16

Purchasers reported that they and their customers determined the producer through the

qualification process, long-term contracts, and product specifications, and that the producer is important

because of quality, price, availability, and delivery factors. There were no examples given as to how

purchasers and their customers determined the country of origin, but purchasers reported that the country

of origin is important because of quality, price, reliability, and lead times. *** reported that customers

sometimes request that materials come only from NAFTA countries, and *** reported that it can only buy

domestic BSS for government contracts.

Purchasers also were asked how often domestically produced, subject imports, and nonsubject

imports of BSS meet minimum quality specifications. Their responses are summarized in the following

tabulation:

Source Always Usually Sometimes Never

Domestically produced 16 8 2 1

Subject imports 5 3 1 0

Nonsubject imports - Poland 3 2 0 0

Nonsubject imports - Hungary 2000

Nonsubject imports - Mexico 0 2 1 0

Nonsubject imports - India 0 0 2 0

Of the five purchasers who reported being aware of new BSS suppliers in the market since 1999,

*** cited new nonsubject foreign suppliers, and *** reported that ***, an importer, is a new supplier. 

*** cited MKM from Germany as a new supplier, and *** reported that, although it is unaware of any

new supplier, there are fewer U.S. mills and rerollers since 1999. Eight of the 26 responding purchasers

expect new BSS suppliers to enter the market in the future, with two reporting that it is likely there will be

new suppliers from China, two reporting that there will be new suppliers if the current orders are

removed, one reporting that it is likely there will be new suppliers from India, and one reporting that

countries without BSS antidumping orders may try to enter the U.S. market. *** reported that it is

inevitable that new entries will look to the U.S. market as soon as their quality is acceptable.

Lead Times

All eight producers reported selling at least 50 percent of their BSS produced to order, with lead

times ranging from one to eight weeks. *** reported selling 100 percent of their BSS produced to order,
 29 *** also reported that the U.S. product is delivered in full bar shipments (10,000 pounds), whereas foreign

shipments have to be purchased in container loads (40,000 pounds) and require three to four weeks transit time.

II-16

and *** reported selling 95 percent of their BSS produced to order. *** reported selling 50 percent of its

BSS from inventory, with a lead time of two weeks. The other four producers who reported selling BSS

from inventory reported lead times ranging from one day to less than two weeks.

All six responding importers reported selling 100 percent of their BSS produced to order, with

lead times ranging from one to four months.

Comparisons of Domestic Products, Subject Imports, and Nonsubject Imports

Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked to assess how interchangeable BSS from the

United States is with BSS from both subject and nonsubject countries. Their answers are summarized in

table II-7. Generally, producers, importers, and purchasers reported that BSS from the United States and

from other countries is always or frequently interchangeable. For those firms that reported that BSS is

sometimes or never used interchangeably, they were asked to explain the factors that preclude

interchangeable use. *** reported that German and Japanese materials are superior and usually more

expensive, and *** reported that developing countries are subject to a learning curve for quality standards

for BSS in the automotive market. *** reported that for Taiwan and the United States and Taiwan and

Japan, quality issues are sometimes a problem. *** reported that Wieland AG makes the finest strip

material in the world and that U.S. mills cannot compete due to a lack of technological competence. ***

reported that chemical compositions often vary from the CDA specifications, so chemical analysis would

be required before authorizing use of material from Brazil, Japan, and nonsubject countries.

Producers and importers were asked to assess how often differences other than price were

significant in sales of BSS from the United States, subject countries, and nonsubject countries (table II-8). 

Generally, producers said differences other than price were sometimes or never significant, while some

importers said differences other than price were always significant and some said differences were

sometimes or never significant. Those firms that reported that factors other than price are always or

frequently a significant factor in their sales of BSS were asked to explain the advantages or disadvantages

imparted by such factors. *** reported that domestic producers have a big advantage on delivery times

over foreign competitors.29 *** reported that the German and Japanese material quality is superior in

terms of surface finish, material consistency, and uniform properties. *** reported that Japan puts a large

premium on quality, and *** reported that quality is always a factor.
II-17

Table II-7

BSS: U.S. producers’, importers’, and purchasers’ perceived degree of interchangeability of

products produced in the United States and in other countries1

Country comparison

U.S. producers U.S. importers U.S. purchasers

AFSN0AFSN0AFSN0

U.S. vs. Brazil 3 4 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 4 0 1 0 17

U.S. vs. Canada 3 2 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 1 4 2 0 0 17

U.S. vs. France 4 3 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 4 2 0 0 16

U.S. vs. Germany 5 2 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 6 4 0 1 13

U.S. vs Italy 4 4 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 4 2 0 0 16

U.S. vs Japan 5 2 1 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 5 4 1 0 12

U.S. vs. other countries 2 5 0 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 6 3 2 0 11

Brazil vs. Canada 3 2 0 0 2 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 16

Brazil vs. France 4 2 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 16

Brazil vs. Germany 4 2 0 0 1 3 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 16

Brazil vs. Italy 4 2 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 17

Brazil vs. Japan 4 2 0 0 1 3 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 16

Brazil vs. other countries 2 3 0 0 2 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 2 0 13

Canada vs. France 4 2 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 16

Canada vs. Germany 4 2 0 0 1 3 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 16

Canada vs. Italy 4 2 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 17

Canada vs. Japan 4 2 0 0 1 3 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 16

Canada vs. other countries 2 3 0 0 2 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 14

France vs. Germany 4 2 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 15

France vs. Italy 4 3 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 16

France vs. Japan 4 2 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 15

France vs. other countries 2 4 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 13

Germany vs. Italy 4 2 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 16

Germany vs. Japan 4 3 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 15

Germany vs. other countries 2 3 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 3 0 1 0 13

Italy vs. Japan 4 2 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 16

Italy vs. other countries 2 4 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 14

Japan vs. other countries 2 3 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 2 1 1 0 13

 1

 Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked if BSS produced in the United States and in other countries is used

interchangeably.

Note.--“A” = Always, “F” = Frequently, “S” = Sometimes, “N” = Never, and “0” = No familiarity.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
II-18

Table II-8

BSS: U.S. producers’ and importers’ perceived importance of factors other than price in sales of

product produced in the United States and in other countries1

Country comparison

U.S. producers U.S. importers

AFSN0AFSN0

U.S. vs. Brazil 1 0 2 4 1 1 0 0 0 1

U.S. vs. Canada 0024110001

U.S. vs. France 0 0 2 5 0 1 0 0 0 1

U.S. vs. Germany 1 0 3 4 0 1 0 0 1 0

U.S. vs Italy 0 0 2 5 0 1 0 0 0 1

U.S. vs Japan 1034010010

U.S. vs. other countries 1025010010

Brazil vs. Canada 0024110001

Brazil vs. France 0 0 2 4 1 1 0 0 0 1

Brazil vs. Germany 0 0 2 4 1 1 0 0 0 1

Brazil vs. Italy 0 0 2 4 1 1 0 0 0 1

Brazil vs. Japan 0024110001

Brazil vs. other countries 0024110001

Canada vs. France 0024110001

Canada vs. Germany 0024110001

Canada vs. Italy 0024110001

Canada vs. Japan 0024110001

Canada vs. other countries 0024110001

France vs. Germany 0 0 3 4 0 1 0 0 0 1

France vs. Italy 0 1 2 4 0 1 0 0 0 1

France vs. Japan 0034010001

France vs. other countries 0124010001

Germany vs. Italy 0 0 3 4 0 1 0 0 0 1

Germany vs. Japan 0034010010

Germany vs. other countries 0124010100

Italy vs. Japan 0034010001

Italy vs. other countries 0124010001

Japan vs. other countries 0034020000

 1 Producers and importers were asked if differences other than price between BSS produced in the United States and in other

countries are a significant factor in their sales of the products.

Note.--“A” = Always, “F” = Frequently, “S” = Sometimes, “N” = Never, and “0” = No familiarity.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 30 Parties were asked to provide comments on the elasticity estimates; no comments were received.

 31 Producers, importers, and purchasers reported that substitution with other products takes place over the long

term, due to the need to change product design and the manufacturing process, but, as in the example of radiators

where aluminum has been substituted for BSS, substitution does occur.

 32 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.

II-19

ELASTICITY ESTIMATES30

U.S. Supply Elasticity

The domestic supply elasticity for BSS measures the sensitivity of the quantity supplied by U.S.

producers to changes in the U.S. market price of BSS. 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 and from production of other products, the existence of inventories, and the

availability of alternate markets for U.S.-produced BSS. Earlier analysis of these factors indicates that the

U.S. industry has a moderate-to-large ability to increase or decrease shipments to the U.S. market; an

estimate in the range of 3 to 6 is suggested.

U.S. Demand Elasticity

The U.S. demand elasticity for BSS measures the sensitivity of the overall quantity demanded to

a change in the U.S. market price of BSS. 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

BSS in the production of any downstream products. Based on the available information, the aggregate

demand elasticity for BSS is likely to be in a range of -0.5 to -0.8.31

Substitution Elasticity

The elasticity of substitution depends upon the extent of product differentiation between the

domestic and imported products.32 Product differentiation, in turn, depends upon such factors as quality

and conditions of sale. Based on available information concerning product range, quality, availability,

and degree of substitution, the elasticity of substitution between domestic and subject BSS is likely to be

in the range of 4 to 6 for all six subject countries.

 1

 Data herein for U.S. producers’ capacity, production, capacity utilization, shipments, inventories, and

employment are reported separately for basic producers and rerollers. Except for data on employment, aggregation

of data for the two groups of firms would result in double-counting because rerollers reroll or finish BSS that has

already been produced by a basic producer. 

III-1

PART III: CONDITION OF THE U.S. INDUSTRY

U.S. PRODUCERS’ CAPACITY, PRODUCTION, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION

Data on U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization are presented in table

III-1.1

 Reported U.S. capacity to produce BSS declined irregularly during the period of review, from

634.8 million pounds in 1999 to 607.0 million pounds in 2004, but still exceeded apparent U.S.

consumption of BSS in each year during 1999-2004. Capacity fell further in January-September 2005.

Production of BSS decreased by 23.1 percent between 1999 and 2004; production fell further by 12.7

percent in interim 2005. Capacity utilization fell from 90.4 percent in 1999 to 67.6 percent in interim

2005.

Table III-1

BSS: U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 1999-2004, JanuarySeptember 2004, and January-September 20051

Item

Calendar year Jan.-Sept.

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2004 2005

Capacity: (1,000 pounds)

 Basic producers 634,779 644,373 587,613 628,599 598,991 606,983 456,363 448,083

 Rerollers 58,870 59,231 60,121 62,256 60,296 60,283 45,212 45,212

Production: (1,000 pounds)

 Basic producers 573,981 558,227 387,191 446,192 407,574 441,125 346,976 302,879

 Rerollers 45,314 42,660 27,116 29,586 22,673 30,141 24,475 20,624

Capacity utilization: (Percent)

 Basic producers 90.4 86.6 65.9 71.0 68.0 72.7 76.0 67.6

 Rerollers 77.0 72.0 45.1 47.5 37.6 50.0 54.1 45.6

 1

 Capacity and capacity utilization data for basic producers herein differ from that presented in the prehearing

report due to large revisions reported by ***.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

All eight U.S. producers reported that during the period of review they produced other products

on the same equipment and machinery used in the production or reroll of C20000-series BSS. The other

products included other series of copper alloys, copper sheet and plate, stainless steel, nickel alloys, and

PMX HPA alloys. 
 2

 With respect to the value of shipments, the value of toll shipments excludes the metal value of the merchandise,

while the value of nontoll shipments includes the value of the metal. 

III-2

U.S. PRODUCERS’ DOMESTIC SHIPMENTS, COMPANY TRANSFERS, 

AND EXPORT SHIPMENTS

U.S. producers’ shipments (toll, nontoll, internal consumption, transfers to related firms, and

exports) are shown in table III-2.2

 The quantity of U.S. commercial shipments of BSS decreased

irregularly during the period, from *** million pounds in 1999 to *** million pounds in 2004. These

shipments declined further in January-September 2005. The value of U.S. commercial shipments of BSS

fell from *** million in 1999 to *** million in 2004. These shipments declined by *** percent in interim

2005 compared with interim 2004. U.S. producers reported measurable toll shipments of BSS, internal

consumption of BSS, and transfers to related firms of BSS during the period of review. In 2004, the

percentage of the quantity of total U.S. shipments accounted for by toll shipments, internal consumption,

and transfers to related firms was *** percent, *** percent, and *** percent, respectively. The quantity

of total U.S. shipments of BSS declined by 23.1 percent between 1999 and 2004. In interim 2005, these

shipments decreased by 11.7 percent compared with interim 2004. The quantity of U.S. producers’

exports of BSS was less than *** percent of total shipments of BSS during the period. Export markets

included Canada, Mexico, China, and Malaysia.
III-3

Table III-2

BSS: U.S. producers’ shipments, by type of shipment and type of producer, 1999-2004, January-September

2004, and January-September 2005

Item

Calendar year Jan.-Sept.

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2004 2005

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Commercial shipments:

 Toll:

 Basic producers *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Rerollers *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Nontoll:

 Basic producers *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Rerollers *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total, commercial

 Basic producers *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Rerollers *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Internal consumption:

 Basic producers *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Rerollers *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms:

 Basic producers *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Rerollers *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total, U.S. shipments:

 Basic producers 557,813 552,724 382,267 436,520 399,963 428,939 337,473 298,001

 Rerollers 43,988 41,707 27,236 29,460 22,681 28,879 23,871 20,025

Export shipments:

 Basic producers *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Rerollers *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total, all shipments:

 Basic producers *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Rerollers *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on next page.
III-4

Table III-2--Continued

BSS: U.S. producers’ shipments, by type of shipment and type of producer, 1999-2004, January-September

2004, and January-September 2005

Item

Calendar year Jan.-Sept.

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2004 2005

Value (1,000 dollars)

Commercial shipments:

 Toll:

 Basic producers *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Rerollers *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Nontoll:

 Basic producers *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Rerollers *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total, commercial

 Basic producers *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Rerollers *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Internal consumption:

 Basic producers *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Rerollers *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms:

 Basic producers *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Rerollers *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total, U.S. shipments:

 Basic producers 579,105 623,848 434,505 476,451 447,739 592,521 463,234 481,621

 Rerollers 64,419 66,090 42,984 43,989 36,638 53,463 47,495 46,389

Export shipments:

 Basic producers *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Rerollers *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total, all shipments:

 Basic producers *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Rerollers *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
III-5

U.S. PRODUCERS’ INVENTORIES

Table III-3 presents data on U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories of BSS during the review

period. U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories of BSS declined from 42.2 million pounds in 1999 to

26.3 million pounds in January-September 2005. U.S. producers’ inventories as a share of U.S.

production and as a share of U.S. shipments fluctuated modestly during the period. 

Table III-3

BSS: U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories, 1999-2004, January-September 2004, and

January-September 2005

Item

Calendar year Jan.-Sept.

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2004 2005

Inventories (1,000 pounds):

 Basic producers 42,229 39,150 31,954 33,027 31,921 36,398 35,479 26,297

 Rerollers *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ratio to production (percent):

 Basic producers 7.4 7.0 8.3 7.4 7.8 8.3 7.7 6.5

 Rerollers *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ratio to U.S. shipments (percent):

 Basic producers 7.6 7.1 8.4 7.6 8.0 8.5 7.9 6.6

 Rerollers *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ratio to total shipments (percent):

 Basic producers *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Rerollers *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Note.–Ratios were calculated using data from firms providing both inventory and production or shipment data. 

January-September ratios were calculated using annualized production or shipment data.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. PRODUCERS’ IMPORTS AND PURCHASES OF IMPORTS

U.S. producers reported no imports of BSS from the subject countries and no purchases of subject

imports from importers during the period of review. U.S. producers, however, did report imports and/or

purchases of BSS from nonsubject countries, as shown below in table III-4. OAB noted that imports of

BSS from the Netherlands originate from its sister company, Netherlands-based Outokumpu 

Table III-4

BSS: U.S. producers’ production, imports, purchases of imports, and ratios to production, 1999-

2004, January-September 2004, and January-September 2005

* * * * * * *
 3

 Hearing transcript (Bartel), pp. 90-91.

 4

 Hearing transcript (Burkhardt), p. 92.

 5

 Domestic producers’ posthearing brief, pp. 19-20.

 6

 Ibid., p. 21.

 7

 Ibid., p. 21.

III-6

Copper, and consist only of brass sheet and strip for automotive radiator applications.3

 PMX imported

BSS from its parent company, Poongsan Corp., South Korea, for a period of time to meet increased

demand while it increased its own production capabilities.4

 ***.5 ***.6 ***.7 

U.S. PRODUCERS’ EMPLOYMENT, WAGES, AND PRODUCTIVITY

Table III-5 presents employment data for U.S. producers of BSS. The number of production and

related workers (PRWs) involved in basic production and rerolling of BSS declined by 28.2 percent

between 1999 and January-September 2005, from 1,682 to 1,207. Reflecting the drop in employment, the

number of hours worked by PRWs and the wages paid also declined during the period. Hourly wages

increased irregularly during the period, while productivity and unit labor costs fluctuated.
III-7

Table III-5

BSS: Average number of production and related workers, hours worked, wages paid to such

workers, hourly wages, productivity, and unit labor costs, 1999-2004, January-September 2004, and

January-September 2005

Item

Calendar year Jan.-Sept.

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2004 2005

PRWs: (Number)

 Basic producers 1,560 1,466 1,281 1,348 1,308 1,203 1,217 1,122

 Rerollers 122 122 102 109 82 96 96 85

 Total 1,682 1,588 1,383 1,457 1,390 1,299 1,313 1,207

Hours worked: (1,000)

 Basic producers 3,433 3,250 2,695 2,855 2,719 2,624 2,021 1,779

 Rerollers 291 290 213 237 176 222 177 135

 Total 3,724 3,540 2,908 3,092 2,895 2,846 2,198 1,914

Wages paid: ($1,000)

 Basic producers 73,432 70,554 61,275 63,956 65,239 64,314 46,592 41,061

 Rerollers 5,564 5,607 4,531 5,125 3,609 4,336 3,382 2,639

 Total 78,996 76,161 65,806 69,081 68,848 68,650 49,974 43,700

Hourly wages:

 Basic producers $21.39 $21.71 $22.74 $22.40 $23.99 $24.51 $23.05 $23.08

 Rerollers 19.09 19.31 21.24 21.65 20.46 19.50 19.15 19.55

 Average 21.21 21.51 22.63 22.34 23.78 24.12 22.74 22.83

Productivity: (Pounds per hour)

 Basic producers 167.2 171.8 143.7 156.3 149.9 168.1 171.7 170.3

 Rerollers 155.5 146.9 127.1 125.0 128.5 135.5 138.6 152.8

 Average 166.3 169.7 142.5 153.9 148.6 165.6 169.0 169.0

Unit labor costs: (Per pound)

 Basic producers $0.13 $0.13 $0.16 $0.14 $0.16 $0.15 $0.13 $0.14

 Rerollers 0.12 0.13 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.14 0.14 0.13

 Average 0.13 0.13 0.16 0.15 0.16 0.15 0.13 0.14

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 8

 ***.

 All producers appear to generate some scrap in their production process. While basic producers re-use the

scrap in their production process, *** reported that it also sells scrap. ***, dedicated rerollers, reportedly sell ***

scrap. Scrap sales are reflected in the BSS financial results as an offset to cost of goods sold. 

 CDSOA receipts are included as a separate line item in the “other income” section of table III-5. Treating

CDSOA receipts as “other income” would generally be the standard income statement classification for external

reporting purposes. 

 9

 ***. 

 10 ***.

 11 As it relates to BSS, relevant public financial information is in the form of segment reporting information. 

Olin’s segment is identified as Metals, while Outokumpu’s segment was Outokumpu Copper. Outokumpu Copper’s

U.S. operations are included in its America’s division. PMX’s segment information (2003 and 2004 were the only

periods reported separately) represents its U.S. operations – PMX Industries. The other U.S. producers do not

appear to report their financial results publicly. 

 12 Because the majority of tolling appears to be performed for companies that are not BSS producers, doublecounting of volume due to tolling, relative to total BSS volume, appears to be minor; e.g., ***. 

 ***. 

 13 OAB, Olin, PMX, and Revere are basic producers only. ***. Producers that only reroll are Eagle Brass,

Heyco, and Wieland Metals. Prior to the period examined, Scott Brass was just a reroller. It began basic production

***. 

 14 Outokumpu to sell its fabricated copper products business to Nordic Capital, Outukumpu Copper press release,

www.outokumpucopper.com, retrieved October 13, 2005. OAB will reportedly adopt a new name in early 2006. 

Outokumpu Copper name change coming, American Metal Market (December 8, 2005). 

 Management discussion and analysis information in Outokumpu’s annual reports prior to and including 2004

indicated that Outokumpu’s copper segment (including OAB) was not meeting profitability targets which ultimately

resulted in its sale to Nordic Capital. 

III-8

FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE OF U.S. PRODUCERS

Background

This section of the report presents the financial results of eight U.S. producers of BSS. Financial

results are based on U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).8

 All U.S. producers, with the

exception of ***, reported their financial results on a calendar-year basis.9

 Staff verified the

questionnaire response of Olin on January 31 and February 1, 2006. Changes/revisions pursuant to

verification are reflected in this and other affected sections of this report.10 11

BSS activity represents commercial sales, tolling, internal consumption, and transfers and

encompasses basic production (production of brass sheet and strip from raw material inputs) and rerolling

(further processing of purchased brass sheet and strip).12 As reported to the Commission and consistent

with the previous sunset review, the majority of BSS activity represents basic production.13 

As noted previously, Outokumpu (the parent company of OAB throughout most of the period

examined) sold its fabricated copper products business, which includes OAB, to Nordic Capital in June

2005. OAB is reportedly allowed to operate under the Outokumpu Copper Products name for

approximately a year after the sale.14 

In late 2000 and early 2001, Olin experienced a strike/work stoppage at its East Alton, IL facility

which had a limited impact on its Metals segment profitability. In 2003, Olin formally closed its

Indianapolis, IN facility which had been idled since 2001. In 2004, Olin relocated its corporate offices
 15 Olin 2004 10-K, p. 66.

 16 For Olin’s Metals segment as a whole, the monetary impact of the strike at the East Alton, IL facility was

around $1 million in reduced operating income which was reportedly offset by $4 million in LIFO inventory

liquidation. Olin 2002 10-K, p. 21. In 2004, the hot mill was non-operational for around 2 weeks due to a fire. Olin

2004 10-K, p. 19. In 2004, according to the company ***. 

 17 According to Olin, “{s}ales {in 2001 compared to 2000 for the company as whole} decreased 18 percent due to

lower volumes, metal values and selling prices. Sales volumes were lower across all segments with the biggest

impact coming from the Metals segment, which was heavily impacted by a soft economy, particularly in the

automotive, electronics and telecommunications industries and to a lesser extent by the strike at the East Alton, IL

facility in the first quarter of 2001.” Olin 2001 10-K, p. 16.

 18 With regard to the beginning of the period, Olin’s 10-K states that, “{h}istorically, the copper sheet and strip

market has exhibited GDP-type growth. In the late 1990s and in 2000, this market expanded at a rapid pace

principally due to the strength of the U.S. economy. From 1997 to 2000, the market grew at an annualized growth

rate of approximately 8 percent. In 2001 and into 2002, the copper sheet and strip market has been facing lower

volume demands because of the economic downturn.” Olin 2001 10-K, p. 4. The latter part of the period was

described by Outokumpu (OAB’s parent company) as follows: “{i}n volume terms, 2004 was an excellent year for

copper and copper alloy products. US consumption rose by more than 9 percent helped by substantial re-stocking in

the early part of the year . . . {i}n the US, contract prices on many products are expected to rise, reflecting the

strength of the market through most of 2004. However, demand in all regions slackened during the last few months

of the year and remained rather slow in early 2005.” Outokumpu 2004 Annual Report, p. 22. Olin noted a similar

decline in volume in 2005 for its Metals segment: “{t}otal shipment volumes decreased by 4% from the six months

ended June 30, 2004, while industry demand in 2005 has been averaging approximately 10% below 2004 levels.” 

Olin 2nd quarter 10-Q 2005, p. 16. 

 19 According to Olin, “{d}uring 2004, the average COMEX copper price was approximately $1.29 per pound,

compared to $0.81 per pound in 2003, or an increase of 59%.” Olin 2004 10-K, p. 25. For the interim period,

“{t}he average COMEX copper price was approximately $1.50 per pound in the six month ended June 30, 2005

compared with $1.23 per pound in 2004, or an increase of 22%.” Olin 2nd quarter 10-Q 2005, p. 16. 

 20 With respect to energy, Olin’s 2004 10-K notes that “{e}lectricity is the predominant energy source for our

manufacturing facilities. Most of our facilities are served by utilities which generate electricity principally from

coal, hydroelectric and nuclear power.” Olin 2004 10-K, p. 8. As indicated in footnote 22, the poor performance of

Olin’s Metals segments in interim 2005 was in part attributed to higher energy costs. 

III-9

near the East Alton, IL plant.15 Olin also experienced a fire in 2004 which damaged the electrical control

room of the East Alton, IL hot mill.16

Operations on Brass Sheet and Strip

Income-and-loss data for producers of BSS are presented in table III-6. Per-pound BSS financial

results are presented in table III-7. Selected company-specific financial information is presented in table

III-8. 

Annual volume peaked in 1999 for most companies. After a trough in 2001,17 modest and uneven

year-to-year increases in volume were reported. Sales volume for most companies again declined in

interim 2005 compared to interim 2004.18 From 1999 through 2003, average per-pound raw material

costs moved within a relatively narrow range. In 2004 and interim 2005, in contrast, average raw material

costs increased dramatically.19 Although average conversion costs (direct labor and other factory costs)

remained relatively stable after increasing in 2001, they also increased at the end of the period.20 

Large increases in average sales values, generally corresponding with higher raw material costs,

did not fully offset higher average cost of goods sold (COGS) which resulted in lower profitability at the 
III-10

Table III-6

Brass sheet and strip: Results of operations, 1999-2004, January-September 2004, and January-September 2005 

Item

Calendar and fiscal year January-September

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2004 2005

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Net sales quantity

 Commercial sales 343,499 343,174 249,639 261,970 231,386 246,199 193,214 171,747

 Tolling revenue 105,314 95,424 42,627 50,878 42,073 49,600 39,250 30,154

 Internal consumption *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total net sales quantity 618,559 607,953 425,452 477,693 433,965 468,561 367,523 333,216

Value ($1,000)

Net sales value

 Commercial sales 422,279 461,428 335,614 335,784 295,496 386,920 306,534 314,458

 Tolling revenue 41,329 40,426 19,422 21,408 18,688 21,405 16,929 14,237

 Internal consumption *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total net sales values 659,604 710,815 502,923 538,653 498,797 662,630 518,715 551,870

Cost of goods sold:

Raw material 402,015 450,591 280,746 294,680 277,335 448,686 354,549 387,770

Direct labor 58,554 56,521 44,639 48,283 44,572 50,747 39,678 34,035

Other factory costs 124,772 127,074 142,801 154,151 138,432 126,340 96,544 111,892

 Total cost of goods sold 585,341 634,186 468,186 497,114 460,339 625,773 490,771 533,697

Gross profit 74,263 76,629 34,737 41,539 38,458 36,857 27,944 18,173

SG&A expenses 25,330 32,920 29,397 31,578 29,035 22,621 16,951 15,826

Operating income 48,933 43,709 5,340 9,961 9,423 14,236 10,993 2,347

Interest expense 18,513 15,821 13,146 7,354 5,831 5,451 3,975 5,188

Other expenses 843 1,087 2,011 1,186 1,649 584 349 338

CDSOA funds received 0 0 261 256 79 0 0 0

Other income items 2,338 381 559 1,446 1,892 2,692 1,586 628

Net income or (loss) 31,915 27,182 (8,997) 3,123 3,914 10,893 8,255 (2,551)

Depreciation (incl. above) 21,553 19,958 19,645 23,837 22,744 20,589 15,645 13,560

Estimated cash flow 53,468 47,140 10,648 26,960 26,658 31,482 23,900 11,009

Continued on following page.
 21 ***. 

 ***. 

 22 With respect to the interim period, the operating profit of Olin’s Metals segment declined from $39.4 million

(4.1 percent of sales) in the first 3 quarters of 2004 to $29 million (2.8 percent of sales) in the first 3 quarters of

2005. Olin 3rd quarter 2005 10-Q, p. 8. According to the company, “{l}ower earnings {for the Metals segment}

were primarily the result of lower shipment volumes in 2005 and higher energy and copper costs.” Olin 3rd quarter

2005 10-Q, p. 17. At the end of the period, Olin’s chairman, president, and chief executive officer, reportedly called

the company’s brass mill segment financial results “unacceptable” and stated “{w}e are initiating a series of actions

to optimize manufacturing capabilities and improve the profits of our metals business . . . these actions will likely

include a combination of plant closures, realignments and headcount reductions.” Olin eyes plant, job cuts for

metals business, American Metal Market (October 28, 2005). In January 2006, Olin announced that it will close its

Waterbury Rolling Mill. Domestic interested parties’ postconference brief, exhibit 16. 

 23 As defined by Outokumpu, “{t}he conversion margin for the copper products fabrication business is the

difference between the unit price of the raw material copper metal and the unit price of the product sold to the

customer. Conversion margins for fabricated copper products are mainly dependent on the demand in customer

industries and competition.” 2004 Outokumpu Annual Report, p. 15. A chart of Outokumpu’s historical per-pound

copper conversion margin indicates that it has generally declined since 2001. 2004 Outokumpu Annual Report, p.

23. It should be noted that conversion margins vary when examined on a product-specific basis; e.g., Outokumpu’s

above-referenced unit copper products conversion margin represents the prevailing period-to-period product mix and

(continued...)

III-11

Table III-6--Continued

Brass sheet and strip: Results of operations, 1999-2004, January-September 2004, and January-September 2005 

Item

Calendar and fiscal year January-September

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2004 2005

Ratio to net sales (percent)

Raw materials 60.9 63.4 55.8 54.7 55.6 67.7 68.4 70.3

Direct labor 8.9 8.0 8.9 9.0 8.9 7.7 7.6 6.2

Other factory costs 18.9 17.9 28.4 28.6 27.8 19.1 18.6 20.3

 Total cost of goods sold 88.7 89.2 93.1 92.3 92.3 94.4 94.6 96.7

Gross profit 11.3 10.8 6.9 7.7 7.7 5.6 5.4 3.3

SG&A expenses 3.8 4.6 5.8 5.9 5.8 3.4 3.3 2.9

Operating income 7.4 6.1 1.1 1.8 1.9 2.1 2.1 0.4

Net income or (loss) 4.8 3.8 (1.8) 0.6 0.8 1.6 1.6 (0.5)

Number of producers reporting

Data 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

Operating losses 0 0 2 2 1 1 1 4

 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

end of the period. While somewhat higher in the middle of the period due to absolute increases in selling,

general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, SG&A expense ratios declined to their lowest levels by the

end of the period.21 Lower volume and a further contraction of gross margins, offset partially by lower

SG&A expenses, resulted in reduced operating income in interim 2005 compared to interim 2004.22

In addition to changes in volume levels, a key factor in the industry’s financial results is the

“conversion margin” which represents the difference between negotiated prices and the cost of primary

raw materials.23 Since the industry’s pricing mechanism essentially passes the cost of raw material
 23 (...continued)

was for its entire copper-related operations – not just operations in the United States. 

 According to Olin, “{w}e generally pass changes in prices for copper and other metals to our customers as part

of the negotiated price of the finished product in most of Metals segment product lines. However, our Metals

segment experiences manufacturing or pricing pressure with respect to its conversion charges . . .” Olin 2004 10-K,

pp. 10-11. 

 24 The industry used various surcharges during the period to offset higher costs. For example, fuel surcharges

were used by several producers. Metal surcharges, to capture copper premiums, were also reported. Several of the

larger producers also appear to have added surcharges specific to natural gas after the period examined ended. PMX

tacks on 2¢/lb. for energy, American Metal Market (October 28, 2005), Olin Brass introducing energy fee, American

Metal Market (October 31, 2005), Outokumpu adding natural gas fee, American Metal Market (November 2, 2005). 

At the Commission’s hearing, company officials noted the inability to pass through all increases in conversion costs. 

Hearing transcript, p. 29 (Bartel) and p. 143 (Rupp). 

 25 The public segment financial information of Olin, Outokumpu, and the limited public information for PMX,

although representing a larger subset of information, is generally consistent with reported BSS financial results. The

overall trend was a 2000 peak in revenue followed by a decline in 2001. Subsequent modest increases in revenue

were followed by relatively large increases in 2004. While 2004 represented the largest level of absolute revenue,

profitability (on an absolute basis and as a percentage of sales) was lower compared to 2000 – the previous peak in

revenue. This is generally consistent with a reduction in conversion margins.

 Average fabrication charge and conversion margins can be estimated using information contained in table III-6

and III-7:

Item

Calendar and fiscal year January-September

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2004 2005

Conversion cost (per pound) 0.30 0.30 0.44 0.42 0.42 0.38 0.37 0.44

Fabrication charge (per pound) 0.42 0.43 0.53 0.52 0.52 0.46 0.45 0.49

Conversion margin (per pound) 0.12 0.13 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.08 0.06

Conversion margin (% of fabrication 29.7% 29.6% 16.8% 18.7% 18.5% 17.8% 17.4% 11.4%

 

The fabrication charge above represents the difference between average sales value (without tolling) and average

raw material cost. Conversion margin is the difference between the estimated fabrication charge and conversion

cost. Since tolling activity can only be partially eliminated, the above unit values should be considered estimates. 

 

III-12

directly through to the customer, the primary determinants of BSS profitability are the relative strength of

conversion margins, volume, and associated conversion costs. The financial results of the industry and

related industry information indicate that BSS conversion margins were stronger at the beginning of the

period and then declined, while, as shown in table III-7, average per-pound conversion costs increased at

the end of the period.24 25 

A variance analysis is not included in this section due to the presence of tolling activity which

limits the meaningful unitization of aggregate revenue and cost information. 
III-13

Table III-7

Brass sheet and strip: Results of operations (dollars per pound), 1999-2004, January-September 2004, and January-September

2005 

Item

Calendar and fiscal year January-September

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2004 2005

Value (dollars per pound)

Commercial sales 1.23 1.34 1.34 1.28 1.28 1.57 1.59 1.83

Tolling revenue 0.39 0.42 0.46 0.42 0.44 0.43 0.43 0.47

Internal consumption *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Average sales value 1.07 1.17 1.18 1.13 1.15 1.41 1.41 1.66

Cost of goods sold:

Raw material 0.78 0.88 0.73 0.69 0.71 1.07 1.08 1.28

Conversion costs

 Direct labor 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.10

 Other factory costs 0.20 0.21 0.34 0.32 0.32 0.27 0.26 0.34

 Total conversion costs 0.30 0.30 0.44 0.42 0.42 0.38 0.37 0.44

Average cost of goods sold 0.95 1.04 1.10 1.04 1.06 1.34 1.34 1.60

Gross profit 0.12 0.13 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.05

SG&A expenses 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.05

Operating income 0.08 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.01

Note.--As presented in this table, average per-pound raw material costs equal total raw material costs divided by all volume except tolling,

while average per-pound direct labor and other factory costs (conversion costs) are the product of total direct labor and other factory costs

divided by all volume including tolling. Per-pound COGS is the product of total COGS divided by total volume including tolling. Because

different volume denominators are used, the sum of per-pound raw material costs and per-pound conversion costs does not equal perpound COGS. Per-pound gross profit, per-pound SG&A expenses, and per-pound operating income are the total value for these items

divided by all volume including tolling. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 26 Olin 2001 10-K, p. 14. 

 27 Olin’s reported BSS capital expenditures represent *** for its Metals segment. In a follow-up response related

to this issue, Olin stated that ***. 

III-14

Table III-8

Brass sheet and strip: Results of operations, by firm, 1999-2004, January-September 2004, and

January-September 2005

* * * * * * *

 Capital Expenditures and Research and Development Expenses

Data on capital expenditures and research and development (R&D) expenses are shown in table

III-9. Olin, which accounted for *** of both R&D expenses and capital expenditures, described its

Metals and other segments as being “capital intensive manufacturing businesses with growth rates closely

tied to the general economy.”26 27 

Table III-9

Brass sheet and strip: Capital expenditures and R&D expenses by firm, 1999-2004, JanuarySeptember 2004, and January-September 2005

* * * * * * *

 Assets and Return On Investment

The reported value of assets and calculated return on investment are shown in table III-10. 

Table III-10

Brass sheet and strip: Value of assets and return on investment, 1999-2004, January-September 2004, and JanuarySeptember 2005

Item

Calendar and fiscal year January-September

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2004 2005

Assets: Value ($1,000)

 Total 497,999 450,983 384,174 437,797 405,346 387,797 407,066 352,390

Return on investment: Ratio of operating income to assets (percent) 

 Average 9.8 9.7 1.4 2.3 2.3 3.7 3.6 0.9

Note: Interim period operating income was annualized in order to generate comparative return on investment ratios.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 1

 HTS statistical reporting numbers 7409.21.0050, 7409.21.0075, 7409.21.0090, 7409.29.0050, 7409.29.0075,

and 7409.29.0090.

 2

 Useable questionnaire responses were received from only 12 importers, of which 1 reported imports of BSS

from Italy, 2 reported imports of BSS from Japan, and the remainder reported imports of BSS from nonsubject

countries. No importers reported imports of BSS from Brazil, Canada, France, or Germany. Importers identified

through proprietary Customs data that may have imported BSS from the subject countries during the period and that

did not respond to the importers’ questionnaire include ***. 

 3

 German respondents contend that the official statistics substantially overstate imports of subject BSS from

Germany because of the inclusion of nonsubject merchandise. German respondents’ prehearing brief, p. 8.

Information provided by Customs indicates that ***. German respondents’ exports of subject BSS to the United

States, as reported in their questionnaire responses, were: ***. Accordingly, it appears that the subject BSS

accounts for only a minor portion of U.S. imports from Germany reported in official Commerce statistics for brass

sheet and strip. 

IV-1

PART IV: U.S. IMPORTS AND THE FOREIGN INDUSTRIES

U.S. IMPORTS

Table IV-1 presents data for U.S. imports of BSS, based on official statistics of the Department of

Commerce.1

 Although these HTS numbers include some products outside the scope of the countervailing

duty and antidumping duty orders, official statistics are used for imports because of the poor coverage of

subject imports from the importers’ questionnaires.2

 It is believed that the vast majority of imports under

these HTS numbers consist of the C20000-series BSS that is within the scope of the orders; however, this

may not be true for imports from specific countries, notably Germany.3

 Tables IV-2 and IV-3 show data

for U.S. imports of BSS from the subject countries during 2004 by customs district and by month,

respectively. Table IV-4 presents U.S. production of BSS and ratios of subject imports to U.S.

production. Finally, table IV-5 shows U.S. imports of BSS from principal nonsubject countries.

U.S. imports of BSS from the six subject countries declined by 58.1 percent between 1999 and

2004, from 14.8 million pounds to 6.2 million pounds. Subject imports fell further during JanuarySeptember 2005. With the exception of France, imports of BSS from each of the subject countries

declined between 1999 and 2004. Imports of BSS from nonsubject countries more than doubled during 

the period, from 29.5 million pounds in 1999 to 67.4 million pounds in 2004. In January-September

2005, nonsubject imports fell by 13.6 percent compared with the level in the same period of 2004. 

Principal suppliers of nonsubject imports include Mexico, the Netherlands, Korea, Poland, India, and

Switzerland. The quantity of total U.S. imports of BSS grew by 66.0 percent between 1999 and 2004,

and then declined by 13.7 percent in interim 2005. Imports of BSS from the six subject countries as a

share of total U.S. imports declined from 33.4 percent in 1999 to 8.6 percent in January-September 2005.
IV-2

Table IV-1

BSS: U.S. imports, by sources, 1999-2004, January-September 2004, and January-September 2005

Source

Calendar year Jan.-Sept.

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2004 2005

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Brazil 697 43 0 115 44 12 12 0

Canada1 4,193 4,756 4,478 1,435 37 72 52 18

France 81 41 54 (2

) 0 142 113 33

Germany3 4,575 5,272 3,665 4,044 3,006 2,648 1,948 1,736

Italy 297 296 178 287 114 182 123 160

Japan 4,994 4,666 3,672 3,547 2,824 3,163 2,591 2,165

 Subtotal1 14,837 15,074 12,046 9,428 6,025 6,218 4,840 4,112

All other sources 29,526 49,097 54,121 49,501 52,975 67,425 50,479 43,600

 Total imports 44,363 64,171 66,167 58,930 58,999 73,643 55,318 47,712

Value ($1,000)4

Brazil 735 52 0 95 52 12 12 0

Canada1 5,233 7,693 5,843 1,528 44 172 135 42

France 99 53 62 4 0 231 183 63

Germany3 5,983 7,399 5,350 5,079 4,317 4,464 3,329 3,847

Italy 395 456 278 445 218 364 243 353

Japan 9,156 9,204 6,599 5,979 4,876 6,620 5,425 5,039

 Subtotal1 21,602 24,857 18,132 13,129 9,507 11,863 9,327 9,343

All other sources 32,854 57,742 64,254 56,168 62,242 101,568 74,822 75,838

 Total imports 54,456 82,599 82,386 69,297 71,749 113,431 84,148 85,182

Unit value (per pound)

Brazil $1.05 $1.20 -- $0.83 $1.19 $1.02 $1.02 --

Canada 1.25 1.62 $1.31 1.06 1.20 2.39 2.60 $2.34

France 1.23 1.29 1.15 350.99 -- 1.62 1.62 1.94

Germany3 1.31 1.40 1.46 1.26 1.44 1.69 1.71 2.22

Italy 1.33 1.54 1.56 1.55 1.90 2.00 1.98 2.20

Japan 1.83 1.97 1.80 1.69 1.73 2.09 2.09 2.33

 Average 1.46 1.65 1.51 1.39 1.58 1.91 1.93 2.27

All other sources 1.11 1.18 1.19 1.13 1.17 1.51 1.48 1.74

 Average 1.23 1.29 1.25 1.18 1.22 1.54 1.52 1.79

Table continued on next page.
IV-3

Table IV-1--Continued

BSS: U.S. imports, by sources, 1999-2004, January-September 2004, and January-September 2005

Source

Calendar year Jan.-Sept.

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2004 2005

Share of quantity (percent)

Brazil 1.6 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 (5

) (5) 0.0

Canada 9.5 7.4 6.8 2.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 (5

)

France 0.2 0.1 0.1 (5) 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1

Germany 10.3 8.2 5.5 6.9 5.1 3.6 3.5 3.6

Italy 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3

Japan 11.3 7.3 5.5 6.0 4.8 4.3 4.7 4.5

 Subtotal 33.4 23.5 18.2 16.0 10.2 8.4 8.7 8.6

All other sources 66.6 76.5 81.8 84.0 89.8 91.6 91.3 91.4

 Total imports 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of value (percent)

Brazil 1.4 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 (5

) (5) 0.0

Canada 9.6 9.3 7.1 2.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 (5

)

France 0.2 0.1 0.1 (5

) 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1

Germany 11.0 9.0 6.5 7.3 6.0 3.9 4.0 4.5

Italy 0.7 0.6 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4

Japan 16.8 11.1 8.0 8.6 6.8 5.8 6.4 5.9

 Subtotal 39.7 30.1 22.0 18.9 13.3 10.5 11.1 11.0

All other sources 60.3 69.9 78.0 81.1 86.7 89.5 88.9 89.0

 Total imports 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1 Import data for Canada for 1999 include an unknown quantity and value of nonsubject merchandise produced by Ratcliffs. 

The order on Canada was revoked with respect to Ratcliffs in 1991. 

 2

 Less than 500 pounds. 3 Subject BSS is believed to account for only a minor share of U.S. imports reported in official Commerce statistics. See

footnote 3 on page IV-1.

 4 Landed, duty-paid. 

 5

 Less than 0.05 percent.

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics.
IV-4

Table IV-2

BSS: U.S. imports from subject countries, by customs district, 2004

Customs district Brazil Canada France Germany1 Italy Japan

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Boston, MA 30

Buffalo, NY 50 2 27

Charleston, SC 65

Charlotte, NC (2)

Chicago, IL 954 64

Cleveland, OH (2) 9

Columbia-Snake, OR 51

Detroit, MI 16 129 2

Great Falls, MT 2

Houston-Galveston, TX 87 55

Los Angeles, CA 16 213

Miami, FL 36

New Orleans, LA 12 27

New York, NY 455 182 2,619

Norfolk, VA 37

Ogdensburg, NY 4

Pembina, ND (2

)

Philadelphia, PA 194

Savannah, GA 142 7 (2

)

Seattle, WA 4 122

St. Albans, VT 605

Tampa, FL (2

)

 Total imports 12 72 142 2,648 182 3,162

 1 Only a minor share of the reported imports from Germany is believed to consist of subject product. See

footnote 3 on page IV-1.

 2 Less than 500 pounds.

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics.
IV-5

Table IV-3

BSS: U.S. imports from subject countries, monthly, 2004

Item Brazil Canada France Germany1 Italy Japan

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

January 0 (2

) 0 47 0 272

February 12 2 0 550 6 253

March 0 (2

) 0 76 36 380

April 0 12 0 275 0 275

May 0 4 0 36 0 143

June 0 13 43 317 77 282

July 0 (2

) 6 57 0 211

August 0 2 23 318 4 468

September 0 18 41 274 0 307

October 0 20 10 228 0 151

November 0 0 10 405 0 149

December 0 0 9 66 59 272

 Total imports 12 71 142 2,649 182 3,163

 1 Only a minor share of the reported imports from Germany is believed to consist of subject product. See

footnote 3 on page IV-1. 

 2 Less than 500 pounds.

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics.
IV-6

Table IV-4

BSS: U.S. production and ratios of imports to U.S. production, 1999-2004, January-September

2004, and January-September 2005

Item

Calendar year Jan.-Sept.

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2004 2005

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

U.S. production 573,981 558,227 387,191 446,192 407,574 441,125 346,976 302,879

Ratios of imports to U.S. production (percent)

U.S. imports from--

 Brazil 0.1 (1

) 0.0 (1) (1) (1) (1) 0.0

 Canada2 0.7 0.9 1.2 0.3 (1

) (1) (1) (1)

 France (

1

) (1) (1) (1) 0.0 (1) (1) (1)

 Germany3 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6

 Italy 0.1 0.1 (1

) 0.1 (1) (1) (1) 0.1

 Japan 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7

 Subtotal2 2.6 2.7 3.1 2.1 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4

 All other sources 5.1 8.8 14.0 11.1 13.0 15.3 14.5 14.4

 Total imports 7.7 11.5 17.1 13.2 14.5 16.7 15.9 15.8

 1

 Less than 0.05 percent.

 2 Import data for Canada for 1999 include an unknown quantity and value of nonsubject merchandise produced by Ratcliffs. 

The order on Canada was revoked with respect to Ratcliffs in 1991.

 3

 Only a minor share of the reported imports from Germany is believed to consist of subject product. See footnote 3 on page

IV-1.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics.
IV-7

Table IV-5

BSS: U.S. imports from principal nonsubject countries, 1999-2004, January-September 2004, and

January-September 2005

Source

Calendar year Jan.-Sept.

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2004 2005

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

India 54 205 155 743 2,330 1,946 1,559 2,380

Korea 22 1,842 2,432 254 1,007 570 347 (1)

Mexico 12,040 15,258 11,461 10,449 9,457 13,428 10,868 7,742

Netherlands 435 1,913 15,301 15,725 16,721 21,226 15,365 16,060

Poland 3,576 9,266 6,694 7,237 10,930 19,833 14,983 11,998

Switzerland 6,473 6,998 5,236 4,663 4,306 5,641 4,121 2,791

All other nonsubject countries 6,926 13,615 12,842 10,430 8,224 4,781 3,236 2,629

 Total, nonsubject countries 29,526 49,097 54,121 49,501 52,975 67,425 50,479 43,600

 1

 Less than 500 pounds.

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics.

U.S. IMPORTERS’ INVENTORIES

End-of-period inventories reported by U.S. importers are shown in table IV-6. ***. 

Table IV-6

BSS: U.S. importers’ reported end-of-period inventories of imports, by source, 1999-2004,

January-September 2004, and January-September 2005

Item

Calendar year Jan.-Sept.

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2004 2005

From Italy:

 Inventories (1,000 pounds) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ratio to imports (percent) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ratio to U.S. shipments of 

imports (percent) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Note.–Ratios were calculated using data from firms providing both inventories and imports or importers’ shipments. 

January-September ratios were calculated using annualized import and shipment data.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. IMPORTS FOR DELIVERY AFTER SEPTEMBER 30, 2005

Two importers reported that they had imported or arranged for the importation of BSS from the

subject countries for delivery after September 30, 2005. ***.
 4 Brass Sheet and Strip from Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, and

Sweden, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-269 & 270 (Review) and 731-TA-311-317 and 379-380 (Review), USITC Publication

3290, April 2000, p. IV-3. In the first reviews, the Commission gathered data from ***. Investigation Nos. 701-TA269-270 (Review) and 731-TA-311-317 and 379-80 (Review), Brass Sheet and Strip from Brazil, Canada, France,

Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, and Sweden, staff report, March 8, 2000, INV-X-054, pp. IV-4-IV5. 

 5

 Domestic interested parties’ submission of May 23, 2005, exhibit 3.

 6

 Foreign producers’ questionnaire response of Eluma, pp. 18-19.

 7

 Ibid., p. 5.

 8

 Ibid., p. 6.

IV-8

THE INDUSTRY IN BRAZIL

In the original investigations, four firms were identified as producers of BSS in Brazil: (1) Eluma

International (“Eluma”); (2) Termomecanica Sao Paulo S.A. (“Termomecanica”); (3) Cecil Langone; and

(4) S.A. Marvin. By the time of the first reviews, Cecil Langone had either ceased operations or no

longer produced BSS in Brazil, and S.A. Marvin had been purchased by Eluma in 1996.4

In its response to the Commission’s notice of institution in these reviews, counsel for petitioners

identified two current manufacturers/exporters of BSS in Brazil–Eluma (now Eluma S.A. Industria e

Comercio) and Termomecanica.5

 Questionnaires were successfully faxed to both of them. Eluma

provided a response, while Termomecanica did not. In its response, Eluma noted that there are ***

producers of BSS in Brazil and that demand for BSS in Brazil ***.6

 Eluma did not ***. Eluma noted

that it has ***.7

 Eluma stated that since 1999 it has produced *** on the same equipment and machinery

used in the production of C20000-series BSS.8

 The firm’s total production capacity for all of these

products is presented in table IV-7.

Table IV-7

Eluma’s total production capacity, by production stage, for all products produced on the same

equipment and machinery used in the production of BSS, 1999-2004 

Production stage 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

 Casting (all copper and copper alloy):

 Total production capacity *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hot rolling:

 Total production capacity *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Cold rolling:

 Total production capacity *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Annealing:

 Total production capacity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Subsequent to the receipt of Eluma’s questionnaire, SINDICEL, the Brazilian trade association

that covers brass producers in Brazil, submitted to the Commission aggregate capacity, production, and

shipment data for the entire Brazilian BSS industry. The Brazilian producers represented by SINDICEL 
 9

 SINDICEL’s submission through counsel for Eluma, January 20, 2006.

 10 Hearing transcript (Baialuna), p. 173.

 11 Brass Sheet and Strip from Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, and

Sweden, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-269 & 270 (Review) and 731-TA-311-317 and 379-380 (Review), USITC Publication

3290, April 2000, p. IV-4.

 12 Wolverine Tube, Inc., 1999 Annual Report, pp. 3-4.

 13 Wolverine Tube, Inc., news release, April 10, 2001, “Ratcliffs Severn, Ltd. and Wolverine Ratcliffs, Inc. to

Consolidate Strip Manufacturing Operations.”

 14 Wolverine Tube, Inc., 2003 Annual Report, p. 25.

IV-9

data are Termomecanica, Eluma, Cecil S.A. Laminacao De Metais (“Cecil”), and Industria Brasileira De

Metais S.A. (“IBRAME”).9

 Eluma is the largest Brazilian producer of BSS, Termomecanica is the 

second largest, and Cecil and IBRAME are small producers, representing only an estimated 5 percent of

the Brazilian market for BSS.10 SINDICEL data are shown in table IV-8. 

Table IV-8

BSS: Brazil’s reported production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 1999-2004,

January-September 2004, and January-September 2005

* * * * * * *

Brazilian producers’ reported capacity to produce BSS increased steadily over the period, from

*** million pounds in 1999 to *** million pounds in 2004. Capacity in January-September 2005 was

*** in January-September 2004. Capacity utilization ranged from a low of *** percent in *** to a high

of *** percent in ***. Brazilian production of BSS rose gradually from *** million pounds in 1999 to

*** million pounds in 2004. Production in January-September 2005 declined by *** percent compared

with production in the same period of 2004. Brazilian producers’ reported exports of BSS as a share of

their total shipments declined from *** percent in 1999 to *** percent in January-September 2005. 

Brazilian producers’ reported exports to the United States during the period of review ***. As a share of

total shipments, Brazilian producers’ reported exports to Asia declined from *** percent in 1999 to ***

percent in January-September 2005. 

THE INDUSTRY IN CANADA

At the time of the original investigations, there were three firms producing C20000-series BSS in

Canada: ArrowHead Metals, Ltd., Toronto, Ontario; Noranda Metal Industries, Montreal, Quebec; and

Ratcliffs (Canada) Ltd., Richmond Hill, Ontario. ArrowHead Metals ceased operations in the late 1980s. 

Noranda was acquired in 1988 by Wolverine Tube, Inc., a U.S. company headquartered in Huntsville,

AL. The Canadian facilities became known as Wolverine Tube Canada, Inc., with the primary BSSproducing facility in Fergus, Ontario. In 1991, the antidumping duty order with respect to Ratcliffs was

revoked.11 In 1999, Wolverine Tube Canada, Inc. and Ratcliffs combined their respective copper and

brass strip manufacturing operations into a joint venture named Wolverine Ratcliffs, Inc. (“WRI”).12 In

2001, the brass strip operations in Richmond Hill, Ontario were shut down and all brass strip

manufacturing was consolidated into the Fergus, Ontario plant.13 In 2002, Wolverine Tube, Inc. ceased

all production of brass strip at WRI, liquidated substantially all of its inventory and net receivables, and

began selling off the equipment.14 By the first quarter of 2004, all of the plant’s production equipment
 15 Wolverine Tube, Inc., 2004 Annual Report, p. 42.

 16 ***. Staff telephone conversation with *** January 30, 2006. 

 17 Brass Sheet and Strip from Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, and

Sweden, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-269 & 270 (Review) and 731-TA-311-317 and 379-380 (Review), USITC Publication

3290, April 2000, p. IV-4. In the original investigations, the information about the French brass industry gathered by

the Commission consisted of all brass rolled products, not solely C20000-series BSS. According to these data,

producers in France had a capacity ranging from *** million pounds in 1983 to *** million pounds in 1985,

production ranging from *** million pounds in 1985 to *** million pounds in 1984, and exported approximately ***

percent to *** percent of their production to the United States from 1983 to 1985. Investigation Nos. 701-TA-270

(Final) and 731-TA-313, 314, 316, and 317 (Final), Certain Brass Sheet and Strip from France, Italy, Sweden, and

West Germany, final staff report, February 2, 1987, INV-K-009, pp. A-59-A-60. 

 18 Domestic interested parties’ submission of May 23, 2005, exhibit 3.

 19 These producers are: (1) CLAL-MSX SA; (2) Gindre Duchavany; (3) Gravograph Industrie Int’l.; (4) Griset

SA; and (5) Trefimetaux SA. Staff was not able to contact Usines de Navarre. 

 20 UN Comtrade HTS subheadings 7409.21.00 and 7409.29.00. These subheadings include some brass rolled

products other than C20000-series BSS, and therefore the export data for France may include some brass products

outside the scope of these reviews. 

IV-10

had been sold.15 To staff’s knowledge, there are currently no other producers of BSS in Canada.16 

THE INDUSTRY IN FRANCE

In the original investigations, the Commission identified six producers in France of various types

of brass rolled products: (1) Trefimetaux; (2) Griset S.A.; (3) Comptoir Lyon Allemand Louyot;

(4) Metayer-Noel; (5) Laminoirs du Dauphins; and (6) Usines de Navarre S.A. By the time of the first 

reviews, only the first two producers still produced brass rolled products in France. In 1995, Trefimetaux

combined with the Italian producer La Metalli and the German producer Kabelmetall AG to form KM

Europa, with a combined sheet and strip productive capacity of approximately 600 million pounds

annually.17 

In its response to the Commission’s notice of institution in these reviews, counsel for petitioners

identified six current manufacturers/exporters of BSS in France.18 Questionnaires were successfully faxed

to five of these producers.19 Gindre Duchavany and Gravograph Industrie Int’l. both reported that they

***. No responses were received from the other French firms. Table IV-9 provides data obtained from

the United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics Database (“UN Comtrade”) for exports of brass rolled

products from France to the United States and to all other countries.20 Total exports of brass rolled

products from France increased by 70.1 percent between 1999 and 2004, from 33.7 million pounds to

57.3 million pounds. French exports of brass rolled products to the United States as a share of total

French exports over the period were less than 1 percent. 
 21 These seven firms reported capacity to produce BSS ranging from 543.9 million pounds in 1983 to 564.5

million pounds in 1984, production ranging from 533.2 million pounds in 1983 to 572.8 million pounds in 1984, and

exported 8 percent to 12 percent of their production to the United States from 1983 to 1985. Certain Brass Sheet

and Strip from France, Italy, Sweden, and West Germany, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-270 (Final) and 731-TA-313, 314, 316,

and 317 (Final), USITC Publication 1951, February 1987, pp. A-44-A-47. 

 22 In the first reviews, only *** German producer provided data on its BSS operations. Investigations Nos. 701-

TA-269-270 (Review) and 731-TA-311-317 and 379-80 (Review), Brass Sheet and Strip from Brazil, Canada,

France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, and Sweden, staff report, March 8, 2000, INV-X-054, pp.

IV-7-IV-9. 

 23 Domestic interested parties’ submission of May 23, 2005, exhibit 3.

 24 These producers are: (1) Carl Schreiber GmbH; (2) Deutsche Nickel; (3) Fricke GmbH; (4) Gebr. Kemper

GmbH & Co. KG; (5) KM Europa Metal AG; (6) Messingwerk Plettenberg Herfeld GmbH & Co. KG; (7) MKM

Mansfelder Kupfer und Messing GmbH; (8) Prymetall GmbH & Co. KG; (9) Schlenk Metallfolien GmbH & Co.

KG; (10) Schwermetall; (11) Sundwiger Messingwerk GmbH & Co.; and (12) Wieland. 

 25 Officials of Carl Schreiber GmbH and KM Europa Metal AG (including its subsidiary, Fricke GmbH) state that

their firms do not produce BSS in Germany. Deutsche Nickel went bankrupt on June 1, 2005. MKM Mansfelder

Kupfer und Messing GmbH is a small reroller of BSS, purchasing its brass for rerolling from Schwermetall. 

Messingwerk Plettenberg Herfeld GmbH & Co. KG indicates that its annual capacity to produce BSS is 20 to 25

(continued...)

IV-11

Table IV-9

Brass rolled products: France’s exports, 1999-2004

Item 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Exports to:

 United States 1 37 1 82 9 1

 All other countries 33,652 35,852 24,291 35,932 48,131 57,255

 Total exports 33,653 35,889 24,292 36,014 48,140 57,256

Source: Compiled from United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics database.

THE INDUSTRY IN GERMANY

In the original investigations, seven firms were identified as producers of BSS in Germany: 

(1) Langenberg Kupfer-und Messingwerke GmbH KG (“Langenberg”); (2) Metallwerke Schwarzwald

GmbH (“Metallwerke”); (3) R and G Schmole Metallwerke GmbH and Co. KG; (4) Schwermetall

Halbzeugwerk GmbH and Co. KG (“Schwermetall”); (5) Stolberger Metallwerke GmbH and Co. KG;

(6) Wieland; and (7) William Prym-Werke GmbH & Co. KG.21 By the time of the first reviews,

Langenberg and Metallwerke had become part of Wieland, and several other German firms had entered

the BSS business.22

In its response to the Commission’s notice of institution in these reviews, counsel for petitioners

identified 12 current manufacturers/exporters of BSS in Germany.23 Questionnaires were successfully

faxed to all of them.24 Schwermetall, Wieland, and Prymetall GmbH & Co. KG (“Prymetall”) provided

responses, and indicated that they accounted for ***, ***, and *** percent, respectively, of total

production of BSS in Germany in 2004. Gebr. Kemper GmbH & Co. KG, Schlenk Metallfolien GmbH &

Co. KG, and Sundwiger Messingwerk GmbH & Co. reported that they ***. In place of a questionnaire

response, Messingwerk Plettenberg Herfeld GmbH & Co. KG ***. No responses were received from the

remaining German producers.25 
 25 (...continued)

million pounds. German respondents’ posthearing brief, pp. A-31-A-33 and exhibits 2, 3, 4, and 5. Domestic

producers state that MKM Mansfelder’s website indicates that its product range includes brass; that Messingwerk

Plettenberg has a flat-rolled capacity of *** million pounds; that Carl Schreiber ***; and that KM Europa’s website

indicates that it produces BSS in its rolled products division in Germany. Domestic producers’ posthearing brief, pp.

9-10.

 26 Foreign producers’ questionnaire response of Wieland, p. 24.

 27 Foreign producers’ questionnaire response of Schwermetall, p. 3.

 28 Ibid., p. 18.

 29 Foreign producers’ questionnaire responses of Wieland, Schwermetall, and Prymetall, p. 5.

 30 Prymetall noted that it is ***. Foreign producers’ questionnaire response of Prymetall, p. 5. Prymetall’s data,

therefore, ***. Prymetall’s ***. Prymetall reported ***. 

 31 Foreign producers’ questionnaire responses of Wieland, p. 8, and Schwermetall and Prymetall, p. 6.

IV-12

In its response, Wieland noted that there are *** producers of BSS in Germany and that the ***

producers other than Wieland, Schwermetall, and Prymetall account for an estimated *** percent of the

German market for BSS.26 Schwermetall indicated in its response that it is a ***.27 Schwermetall also

noted that demand for BSS in Germany and Europe ***.28 Wieland, Schwermetall, and Prymetall each

responded that they had ***.29 Data provided by Wieland and Schwermetall are shown in table IV-10.30 

Table IV-10

BSS: Germany’s reported production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 1999-2004,

January-September 2004, and January-September 2005

* * * * * * *

German producers’ reported capacity to produce BSS decreased irregularly over the period, from

*** million pounds in 1999 to *** million pounds in 2004. Capacity in January-September 2005

declined by *** percent from capacity in January-September 2004. Capacity utilization ranged from a

low of *** percent in 2003 to a high of *** percent in 2000. German production of BSS declined

irregularly from *** million pounds in 1999 to *** million pounds in 2004. Production in JanuarySeptember 2005 declined by *** percent compared with production in the same period of 2004. German

producers’ reported exports of BSS as a share of total shipments ranged from *** percent in 2003 to

*** percent in January-September 2005. German producers’ reported exports of BSS to the United States

during the period of review ***. As a share of total shipments, German producers’ reported exports to

Asia ranged from *** percent in 2001 to *** percent in January-September 2005.

Wieland stated that since 1999 it has produced *** on the same equipment and machinery used in

the production of C20000-series BSS; Schwermetall noted that since 1999 it has produced *** on the

same equipment and machinery used in the production of C20000-series BSS; Prymetall indicated that

since 1999 it has *** on the same equipment and machinery used in the production of C20000-series

BSS.31 The total production capacity for all of these products reported by Wieland and Schwermetall is

presented in table IV-11. 
 32 Investigations Nos. 701-TA-269-270 (Review) and 731-TA-311-317 and 379-80 (Review), Brass Sheet and

Strip from Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, and Sweden, staff report, March

8, 2000, INV-X-054, pp. IV-8-IV-9. According to data gathered by the Commission in the original investigations,

producers of C20000-series BSS in Italy had a capacity ranging from *** million pounds in 1983 to *** million

pounds in 1985, production ranging from *** million pounds in 1983 to *** million pounds in 1985, and exported at

least *** percent to *** percent of their production to the United States from 1983 to 1985. Investigations Nos. 701-

TA-270 (Final) and 731-TA-313, 314, 316, and 317 (Final), Certain Brass Sheet and Strip from France, Italy,

Sweden, and West Germany, final staff report, February 2, 1987, INV-K-009, pp. A-60-A-62. 

 33 Domestic interested parties’ submission of May 23, 2005, exhibit 3.

 34 These producers are: (1) Dalmet SpA; (2) S.A. Eredi Gnutti Metalli SpA; (3) Europa Metalli SpA (formerly La

Metalli Industriale SpA; (4) Ilnor SpA; (5) Metallurgica Cidneo San Marco; and (6) Trafilerie Carlo Gnutti SpA. 

Staff was not able to contact AML and Trafilerie di Lainate SpA/LMM. 

 35 UN Comtrade HTS subheadings 7409.21.00 and 7409.29.00. These subheadings include some brass rolled

products other than C20000-series BSS, and therefore the export data for Italy may include some brass products

outside the scope of these reviews. 

IV-13

Table IV-11

German producers’ total production capacity, by production stage, for all products produced on

the same equipment and machinery used in the production of BSS, 1999-2004 

Production stage 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

 Casting:1

 Total production capacity *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hot rolling:

 Total production capacity *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Cold rolling:

 Total production capacity *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Annealing:

 Total production capacity *** *** *** *** *** ***

 1 Casting of all copper and copper alloy.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

THE INDUSTRY IN ITALY

By the time of the first reviews, there were five producers of brass rolled products in Italy: (1)

Europa Metalli/LMI-La Metalli Industriale, SpA (“La Metalli”); (2) Dalmet SpA; (3) Metallurgica San

Marco SpA (“San Marco”); (4) SA Eredi Gnutti Metalli SpA; and (5) Trafilerie Carlo Gnutti SpA. All of

these firms, except for San Marco, had produced some form of brass rolled products during the original

investigations. ***.32

In its response to the Commission’s notice of institution in these reviews, counsel for petitioners

identified eight current manufacturers/exporters of BSS in Italy.33 Questionnaires were successfully faxed

to six of these producers.34 Trafilerie Carlo Gnutti SpA reported that it has ***. No responses were

received from the other Italian firms. Table IV-12 provides data obtained from UN Comtrade for exports

of brass rolled products from Italy to the United States and to all other countries.35 Total exports of brass 
 36 Brass Sheet and Strip from Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, and

Sweden, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-269 & 270 (Review) and 731-TA-311-317 and 379-380 (Review), USITC Publication

3290, April 2000, p. IV-6. In the first reviews, the Commission gathered data from five of the six Japanese

producers on their BSS operations. These firms had a capacity of 211.4 million pounds in 1997 and 189.4 million

pounds in 1998, production of 193.3 million pounds in 1997 and 165.2 million pounds in 1998, and exported ***

percent of their production to the United States in 1997 and 1998. Investigations Nos. 701-TA-269-270 (Review)

and 731-TA-311-317 and 379-80 (Review), Brass Sheet and Strip from Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Italy,

Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, and Sweden, staff report, March 8, 2000, INV-X-054, pp. IV-10-IV-11. 

 37 Domestic interested parties’ submission of May 23, 2005, exhibit 3.

 38 These producers are: (1) Fujisawa Co., Ltd; (2) Harada Metal Industry; (3) Hitachi-Alloy; (4) Hitachi Cable

Ltd.; (5) Kobe Steel, Ltd.; (6) Mitsui Mining & Smelting Co., Ltd. (Mitsui Kinzoku); (7) NGK Insulators (NGK

Metals); (8) Nippon Mining & Metals Co., Ltd.; (9) Ohki Brass & Copper Co., Ltd.; (10) Sambo Copper; (11)

Sumitomo Metal Mining Brass & Copper Co., Ltd.; and (12) YKK Corporation. 

 39 World Trade Atlas HTS subheadings 7409.21.00 and 7409.29.00. These subheadings include some brass

rolled products other than C20000-series BSS, and therefore the export data for Japan may include some brass

products outside the scope of these reviews. 

IV-14

rolled products from Italy more than doubled between 1999 and 2004, from 42.5 million pounds to 97.6

million pounds. Italian exports of brass rolled products to the United States as a share of total Italian

exports over the period were less than 2 percent. 

Table IV-12

Brass rolled products: Italy’s exports, 1999-2004

Item 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Exports to:

 United States 481 392 377 1,012 377 373

 All other countries 42,004 51,354 49,376 89,348 96,639 97,187

 Total exports 42,485 51,746 49,753 90,360 97,016 97,560

Source: Compiled from United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics database.

THE INDUSTRY IN JAPAN

In the original investigations, questionnaire respondents reported that there were eight producers

of brass rolled products in Japan: (1) Sambo Copper; (2) Nippon Mining & Metals Co., Ltd.; (3)

Mitsubishi Shindoh Co., Ltd.; (4) Mitsui Mining & Smelting Co., Ltd.; (5) Kobe Steel, Ltd.;

(6) Furukawa Electric Co.; (7) Dowa Mining; and (8) Fuji Brass & Copper. By the time of the first

reviews, all of these firms, except for Dowa Mining and Fuji Brass & Copper, continued to produce brass

rolled products in Japan.36

In its response to the Commission’s notice of institution in these reviews, counsel for petitioners

identified 20 current manufacturers/exporters of BSS in Japan.37 Questionnaires were successfully faxed

to 12 of these producers.38 Sambo Copper provided a partial response. No responses were received from

the other Japanese producers. Table IV-13 provides data obtained from World Trade Atlas for exports of

brass rolled products from Japan to the United States and to all other countries.39 Total exports of brass 
 40 German respondents’ posthearing brief, pp. A-26-A-27 and exhibit 1.

 41 Various reporting agencies that report on copper and copper alloys, e.g., the Copper Development Association

and the International Copper Study Group.

 42 Domestic interested parties’ submission of May 23, 2005, p. 16.

 43 German interested parties’ submission of May 23, 2005, p. 9, and various industry sources that report on

industrial news, e.g., American Metal Market, Metal Bulletin, and Platts Metals Week, among others.

 44 ***.

 45 German interested parties’ submission of May 23, 2005, p. 9.

IV-15

rolled products from Japan decreased by 36.3 percent between 1999 and 2004, from 63.2 million pounds

to 40.3 million pounds. Japanese exports of brass rolled products to the United States as a share of total

Japanese exports ranged from 7.6 percent in 1999 to 13.0 percent in 2001.

Table IV-13

Brass rolled products: Japan’s exports, 1999-2004

Item 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Exports to:

 United States 4,828 5,009 4,641 4,136 3,622 3,748

 All other countries 58,360 44,076 31,074 35,611 35,856 36,534

 Total exports 63,188 49,085 35,715 39,747 39,478 40,282

Source: Compiled from World Trade Atlas data.

Information on Japanese production of BSS in 2004 and 2005, by individual Japanese firms, was

provided in the posthearing brief of the German respondents.40 The Japan Copper and Brass Association

was cited as the source of the data. To staff’s knowledge, these data are not publicly available from the

Japan Copper and Brass Association. Accordingly, staff sent an e-mail to the association on February 7,

2006, asking for data on Japanese capacity, production, home-market shipments, inventories, and exports

to the United States and elsewhere of C20000-series BSS for each of the calendar years 1999 through

2004, and January-September of 2004 and of 2005. Staff did not receive a response from the Japan

Copper and Brass Association. 

THE WORLD MARKET

World production of BSS is dominated by the mature manufacturing industries in the United

States, the European Union (“EU”), and Japan. Likewise, these mature economies have historically

dominated world consumption.41 However, U.S. and EU consumption declined during the global

economic downturn of 2001-03, and U.S. and EU consumption have yet to return to 2000 levels.42

Further, many BSS-consuming manufacturing companies have transferred operations to China and other

Asian locations;43 thus, many regional customers no longer exist for U.S. and EU BSS producers.44 The

present worldwide consumption growth is led almost exclusively by China and Taiwan,45 largely by their

imports from the EU and Japan.
 46 Three in the United States–OAB (Kenosha, WI, 1999), Hussey Copper Ltd. (Leetsdale, PA, 1999), and Olin

(Indianapolis, IN, 2003)–and one in Canada (Wolverine Ratcliffs, Fergus, ON, 2002). Various industry sources that

report on industrial news, e.g., American Metal Market, Metal Bulletin, and Platts Metals Week; press releases; and

company reports. 

 47 Ibid., and domestic interested parties’ submission of May 23, 2005, pp. 16-18.

 48 Various industry sources that report on industrial news, e.g., American Metal Market, Metal Bulletin, and Platts

Metals Week; and ***.

 49 Ibid.

 50 Domestic interested parties’ submission of May 23, 2005, p. 18.

 51 Various industry sources that report on industrial news, e.g., American Metal Market, Metal Bulletin, and Platts

Metals Week; and ***.

IV-16

Only four plants, all in North America, have closed since 1998, which corresponds to the decline

in consumption of BSS.46 Conversely, several EU facilities increased capacity during the period and

indigenous Chinese production is reportedly being developed.47 As a result, the world currently has

excess installed production capacity.48 Thus, many producers are operating at less than full capacity or

have switched to other products.49 Faced with global overcapacity,50 which leaves producers in high-cost

economies at risk, much of the mature industry has focused on processing technology upgrades to remain

cost-competitive, and on mergers and acquisitions to streamline operations.51

COUNTERVAILING DUTY ORDERS AND ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDERS

ON BSS IN OTHER COUNTRIES

No countervailing duty orders and/or antidumping duty orders on BSS in countries other than the

United States have been reported.
 1

 For brass, the copper content ranges between 58 and 95 percent. Small additions (less than 5 percent) of

alloying elements other than zinc can be made to some brasses to modify their properties.

 2

 The scrap values displayed in figure V-1 represent both copper and zinc scrap prices. The copper scrap price is

for the “brass mill no. 1” type of copper scrap and the zinc scrap price is for the “smelters new zinc clippings” type

of zinc scrap (both from the American Metal Market). These prices only represent one possible scrap price and are

not indicative of global prices, as there are prices for many different types of scrap and, due to transportation costs,

these prices vary by country and by region within country.

 3

 *** reported that futures prices are now lower than spot prices, so the market is near its peak.

 4

 Copper is traded on three commodity exchanges: The London Metal Exchange (LME), the Commodities

Exchange Division of the New York Mercantile Exchange (COMEX), and the Shanghai Metal Exchange (SHME). 

On the LME, copper is traded in lots of 25 metric tons and quoted in U.S. dollars per metric ton. On COMEX,

copper is traded in lots of 25,000 pounds and quoted in U.S. cents per pound. On the SHME, copper is traded in lots

of 5 metric tons and is quoted in renminbi per metric ton. Although the COMEX price is displayed in figure V-1, the

LME copper prices are similar and follow the same trend.

 5

 *** reported that they pass along all of the raw material cost increases to their customers, but *** reported that

customers have tried to offset the increased cost of raw materials with a decrease in the fabrication prices charged by

producers, so raw material price increases have been difficult to pass along to customers. Other domestic producers

reported that there is not a 100 percent pass-through rate for raw material, energy, and other price increases, and that

the fabrication price may be reduced as a result of other price increases. Hearing transcript (Bartel), p. 29 and

(Hartquist, Bartel, Rupp, and Burkhardt), pp. 142-144.

 6

 ***.

V-1

PART V: PRICING AND RELATED INFORMATION

FACTORS AFFECTING PRICES

Raw Materials

Raw material costs are an important component of the total cost of producing BSS. As brass is an

alloy of copper and zinc,1

 these metals, as well as scrap metal,2 comprise most of the raw material cost. 

Public data show that prices of copper and copper scrap rose substantially beginning in late 2003 and had

almost tripled in value between 1999 and late 2005 (figure V-1).3

 During that period, the price of zinc

increased as well, with zinc prices approximately 60 percent higher in late 2005 than in 1999.

All producers and importers reported that their metal prices tracked copper and zinc prices,

generally from the COMEX division of the New York Mercantile Exchange or the London Metal

Exchange (LME).4

 As purchasers usually pay separate metal and fabrication prices, raw material prices

should only have an impact on the metal price.5

 In fact, tolling – when the purchaser provides the metal

to the producer for fabrication – has become less popular in the industry in recent years because the price

of copper increased dramatically beginning in late 2003.6
 7

 Metal, fuel, and energy surcharges are being used in the industry, but these surcharges generally recover only a

portion of the total cost for the mills. *** and hearing transcript (Bartel), p. 66.

V-2

Figure V-1

Raw material costs: Prices of copper, zinc, and scrap by months, January 1999-January 2006

Source: COMEX, http://www.nymex.com; LME, http://www.lme.co.uk; and American Metal Market,

http://www.amm.com; November 29, 2005.

Energy costs7 are another important factor in the production of BSS. Both natural gas prices and

electricity prices were higher in 2005 than in any of the full years between 1999 and 2004, as shown in

the following tabulation:

Item 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 20051

U.S. natural gas

industrial price2 $3.12 $4.45 $5.24 $4.02 $5.81 $6.41 $8.00

Electricity industrial

price3 4.43 4.64 5.04 4.88 5.13 5.11 5.50

 1 Monthly average for January through October.

 2

 In dollars per thousand cubic feet.

 3

 In cents per kilowatt-hour.

Sources: U.S. Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.doe.gov, February 1, 2006.

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

COMEX copper LME zinc Copper scrap Zinc scrap

cents per pound
 8

 OAB reported that there is a base stock of raw material that is not hedged because it is considered working

inventory. Beyond that, every transaction that is made with a customer is hedged. Hearing transcript (Bartel), p.

106.

 9

 ***.

 10 German producers reported that German inland freight is a significant component of the total freight cost. 

German respondents’ posthearing brief, pp. A-12 and A-13, and ex. 14.

 11 These estimates are based on a weighted average of HTS statistical reporting numbers 7409.21.0050,

7409.21.0075, 7409.21.0090, 7409.29.0050, 7409.29.0075, and 7409.29.0090.

 12 A weighted average for the years 1999 through 2004 was used for Brazil because of a lack of data.

V-3

Producers and importers were asked to what extent changes in the prices of raw materials affected

the selling price of BSS since 1999. All eight responding producers reported that raw material prices,

including the prices of copper, zinc, scrap, and energy-related products, increased substantially since

1999. *** reported that the availability of both cathode and scrap copper has declined, and that China

also has been a factor in the raw material price increases. *** reported using hedging mechanisms for

raw material prices,8

 but *** reported that it does not try to hedge metal values.9 Importers also reported

that rising raw material costs have affected selling prices. In addition, *** reported that it has bought less

product for inventories due to increased raw material costs.

Transportation Costs to the United States

Transportation costs for shipping BSS to the United States (excluding U.S. inland costs)10 from

the six subject countries are estimated for 2004 in the tabulation that follows. These estimates are derived

from official import data for the HTS numbers for the subject product in 2004 and represent the

transportation and other charges on imports valued on a c.i.f. basis, as compared with a customs value

basis.11

Country

Estimated shipping cost 

in 200412

(in percent)

Brazil 2.92

Canada 2.21

France 5.46

Germany 3.95

Italy 3.34

Japan 4.11

U.S. Inland Transportation Costs

U.S. inland transportation costs for delivery of BSS varied between producers and importers. 

Producers estimated that U.S. inland transportation costs ranged from 3 to 10 percent of their costs of

BSS, but all seven responding importers reported that U.S. inland transportation costs generally were

between 1 and 2 percent of their costs of BSS.
 13 OAB reported that fabrication prices for BSS in the United States and Europe are comparable. However,

because of the current dollar-euro exchange rate, fabrication prices in Europe are currently relatively higher than

fabrication prices in the United States. Hearing transcript (Bartel), pp. 135-136.

V-4

Seven of the eight responding producers reported that they arranged delivery, and all seven

reported shipping the vast majority of their BSS between 101 and 1,000 miles. Among importers, all six

responding firms reported that they arranged delivery. While two of the five responding importers

shipped 100 percent of their BSS less than 100 miles, two importers shipped 100 percent of their BSS

over 1,000 miles. The other responding importer reported shipping 80 percent of its BSS less than 1,000

miles.

Exchange Rates

Quarterly data reported by the International Monetary Fund indicate that, while the nominal value

of the Brazilian real depreciated relative to the U.S. dollar, the real value appreciated during the period of

review (figure V-2). Both the nominal and real values of the Canadian dollar remained relatively constant

until appreciating relative to the U.S. dollar beginning in 2003. The real and nominal values of the euro

(France, Germany, and Italy) first depreciated and then appreciated relative to the U.S. dollar before

depreciating again in 2005.13 The nominal value of the Japanese yen fluctuated during the period, but the

real value depreciated relative to the U.S. dollar.
V-5

Figure V-2

Exchange rates: Indices of the nominal and real exchange rates of the Brazilian, Canadian,

French, German, Italian, and Japanese currencies relative to the U.S. dollar, by quarters, January

1999-December 2005

Figure continued on next page.

Brazil

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1999 2002 2005

(January-March 1999=100)

Nominal Real

Canada

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1999 2002 2005

(January-March 1999=100)

Nominal Real
V-6

Figure V-2--Continued

Exchange rates: Indices of the nominal and real exchange rates of the Brazilian, Canadian,

French, German, Italian, and Japanese currencies relative to the U.S. dollar, by quarters, January

1999-December 2005

Figure continued on next page.

France

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1999 2002 2005

(January-March 1999=100)

Nominal Real

Germany

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1999 2002 2005

(January-March 1999=100)

Nominal Real
V-7

Figure V-2--Continued

Exchange rates: Indices of the nominal and real exchange rates of the Brazilian, Canadian,

French, German, Italian, and Japanese currencies relative to the U.S. dollar, by quarters, January

1999-December 2005

Source: International Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics, retrieved from http://ifs.apdi.net/imf/about.asp

on February 1, 2006.

Italy

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1999 2002 2005

(January-March 1999=100)

Nominal Real

Japan

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1999 2002 2005

(January-March 1999=100)

Nominal Real
 14 The fabrication price includes the cost of labor, research, marketing, energy, transportation, tools and supplies,

and other costs. Domestic producers added energy and transportation surcharges to recoup costs from the increases

in the costs of these inputs. Hearing transcript (Bartel), p. 69.

 15 Customers have the option of taking the metal price on the day of the order or the day of delivery. Hearing

transcript (Bartel), p. 66.

 16 OAB reported that increased copper costs are generally passed through to customers, but over the long run, the

industry risks losing customers due to substitution of other products for BSS. Hearing transcript (Bartel), p. 29. 

Domestic producers also reported that refiners and smelters add a premium to the daily commodity price, which BSS

producers adjust upward and pass on to their customers. Hearing transcript (Bartel), p. 64.

 17 Fabrication prices vary based on the quantity ordered and the end product for which the BSS will be used. 

Hearing transcript (Rupp), p. 148.

 18 As metal prices are directly from the COMEX market, set prices typically refer to fabrication prices.

 19 Hearing transcript (Bartel), pp. 68-69.

 20 *** reported contacting two or three suppliers for spot sales and three to six suppliers for contract sales. ***

reported contacting no suppliers because they use set price lists from a single supplier.

V-8

PRICING PRACTICES

Pricing Methods

Producers typically use a two-stage pricing method. Producers and importers reported that

fabrication prices14 are generally set during annual negotiations or on a transaction-by-transaction basis,

and that metal prices fluctuate daily with movements in the COMEX price.15 Many producers and

importers described the metal price as a “pass through” to the customers,16 and fabrication prices are

generally where there is competition between producers.17

Producers generally reported determining prices18 using contracts or purchasing agreements,

although *** reported that contracts are rarely binding due to price sensitivity, and that customers can

easily switch suppliers. Domestic producers reported that every charge that is above the published

commodity price – including metal premiums, the fabrication price, and any surcharges – is negotiable.19

Most producers also reported some spot sales done on a transaction-by-transaction basis and based on

market conditions and raw material costs. Importers generally reported determining prices on a

transaction-by-transaction basis based on market conditions, but *** reported using long-term contracts,

and *** reported using set price lists from the mills.

Most purchasers reported contacting between one and three suppliers before making a purchase.20

 Twenty-five of the 29 responding purchasers reported that purchases of BSS usually involve negotiations

between supplier and purchaser, with six reporting annual reviews and three reporting a review every two

or three years. Some purchasers explained that metal prices are generally market driven, but availability,

quality, delivery, and compliance with specifications are part of the negotiations for determining

fabrication prices. *** reported that purchasers outline the competitive environment in the negotiating

process, and *** reported that service and quality determine its supplier, not just who will quote the

lowest price. Ten purchasers reported varying their purchases from a given supplier within a specified

time period based on the price offered for that period, with five specifying annually, one specifying

monthly, and two reporting varying amounts on spot purchases. Two purchasers did not specify a time

period.
 21 *** reported that Olin publishes the producers’ index on a daily basis.

 22 *** reported short-term contracts of three months.

V-9

Olin, OAB, and PMX were named most frequently – although Scott Brass and Revere also were

named frequently – by several purchasers as price leaders in the BSS market since 1999, with many citing

their published fabrication price changes, competitive pricing, and reaction to market changes.21

Sales Terms and Discounts

Five producers and three importers reported that they normally quote on a delivered basis, one

producer reported quoting f.o.b. prices, two producers reported doing both, and the other five importers

did not respond to the question. Producers’ sales terms are generally 0.5/10 net 30 days or net 30 days,

and importers are generally net 30 days. Two of the eight producers reported that at least half of their

sales were on a long-term contract basis, three reported that at least 60 percent of sales were on a shortterm contract basis, and three reported that at least half of sales were on a spot basis. Among importers,

three of the six responding firms reported that 100 percent of sales were on a spot basis, while ***

reported that the vast majority of sales were on a long-term contract basis. *** reported sales on a shortterm contract basis, but did not specify the percent of total sales.

Producers generally reported that long-term contracts are from one to three years, with

renegotiations possible and including meet-or-release provisions. Three producers reported that both

price and quantity were fixed, two reported that price was fixed, and one reported that nothing was fixed. 

Short-term contracts are generally one year in length,22 with price fixed, renegotiations possible, and

including meet-or-release provisions. *** reported that long-term contracts are usually one year in

duration, with both price and quantity fixed, no renegotiations, and no meet-or-release provisions, while

*** reported that long-term contracts are usually 9 to 12 months in duration, with both price and quantity

fixed, renegotiations possible, and including meet-or-release provisions. *** reported that short-term

contracts are three to four months in duration with no meet-or-release provisions.

Six producers reported having a discount policy, with three reporting volume discounts, two

reporting that discounts depended on the customer or market conditions, and one reporting that all sales

are subject to negotiation. Six importers reported that they did not have a discount policy. *** also

reported no specific discount policy but one customer did benefit from volume discounts.

PRICE DATA

The Commission requested U.S. producers and importers of BSS to provide quarterly data for the

total quantity and f.o.b. value of BSS that was shipped to unrelated customers in the U.S. market. Data

were requested for the period January 1999 to September 2005. The products for which pricing data were

requested are as follows:

Product 1.–Builders’ hardware, CDA end-use classification 110, CDA alloy 260, 0.012-inch

to 0.024-inch thick by 2 inches to 12 inches in width

Product 2.–Distributors, CDA end-use classification 920, CDA alloy 260, 0.020-inch to 0.025-

inch thick by maximum yield width

Product 3.–Reroll, CDA end-use classification 910, alloy 260, 0.050-inch to 0.080-inch thick

by maximum yield width
 23 The fabrication prices for product 5 increased beginning in the second quarter of 2004, but this is due to limited

data reported, in particular very small quantities of the product that were reported by ***.

 24 Of the 12 responding importers, 3 reported importing BSS from one of the subject countries during the period

of review, and the other 9 reported importing BSS from nonsubject countries. *** submitted pricing data for its

imports from Japan. *** reported imports from Japan during the period of review, but the imports were not of the

six specified pricing products. *** submitted pricing data for imports from Italy, but did not specify the associated

product number. After a telephone call to clarify, it was determined that the reported data were for a product that

was not among the Commission’s six specified pricing products. ***.

 25 U.S. producers reported that fabrication prices in the United States are higher than fabrication prices in Brazil,

China, and Germany. Domestic producers’ posthearing brief, ex. 1, pp. 24-28 and ex. 11 and 12. OAB reported that

fabrication prices for BSS in the United States and Europe are comparable. However, OAB and German producers

reported that because of the current euro-dollar exchange rate and other factors, fabrication prices in Europe are

currently relatively higher than fabrication prices in the United States. Hearing transcript (Bartel), pp. 135-136 and

German respondents’ posthearing brief, p. 10.

 26 German producer Wieland AG reported that prices for the subject product were lower in the United States than

they were in Germany or other European countries. Hearing transcript (Traa), pp. 157-158 and German respondents’

posthearing brief, p. A-39 and ex. 7. Brazilian producer Eluma reported that average unit prices in the United States

(continued...)

V-10

Product 4.–Wiring devices, lamp shells, and sockets, CDA end-use classification 440, CDA 

alloy 260, 0.011-inch to 0.020-inch thick by 2 inches to 12 inches in width

Product 5.–Automotive electrical, CDA end-use classification 320, CDA alloy 230 and/or 

alloy 260, 0.0098-inch to 0.020-inch thick by 0.5 inch to 2 inches in width, not tin-coated

Product 6.–Closures, CDA end-use classification 620, CDA alloy 260, 0.010-inch to 0.016-

inch thick by 1 inch to 4 inches in width

Seven U.S. producers and one importer provided usable pricing data for sales of the requested

products, although not all firms reported pricing for all products for all quarters. Pricing data reported by

these firms, shown in tables V-1 to V-6 and figures V-3 to V-9, accounted for *** percent of U.S.

producers’ U.S. shipments of BSS and *** percent of U.S. imports from Japan in 2004.

Price Trends

U.S. metal prices of BSS for the specified products showed some variation but relatively little

change overall from 1999 through 2003. Dramatic metal price increases for all six products began in the

first quarter 2004, with continued increases in 2005. Although limited, prices of imports of product 3

from Japan followed the general U.S. price trend, with metal price increases beginning in 2004. U.S. and

Japanese fabrication prices showed some variation but were relatively constant throughout the 1999 to

2005 period.23 Importers responding to Commission questionnaires did not report price data for imports

of BSS from Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, or Italy.24

Producers25 and importers were asked to compare market prices of BSS in the U.S. and non-U.S.

markets. *** reported that lower demand in the U.S. market, overcapacity, and exchange rate movements

have lead to lower prices in the United States than in other markets, and *** reported that metal prices are

the same in different markets but that the fabrication prices in the United States are between 15 and 20

percent higher than in other markets. Among importers, *** reported that U.S. prices are competitive and

that very few foreign producers can compete in the U.S. market, and *** reported that U.S. prices are

higher than prices in Brazil and Mexico.26
 26 (...continued)

were lower than average unit prices of its exports. Respondent Eluma’s posthearing brief, p. 12.

 27 The margin calculations in table V-3 use the fabrication price data for nontolled sales that were submitted by

U.S. producers; however, the fabrication price for tolled sales of product 3 ***. Fabrication prices *** for tolled vs.

nontolled sales of products 2, 4, 5, and 6 (tables V-2 and V-4 through V-6).

V-11

Purchasers were asked if there had been a change in the price of BSS since 1999 and, if so, how

the price of domestic BSS changed relative to the price of BSS produced in the various subject countries. 

Six purchasers reported that prices have changed by the same amount, and three purchasers reported that

there has been no change in price. The responses of the other six purchasers regarding how U.S. prices

changed relative to the various subject countries are reported in the following tabulation:

Country

Price of U.S. product is

now relatively higher

than price of subjectcountry product

Price of U.S. product is

now relatively lower

than price of subjectcountry product

Brazil 2 0

Canada 1 1

France 0 1

Germany 3 1

Italy 0 0

Japan 0 1

Most of the responding purchasers reported that the metal price of BSS changes daily and that the

fabrication price generally changes annually. However, *** reported that prices change every three years

per their contracts, *** reported that prices change infrequently due to a multi-year contract, *** reported

that prices change quarterly, and *** reported that prices change monthly.

Price Comparisons

Japan

On product 3, imports from Japan were more expensive than the U.S. product (table V-3). Metal

prices were similar in most quarters, but fabrication prices27 were *** higher for imports from Japan than

for the U.S. product. 
V-12

Table V-1

BSS: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices1

 and quantities as reported by U.S. producers of

product 1, by quarters, January 1999-September 2005

Period

U.S. producers’ nontolled sales

Quantity Fabrication price Metal price Total price

1,000 pounds Per pound Per pound Per pound

1999:

 Jan.-Mar. 343 $0.49 $0.65 $1.15

 Apr.-June 449 0.50 0.63 1.13

 July-Sept. 210 0.68 0.60 1.28

 Oct.-Dec. 248 0.52 0.74 1.26

2000:

 Jan.-Mar. 525 0.58 0.91 1.50

 Apr.-June 322 0.62 0.91 1.54

 July-Sept. 531 0.60 0.93 1.53

 Oct.-Dec. 506 0.57 0.95 1.52

2001:

 Jan.-Mar. 464 0.57 0.91 1.48

 Apr.-June 398 0.56 0.93 1.49

 July-Sept. 359 0.55 0.86 1.42

 Oct.-Dec. 334 0.57 0.81 1.38

2002:

 Jan.-Mar. 461 0.56 0.85 1.42

 Apr.-June 529 0.54 0.89 1.43

 July-Sept. 432 0.59 0.84 1.43

 Oct.-Dec. 155 0.70 0.79 1.50

2003:

 Jan.-Mar. 171 0.75 0.84 1.59

 Apr.-June 120 0.71 0.83 1.53

 July-Sept. 132 0.61 0.80 1.40

 Oct.-Dec. 157 0.55 0.85 1.39

2004:

 Jan.-Mar. 111 0.65 1.20 1.85

 Apr.-June 156 0.58 1.26 1.84

 July-Sept. 174 0.63 1.25 1.87

 Oct.-Dec. 172 0.62 1.31 1.92

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. 217 0.60 1.39 1.99

 Apr.-June 352 0.52 1.41 1.93

 July-Sept. 307 0.52 1.63 2.16

 1

 *** reported selling prices on a delivered basis.

Product 1.–Builders’ hardware, CDA end-use classification 110, CDA alloy 260, 0.012-inch to 0.024-inch thick by 2 inches to 12

inches in width.

Source: Compiled from information submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-13

Table V-2

BSS: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices1

 and quantities as reported by U.S. producers of

product 2, by quarters, January 1999-September 2005

Period

U.S. producers’ nontolled sales U.S. producers’ tolled sales

Quantity Fabrication price Metal price Total price Quantity Fabrication price

1,000 pounds Per pound Per pound Per pound 1,000 pounds Per pound

1999:

 Jan.-Mar. 2,752 $0.50 $0.68 $1.18 *** ***

 Apr.-June 2,670 0.49 0.71 1.20 *** ***

 July-Sept. 2,837 0.49 0.74 1.23 *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 2,779 0.48 0.76 1.25 *** ***

2000:

 Jan.-Mar. 2,155 0.53 0.84 1.37 *** ***

 Apr.-June 2,401 0.53 0.83 1.36 *** ***

 July-Sept. 2,573 0.53 0.85 1.39 *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 2,853 0.53 0.83 1.36 *** ***

2001:

 Jan.-Mar. 1,577 0.55 0.79 1.34 *** ***

 Apr.-June 1,178 0.58 0.77 1.35 *** ***

 July-Sept. 1,627 0.54 0.71 1.25 *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 1,684 0.54 0.68 1.21 *** ***

2002:

 Jan.-Mar. 2,408 0.48 0.69 1.17 *** ***

 Apr.-June 2,010 0.48 0.71 1.19 *** ***

 July-Sept. 2,078 0.48 0.70 1.18 *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 2,070 0.50 0.69 1.19 *** ***

2003:

 Jan.-Mar. 2,013 0.48 0.75 1.23 *** ***

 Apr.-June 1,807 0.48 0.75 1.23 *** ***

 July-Sept. 1,660 0.49 0.77 1.26 *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 1,682 0.48 0.82 1.29 *** ***

2004:

 Jan.-Mar. 2,220 0.50 1.05 1.55 *** ***

 Apr.-June 1,930 0.52 1.07 1.58 *** ***

 July-Sept. 1,933 0.53 1.08 1.61 *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 1,571 0.53 1.12 1.64 *** ***

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. 1,368 0.54 1.29 1.84 *** ***

 Apr.-June 1,237 0.55 1.32 1.86 *** ***

 July-Sept. 1,119 0.55 1.37 1.92 *** ***

 1

 *** reported selling prices on a delivered basis.

Product 2.–Distributors, CDA end-use classification 920, CDA alloy 260, 0.020-inch to 0.025-inch thick by maximum yield width.

Source: Compiled from information submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-14

Table V-3

BSS: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities as reported by U.S. producers and

importers of product 3, and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 1999-

September 2005

* * * * * * *
V-15

Table V-4

BSS: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices1

 and quantities as reported by U.S. producers of

product 4, by quarters, January 1999-September 2005

Period

U.S. producers’ nontolled sales U.S. producers’ tolled sales

Quantity Fabrication price Metal price Total price Quantity Fabrication price

1,000 pounds Per pound Per pound Per pound 1,000 pounds Per pound

1999:

 Jan.-Mar. 770 $0.56 $0.67 $1.23 *** ***

 Apr.-June 1,060 0.53 0.66 1.19 *** ***

 July-Sept. 1,269 0.50 0.70 1.19 *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 1,407 0.50 0.73 1.23 *** ***

2000:

 Jan.-Mar. 779 0.60 0.81 1.41 *** ***

 Apr.-June 696 0.58 0.81 1.38 -- --

 July-Sept. 631 0.61 0.86 1.46 -- --

 Oct.-Dec. 778 0.57 0.81 1.38 -- --

2001:

 Jan.-Mar. 662 0.59 0.81 1.39 -- --

 Apr.-June 507 0.60 0.74 1.34 -- --

 July-Sept. 506 0.57 0.68 1.25 -- --

 Oct.-Dec. 523 0.55 0.70 1.25 -- --

2002:

 Jan.-Mar. 401 0.59 0.78 1.37 -- --

 Apr.-June 385 0.57 0.74 1.32 -- --

 July-Sept. 314 0.62 0.68 1.30 -- --

 Oct.-Dec. 328 0.61 0.69 1.30 -- --

2003:

 Jan.-Mar. 332 0.60 0.75 1.35 -- --

 Apr.-June 257 0.64 0.79 1.43 -- --

 July-Sept. 297 0.58 0.80 1.38 -- --

 Oct.-Dec. 249 0.61 0.84 1.46 -- --

2004:

 Jan.-Mar. 361 0.59 1.05 1.65 -- --

 Apr.-June 310 0.59 1.08 1.67 -- --

 July-Sept. 340 0.59 1.11 1.71 -- --

 Oct.-Dec. 281 0.58 1.22 1.80 -- --

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. 225 0.59 1.30 1.89 -- --

 Apr.-June 227 0.59 1.34 1.93 -- --

 July-Sept. 184 0.59 1.45 2.04 -- --

 1

 *** reported selling prices on a delivered basis.

Product 4.–Wiring devices, lamp shells, and sockets, CDA end-use classification 440, CDA alloy 260, 0.011-inch to 0.020-inch

thick by 2 inches to 12 inches in width.

Source: Compiled from information submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-16

Table V-5

BSS: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices1

 and quantities as reported by U.S. producers of

product 5, by quarters, January 1999-September 2005

Period

U.S. producers’ nontolled sales U.S. producers’ tolled sales

Quantity Fabrication price Metal price Total price Quantity Fabrication price

1,000 pounds Per pound Per pound Per pound 1,000 pounds Per pound

1999:

 Jan.-Mar. 807 $0.57 $0.75 $1.31 *** ***

 Apr.-June 810 0.54 0.76 1.30 *** ***

 July-Sept. 802 0.53 0.82 1.35 *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 746 0.53 0.84 1.37 *** ***

2000:

 Jan.-Mar. 3,249 0.57 0.92 1.49 *** ***

 Apr.-June 2,820 0.65 0.93 1.58 *** ***

 July-Sept. 2,733 0.65 0.90 1.55 *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 1,833 0.74 0.85 1.59 *** ***

2001:

 Jan.-Mar. 2,044 0.63 0.93 1.56 *** ***

 Apr.-June 1,945 0.54 0.81 1.35 *** ***

 July-Sept. 2,103 0.55 0.79 1.35 *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 1,705 0.56 0.77 1.32 *** ***

2002:

 Jan.-Mar. 2,302 0.57 0.84 1.41 *** ***

 Apr.-June 2,421 0.63 0.88 1.52 *** ***

 July-Sept. 2,127 0.65 0.86 1.51 *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 2,180 0.65 0.87 1.52 *** ***

2003:

 Jan.-Mar. 2,422 0.64 0.91 1.55 *** ***

 Apr.-June 2,229 0.68 0.90 1.59 *** ***

 July-Sept. 1,969 0.65 0.94 1.59 *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 1,905 0.66 1.01 1.67 *** ***

2004:

 Jan.-Mar. 2,473 0.61 1.18 1.80 *** ***

 Apr.-June 2,465 0.62 1.29 1.91 *** ***

 July-Sept. 2,369 0.64 1.28 1.92 *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 1,898 0.68 1.11 1.79 *** ***

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. 2,170 0.64 1.42 2.06 *** ***

 Apr.-June 2,133 0.64 1.52 2.16 *** ***

 July-Sept. 1,978 0.67 1.62 2.28 *** ***

 1

 *** reported selling prices on a delivered basis.

Product 5.–Automotive electrical, CDA end-use classification 320, CDA alloy 230 and/or alloy 260, 0.0098-inch to 0.020-inch thick

by 0.5-inch to 2 inches in width, not tin-coated.

Source: Compiled from information submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-17

Table V-6

BSS: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices1

 and quantities as reported by U.S. producers of

product 6, by quarters, January 1999-September 2005

Period

U.S. producers’ nontolled sales U.S. producers’ tolled sales

Quantity Fabrication price Metal price Total price Quantity Fabrication price

1,000 pounds Per pound Per pound Per pound 1,000 pounds Per pound

1999:

 Jan.-Mar. 1,180 $0.52 $0.74 $1.26 *** ***

 Apr.-June 1,283 0.50 0.74 1.24 *** ***

 July-Sept. 1,289 0.51 0.82 1.33 *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 970 0.51 0.81 1.32 *** ***

2000:

 Jan.-Mar. 1,183 0.52 0.85 1.37 *** ***

 Apr.-June 1,649 0.50 0.88 1.39 *** ***

 July-Sept. 1,466 0.51 0.82 1.33 *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 949 0.54 0.85 1.39 *** ***

2001:

 Jan.-Mar. 878 0.52 0.85 1.36 *** ***

 Apr.-June 1,092 0.51 0.84 1.35 *** ***

 July-Sept. 777 0.53 0.79 1.32 *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 909 0.51 0.83 1.34 *** ***

2002:

 Jan.-Mar. 1,309 0.55 0.76 1.31 *** ***

 Apr.-June 1,422 0.57 0.74 1.31 *** ***

 July-Sept. 1,273 0.55 0.72 1.27 *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 1,071 0.56 0.72 1.28 *** ***

2003:

 Jan.-Mar. 1,597 0.52 0.77 1.30 *** ***

 Apr.-June 1,392 0.48 0.69 1.17 *** ***

 July-Sept. 1,413 0.54 0.78 1.33 -- --

 Oct.-Dec. 1,308 0.54 0.83 1.37 -- --

2004:

 Jan.-Mar. 1,904 0.52 1.12 1.64 -- --

 Apr.-June 1,806 0.54 1.09 1.63 -- --

 July-Sept. 1,252 0.52 1.18 1.70 -- --

 Oct.-Dec. 1,039 0.52 1.22 1.74 -- --

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. 1,632 0.54 1.30 1.85 -- --

 Apr.-June 1,427 0.55 1.34 1.89 -- --

 July-Sept. 1,547 0.54 1.50 2.04 -- --

 1

 *** reported selling prices on a delivered basis.

Product 6.–Closures, CDA end-use classification 620, CDA alloy 260, 0.010-inch to 0.016-inch thick by 1 inch to 4 inches in width.

Source: Compiled from information submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-18

Figure V-3

BSS: Weighted-average f.o.b. nontoll selling prices per pound, as reported by U.S. producers of

product 1, by quarters, January 1999-September 2005

Source: Compiled from information submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Figure V-4

BSS: Weighted-average f.o.b. toll and nontoll selling prices per pound, as reported by U.S.

producers of product 2, by quarters, January 1999-September 2005

* * * * * * *

Figure V-5

BSS: Weighted-average f.o.b. toll and nontoll selling prices per pound, as reported by U.S.

producers of product 3, by quarters, January 1999-September 2005

* * * * * * *

Figure V-6

BSS: Weighted-average f.o.b. nontoll selling prices per pound, as reported by importers of

Japanese product 3, by quarters, January 1999-September 2005

* * * * * * *

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Nontoll fabrication Nontoll metal Nontoll total
V-19

Figure V-7

BSS: Weighted-average f.o.b. toll and nontoll selling prices per pound, as reported by U.S.

producers of product 4, by quarters, January 1999-September 2005

* * * * * * *

Figure V-8

BSS: Weighted-average f.o.b. toll and nontoll selling prices per pound, as reported by U.S.

producers of product 5, by quarters, January 1999-September 2005

* * * * * * *

Figure V-9

BSS: Weighted-average f.o.b. toll and nontoll selling prices per pound, as reported by U.S.

producers of product 6, by quarters, January 1999-September 2005

* * * * * * *

A-1

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES AND THE COMMISSION’S STATEMENT

ON ADEQUACY 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 61 / Thursday, March 31, 2005 / Notices 16519

Commission may take an adverse 

inference against the party pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act in making its 

determination in the review. 

Information To Be Provided in 

Response To This Notice of Institution:

As used below, the term ‘‘firm’’ includes 

any related firms. 

(1) The name and address of your firm 

or entity (including World Wide Web 

address if available) and name, 

telephone number, fax number, and Email address of the certifying official. 

(2) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of 

the Domestic Like Product, a U.S. union 

or worker group, a U.S. importer of the 

Subject Merchandise, a foreign producer 

or exporter of the Subject Merchandise, 

a U.S. or foreign trade or business 

association, or another interested party 

(including an explanation). If you are a 

union/worker group or trade/business 

association, identify the firms in which 

your workers are employed or which are 

members of your association. 

(3) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is willing to participate 

in this review by providing information 

requested by the Commission. 

(4) A statement of the likely effects of 

the termination of the suspended 

investigation on the Domestic Industry 

in general and/or your firm/entity 

specifically. In your response, please 

discuss the various factors specified in 

section 752(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1675a(a)) including the likely volume of 

subject imports, likely price effects of 

subject imports, and likely impact of 

imports of Subject Merchandise on the 

Domestic Industry. 

(5) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. producers of the 

Domestic Like Product. Identify any 

known related parties and the nature of 

the relationship as defined in section 

771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1677(4)(B)). 

(6) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. importers of the Subject 

Merchandise and producers of the 

Subject Merchandise in the Subject 

Country that currently export or have 

exported Subject Merchandise to the 

United States or other countries since 

the Order Date. 

(7) If you are a U.S. producer of the 

Domestic Like Product, provide the 

following information on your firm’s 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2004 (report quantity data 

in short tons and value data in U.S. 

dollars, f.o.b. plant). If you are a union/

worker group or trade/business 

association, provide the information, on 

an aggregate basis, for the firms in 

which your workers are employed/

which are members of your association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total U.S. production of the Domestic 

Like Product accounted for by your 

firm’s(s’) production; 

(b) the quantity and value of U.S. 

commercial shipments of the Domestic 

Like Product produced in your U.S. 

plant(s); and 

(c) the quantity and value of U.S. 

internal consumption/company 

transfers of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s). 

(8) If you are a U.S. importer or a 

trade/business association of U.S. 

importers of the Subject Merchandise 

from the Subject Country, provide the 

following information on your firm’s(s’) 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2004 (report quantity data 

in short tons and value data in U.S. 

dollars). If you are a trade/business 

association, provide the information, on 

an aggregate basis, for the firms which 

are members of your association.

(a) The quantity and value (landed, 

duty-paid but not including 

antidumping duties) of U.S. imports 

and, if known, an estimate of the 

percentage of total U.S. imports of 

Subject Merchandise from the Subject 

Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) 

imports; 

(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. commercial shipments of Subject 

Merchandise imported from the Subject 

Country; and 

(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. internal consumption/company 

transfers of Subject Merchandise 

imported from the Subject Country. 

(9) If you are a producer, an exporter, 

or a trade/business association of 

producers or exporters of the Subject 

Merchandise in the Subject Country, 

provide the following information on 

your firm’s(s’) operations on that 

product during calendar year 2004 

(report quantity data in short tons and 

value data in U.S. dollars, landed and 

duty-paid at the U.S. port but not 

including antidumping duties). If you 

are a trade/business association, provide 

the information, on an aggregate basis, 

for the firms which are members of your 

association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total production of Subject Merchandise 

in the Subject Country accounted for by 

your firm’s(s’) production; and 

(b) the quantity and value of your 

firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of 

Subject Merchandise and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total 

exports to the United States of Subject 

Merchandise from the Subject Country 

accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. 

(10) Identify significant changes, if 

any, in the supply and demand 

conditions or business cycle for the 

Domestic Like Product that have 

occurred in the United States or in the 

market for the Subject Merchandise in 

the Subject Country since the Order 

Date, and significant changes, if any, 

that are likely to occur within a 

reasonably foreseeable time. Supply 

conditions to consider include 

technology; production methods; 

development efforts; ability to increase 

production (including the shift of 

production facilities used for other 

products and the use, cost, or 

availability of major inputs into 

production); and factors related to the 

ability to shift supply among different 

national markets (including barriers to 

importation in foreign markets or 

changes in market demand abroad). 

Demand conditions to consider include 

end uses and applications; the existence 

and availability of substitute products; 

and the level of competition among the 

Domestic Like Product produced in the 

United States, Subject Merchandise 

produced in the Subject Country, and 

such merchandise from other countries. 

(11) (Optional) A statement of 

whether you agree with the above 

definitions of the Domestic Like Product 

and Domestic Industry; if you disagree 

with either or both of these definitions, 

please explain why and provide 

alternative definitions.

Authority: This review is being conducted 

under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act 

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 

section 207.61 of the Commission’s rules.

By order of the Commission.

Issued: March 23, 2005. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission.

[FR Doc. 05–6401 Filed 3–30–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigations Nos. 701–TA–269 and 270 

and 731–TA–311–314, 317 and 379 (Second 

Review)] 

Brass Sheet and Strip From Brazil, 

Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and 

Japan

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission.

ACTION: Institution of five-year reviews 

concerning the countervailing duty 

orders on brass sheet and strip from 

Brazil and France and the antidumping 

duty orders on brass sheet and strip 

16520 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 61 / Thursday, March 31, 2005 / Notices 

1No response to this request for information is 

required if a currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the 

OMB number is 3117–0016/USITC No. 05–5–118, 

expiration date June 30, 2005. Public reporting 

burden for the request is estimated to average 10 

hours per response. Please send comments 

regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to 

the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20436.

from Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, 

Italy, and Japan. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it has instituted reviews 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) 

to determine whether revocation of the 

countervailing duty orders on brass 

sheet and strip from Brazil and France 

and the antidumping duty orders on 

brass sheet and strip from Brazil, 

Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and 

Japan would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of 

the Act, interested parties are requested 

to respond to this notice by submitting 

the information specified below to the 

Commission; 1 to be assured of 

consideration, the deadline for 

responses is May 23, 2005. Comments 

on the adequacy of responses may be 

filed with the Commission by June 14, 

2005. For further information 

concerning the conduct of these reviews 

and rules of general application, consult 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A, D, E and F (19 CFR part 

207).

DATES: Effective Date: March 31, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http://

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background.—On January 8, 1987, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘Commerce’’) 

issued a countervailing duty order on 

imports of brass sheet and strip from 

Brazil (52 FR 698). On January 12, 1987, 

Commerce issued antidumping duty 

orders on imports of brass sheet and 

strip from Brazil and Canada (52 FR 

1214). On March 6, 1987, Commerce 

issued a countervailing duty order on 

imports of brass sheet and strip from 

France and antidumping duty orders on 

imports of brass sheet and strip from 

France, Germany and Italy (52 FR 6995; 

Italy amended at 52 FR 11299 (April 8, 

1987)). On August 12, 1988, Commerce 

issued an antidumping duty order on 

imports of brass sheet and strip from 

Japan (53 FR 30454). Following fiveyear reviews by Commerce and the 

Commission, effective May 1, 2000, 

Commerce issued a continuation of the 

countervailing duty orders on imports of 

brass sheet and strip from Brazil and 

France and a continuation of the 

antidumping duty orders on imports of 

brass sheet and strip from Brazil, 

Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and 

Japan (65 FR 25304). The Commission is 

now conducting second reviews to 

determine whether revocation of the 

orders would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury to the domestic industry within 

a reasonably foreseeable time. It will 

assess the adequacy of interested party 

responses to this notice of institution to 

determine whether to conduct full 

reviews or expedited reviews. The 

Commission’s determinations in any 

expedited reviews will be based on the 

facts available, which may include 

information provided in response to this 

notice. 

Definitions.—The following 

definitions apply to these reviews:

(1) Subject Merchandise is the class or 

kind of merchandise that is within the 

scope of the five-year reviews, as 

defined by Commerce. 

(2) The Subject Countries in these 

reviews are Brazil, Canada, France, 

Germany, Italy, and Japan. 

(3) The Domestic Like Product is the 

domestically produced product or 

products which are like, or in the 

absence of like, most similar in 

characteristics and uses with, the 

Subject merchandise. In its original 

countervailing duty determinations 

concerning brass sheet and strip from 

Brazil and France and antidumping 

duty determinations concerning brass 

sheet and strip from Brazil, Canada, 

France, Germany, and Italy, the 

Commission defined the Domestic Like 

Product to include brass material to be 

rerolled (reroll) and finished brass sheet 

and strip (finished products). In its 

original antidumping duty 

determination and the remand 

determination concerning brass sheet 

and strip from Japan, the Commission 

defined the Domestic Like Product to be 

all Unified Numbering System (‘‘UNS’’) 

C20000 domestically produced brass 

sheet and strip. One Commissioner 

defined the Domestic Like Product 

differently. In its full five-year review 

determinations, the Commission 

defined the Domestic Like Product as all 

UNS C20000 series brass sheet and 

strip. For purposes of this notice, the 

Domestic Like Product is all UNS 

C20000 series brass sheet and strip. 

(4) The Domestic Industry is the U.S. 

producers as a whole of the Domestic 

Like Product, or those producers whose 

collective output of the Domestic Like 

Product constitutes a major proportion 

of the total domestic production of the 

product. In its original countervailing 

duty determination concerning brass 

sheet and strip from Brazil and France 

and antidumping duty determinations 

concerning brass sheet and strip from 

Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, and 

Italy, the Commission defined the 

Domestic Industry to include primary 

mills with casting capabilities and 

rerollers. In its original anticumping 

duty determination and the remand 

determination concerning brass sheet 

and strip from Japan, the Commission 

defined the Domestic Industry as 

producers of the corresponding 

Domestic Like Product. One 

Commissioner defined the Domestic 

Industry differently. In its full five-year 

review determinations, the Commission 

defined the Domestic Like Product to 

consist of the domestic producers of 

UNS C20000 series brass sheet and 

strip. For purposes of this notice, the 

Domestic Industry is domestic 

producers of all UNS C20000 series 

brass sheet and strip. 

(5) An Importer is any person or firm 

engaged, either directly or through a 

parent company or subsidiary, in 

importing the Subject Merchandise into 

the United States from a foreign 

manufacturer or through its selling 

agent. 

Participation in the reviews and 

public service list.—Persons, including 

industrial users of the Subject 

Merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in the reviews as parties 

must file an entry of appearance with 

the Secretary to the Commission, as 

provided in section 201.11(b)(4) of the 

Commission’s rules, no later than 21 

days after the publication of this notice 

in the Federal Register. The Secretary 

will maintain a public service list 

containing the names and addresses of 

all persons, or their representatives, 

who are parties to the reviews. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 61 / Thursday, March 31, 2005 / Notices 16521

Former Commission employees who 

are seeking to appear in Commission 

five-year reviews are reminded that they 

are required, pursuant to 19 CFR 201.15, 

to seek Commission approval if the 

matter in which they are seeking to 

appear was pending in any manner or 

form during their Commission 

employment. The Commission is 

seeking guidance as to whether a second 

transition five-year review is the ‘‘same 

particular matter’’ as the underlying 

original investigation for purposes of 19 

CFR 201.15 and 18 U.S.C. 207, the post 

employment statute for Federal 

employees. Former employees may seek 

informal advice from Commission ethics 

officials with respect to this and the 

related issue of whether the employee’s 

participation was ‘‘personal and 

substantial.’’ However, any informal 

consultation will not relieve former 

employees of the obligation to seek 

approval to appear from the 

Commission under its rule 201.15. For 

ethics advice, contact Carol McCue 

Verrati, Deputy Agency Ethics Official, 

at 202–205–3088.

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and APO service list.—Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

submitted in these reviews available to 

authorized applicants under the APO 

issued in the reviews, provided that the 

application is made no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. Authorized 

applicants must represent interested 

parties, as defined in 19 U.S.C. 

§ 1677(9), who are parties to the 

reviews. A separate service list will be 

maintained by the Secretary for those 

parties authorized to receive BPI under 

the APO. 

Certification.—Pursuant to section 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules, any 

person submitting information to the 

Commission in connection with these 

reviews must certify that the 

information is accurate and complete to 

the best of the submitter’s knowledge. In 

making the certification, the submitter 

will be deemed to consent, unless 

otherwise specified, for the 

Commission, its employees, and 

contract personnel to use the 

information provided in any other 

reviews or investigations of the same or 

comparable products which the 

Commission conducts under Title VII of 

the Act, or in internal audits and 

investigations relating to the programs 

and operations of the Commission 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3. 

Written submissions.—Pursuant to 

section 207.61 of the Commission’s 

rules, each interested party response to 

this notice must provide the information 

specified below. The deadline for filing 

such responses is May 23, 2005. 

Pursuant to section 207.62(b) of the 

Commission’s rules, eligible parties (as 

specified in Commission rule 

207.62(b)(1)) may also file comments 

concerning the adequacy of responses to 

the notice of institution and whether the 

Commission should conduct expedited 

or full reviews. The deadline for filing 

such comments is June 14, 2005. All 

written submissions must conform with 

the provisions of sections 201.8 and 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules and any 

submissions that contain BPI must also 

conform with the requirements of 

sections 201.6 and 207.7 of the 

Commission’s rules. The Commission’s 

rules do not authorize filing of 

submissions with the Secretary by 

facsimile or electronic means, except to 

the extent permitted by section 201.8 of 

the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67 

FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Also, in 

accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules, each 

document filed by a party to the reviews 

must be served on all other parties to 

the reviews (as identified by either the 

public or APO service list as 

appropriate), and a certificate of service 

must accompany the document (if you 

are not a party to the reviews you do not 

need to serve your response). 

Inability to provide requested 

information.—Pursuant to section 

207.61(c) of the Commission’s rules, any 

interested party that cannot furnish the 

information requested by this notice in 

the requested form and manner shall 

notify the Commission at the earliest 

possible time, provide a full explanation 

of why it cannot provide the requested 

information, and indicate alternative 

forms in which it can provide 

equivalent information. If an interested 

party does not provide this notification 

(or the Commission finds the 

explanation provided in the notification 

inadequate) and fails to provide a 

complete response to the notice, the 

Commission may take an adverse 

inference against the party pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act in making its 

determinations in the reviews. 

Information To Be Provided in 

Response to This Notice of Institution: If 

you are a domestic producer, union/

worker group, or trade/business 

association; import/export Subject 

Merchandise from more than one 

Subject Country; or produce Subject 

Merchandise in more than one Subject 

Country, you may file a single response. 

If you do so, please ensure that your 

response to each question includes the 

information requested for each pertinent 

Subject Country. As used below, the 

term ‘‘firm’’ includes any related firms. 

(1) The name and address of your firm 

or entity (including World Wide Web 

address if available) and name, 

telephone number, fax number, and Email address of the certifying official.

(2) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of 

the Domestic Like Product, a U.S. union 

or worker groups, a U.S. importer of the 

Subject Merchandise, a foreign producer 

or exporter of the Subject merchandise, 

a U.S. or foreign trade or business 

association, or another interested party 

(including an explanation). If you are a 

union/worker group or trade/business 

association, identify the firms in which 

your workers are employed or which are 

members of your association. 

(3) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is willing to participate 

in these reviews by providing 

information requested by the 

Commission. 

(4) A statement of the likely effects of 

the revocation of the countervailing 

duty and antidumping duty orders on 

the Domestic Industry in general and/or 

your firm/entity specifically. In your 

response, please discuss the various 

factors specified in section 752(a) of the 

Act (19 U.S.C. 1675a(a)) including the 

likely volume of subject imports, likely 

price effects of subject imports, and 

likely impact of imports of Subject 

Merchandise on the Domestic Industry. 

(5) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. producers of the 

Domestic Like Product. Identify any 

known related parties and the nature of 

the relationship as defined in section 

771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1677(4)(B)). 

(6) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. importers of the Subject 

Merchandise and producers of the 

Subject Merchandise in each Subject 

Country that currently export or have 

exported Subject Merchandise to the 

United States or other countries after 

1998. 

(7) If you are a U.S. producer of the 

Domestic Like Product, provide the 

following information on your firm’s 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2004 (report quantity data 

in pounds and value data in U.S. 

dollars, f.o.b. plant). If you are a union/

worker group or trade/business 

association, provide the information, on 

an aggregate basis, for the firms in 

which your workers are employed/

which are members of your association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total U.S. production of the Domestic 

Like Product accounted for by your 

firm’s(s’) production; 

16522 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 61 / Thursday, March 31, 2005 / Notices 

1No response to this request for information is 

required if a currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the 

OMB number is 3117–0016/USITC No. 05–5–119, 

expiration date June 30, 2005. Public reporting 

burden for the request is estimated to average 10 

hours per response. Please send comments 

regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to 

the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20436.

(b) The quantity and value of U.S. 

commercial shipments of the Domestic 

Like Product produced in your U.S. 

plant(s); and 

(c) The quantity and value of U.S. 

internal consumption/company 

transfers of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s). 

(8) If you are a U.S. importer or a 

trade/business association of U.S. 

importers of the Subject Merchandise 

from the Subject Countries, provide the 

following information on your firm’s(s’) 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2004 (report quantity data 

in pounds and value data in U.S. 

dollars). If you are a trade/business 

association, provide the information, on 

an aggregate basis, for the firms which 

are members of your association. 

(a) The quantity and value (landed, 

duty-paid but not including 

antidumping or countervailing duties) 

of U.S. imports and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total U.S. 

imports of Subject Merchandise from 

each Subject Country accounted for by 

your firm’s(s’) imports. 

(b) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping and/or 

countervailing duties) of U.S. 

commercial shipments of Subject 

Merchandise imported from each 

Subject Country; and 

(c) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping and/or 

countervailing duties) of U.S. internal 

consumption/company transfers of 

Subject Merchandise imported from 

each Subject Country. 

(9) If you are a producer, an exporter, 

or a trade/business association of 

producers or exporters of the Subject 

Merchandise in the Subject Counties, 

provide the following information on 

your firm’s(s’) operations on that 

product during calendar year 2004 

(report quantity data in pounds and 

value data in U.S. dollars, landed and 

duty-paid at the U.S. port but not 

including antidumping or 

countervailing duties). If you are a 

trade/business association, provide the 

information, on an aggregate basis, for 

the firms which are members of your 

association.

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total production of Subject Merchandise 

in each Subject Country accounted for 

by your firm’s(s’) production; and 

(b) The quantity and value of your 

firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of 

Subject Merchandise and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total 

exports to the United States of Subject 

Merchandise from each Subject Country 

accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. 

(10) Identify significant changes, if 

any, in the supply and demand 

conditions or business cycle for the 

Domestic Like Product that have 

occurred in the United States or in the 

market for the Subject Merchandise in 

the Subject Countries after 1998, and 

significant changes, if any, that are 

likely to occur within a reasonably 

foreseeable time. Supply conditions to 

consider include technology; 

production methods; development 

efforts; ability to increase production 

(including the shift of production 

facilities used for other products and the 

use, cost, or availability of major inputs 

into production); and factors related to 

the ability to shift supply among 

different national markets (including 

barriers to importation in foreign 

markets or changes in market demand 

abroad). Demand conditions to consider 

include end uses and applications; the 

existence and availability of substitute 

products; and the level of competition 

among the Domestic Like Product 

produced in the United States, Subject 

Merchandise produced in the Subject 

Countries, and such merchandise from 

other countries. 

11 (Optional) A statement of whether 

you agree with the above definitions of 

the Domestic Like Product and 

Domestic Industry; if you disagree with 

either or both of these definitions, 

please explain why and provide 

alternative definitions.

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.61 of the 

Commission’s rules.

By order of the Commission.

Issued: March 23, 2005. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission.

[FR Doc. 05–6403 Filed 3–30–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–M

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigations Nos. 731–TA–825 and 826 

(Review)] 

Polyester Staple Fiber From Korea and 

Taiwan

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission.

ACTION: Institution of five-year reviews 

concerning the antidumping duty orders 

on polyester staple fiber from Korea and 

Taiwan. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it has instituted reviews 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) 

to determine whether revocation of the 

antidumping duty orders on polyester 

staple fiber from Korea and Taiwan 

would be likely to lead to continuation 

or recurrence of material injury. 

Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act, 

interested parties are requested to 

respond to this notice by submitting the 

information specified below to the 

Commission; 1 to be assured of 

consideration, the deadline for 

responses is May 23, 2005. Comments 

on the adequacy of responses may be 

filed with the Commission by June 14, 

2005. For further information 

concerning the conduct of these reviews 

and rules of general application, consult 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207).

DATES: Effective Date: March 31, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http://

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background.—On May 25, 2000, the 

Department of Commerce issued 

antidumping duty orders on imports of 

polyester staple fiber from Korea and 

Taiwan (65 FR 33807). The Commission 

is conducting reviews to determine 

whether revocation of the orders would 

be likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of material injury to the 

domestic industry within a reasonably 

foreseeable time. It will assess the 

adequacy of interested party responses 

to this notice of institution to determine 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 19, 2005 / Notices 41427

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury within a reasonably foreseeable 

time. A schedule for the review will be 

established and announced at a later 

date. For further information concerning 

the conduct of this review and rules of 

general application, consult the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207).

DATES: Effective Date: July 5, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http://

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

this review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 5, 

2005, the Commission determined that 

it should proceed to a full review in the 

subject five-year review pursuant to 

section 751(c)(5) of the Act. The 

Commission found that both the 

domestic and respondent interested 

party group responses to its notice of 

institution (70 FR 16517, March 31, 

2005) were adequate. A record of the 

Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, 

and any individual Commissioner’s 

statements will be available from the 

Office of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s Web site.

Authority: This review is being conducted 

under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act 

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 

section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules.

By order of the Commission.

Issued: July 14, 2005. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission.

[FR Doc. 05–14136 Filed 7–18–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–269 and 270 

and 731–TA–311–314, 317, and 379 (Second 

Review)] 

Brass Sheet and Strip From Brazil, 

Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and 

Japan

AGENCY: International Trade 

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Commission 

determination to conduct full five-year 

reviews concerning the countervailing 

duty orders on brass sheet and strip 

from Brazil and France and the 

antidumping duty orders on brass sheet 

and strip from Brazil, Canada, France, 

Germany, Italy, and Japan. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it will proceed with full 

reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(5)) to determine whether 

revocation of the countervailing duty 

orders on brass sheet and strip from 

Brazil and France and the antidumping 

duty orders on brass sheet and strip 

from Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, 

Italy, and Japan would be likely to lead 

to continuation or recurrence of material 

injury within a reasonably foreseeable 

time. A schedule for the reviews will be 

established and announced at a later 

date. For further information concerning 

the conduct of these reviews and rules 

of general application, consult the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207).

DATES: Effective Date: July 5, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http://

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 5, 

2005, the Commission determined that 

it should proceed to full reviews in the 

subject five-year reviews pursuant to 

section 751(c)(5) of the Act. The 

Commission found that the domestic 

interested party group response to its 

notice of institution (70 FR 16519, 

March 31, 2005) was adequate, and that 

the respondent interested party group 

response with respect to Germany was 

adequate, but found that the respondent 

interested party group responses with 

respect to Brazil, Canada, France, Italy, 

and Japan were inadequate. However, 

the Commission determined to conduct 

full reviews concerning subject imports 

from Brazil, Canada, France, Italy, and 

Japan to promote administrative 

efficiency in light of its decision to 

conduct a full review with respect to 

subject imports from Germany. A record 

of the Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, 

and any individual Commissioner’s 

statements will be available from the 

Office of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s Web site.

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.62 of the 

Commission’s rules.

By order of the Commission.

Issued: July 14, 2005. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission.

[FR Doc. 05–14134 Filed 7–18–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–825 and 826 

(Review)] 

Polyester Staple Fiber From Korea and 

Taiwan

AGENCY: International Trade 

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Commission 

determination to conduct full five-year 

reviews concerning the antidumping 

duty orders on polyester staple fiber 

from Korea and Taiwan. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it will proceed with full 

reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(5)) to determine whether 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

orders on polyester staple fiber from 

Korea and Taiwan would be likely to 

lead to continuation or recurrence of 

material injury within a reasonably 

foreseeable time. A schedule for the 

reviews will be established and 

announced at a later date. For further 

information concerning the conduct of 

45650 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 151 / Monday, August 8, 2005 / Notices 

1On April 21, 2005, we received a notification on 

behalf of Nikko Metal Manufacturing Co., Ltd. in 

Japan (which claims to be the successor-in-interest 

to Nippon Mining Co., Ltd.) that it would not be 

submitting a substantive response.

continue discussions on critical air 

quality issues in relation to agriculture. 

Special emphasis will be placed on 

obtaining a greater understanding about 

the relationship between agricultural 

production and air quality.

DATES: The meeting will convene on 

Thursday, September 22, 2005, from 8 

a.m. to 5 p.m., and resume on Friday, 

September 23, 2005, from 8 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m. Individuals with written materials, 

and those who have requests to make 

oral presentations, should contact 

NRCS, at the address below, on or 

before August 29, 2005.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Holiday Inn Ithaca Downtown, 222 

South Cayuga Street, Ithaca, New York 

14850; telephone: (607) 272–1000. 

Written material and requests to make 

oral presentations should be sent to Dr. 

Diane Gelburd, Designated Federal 

Official, NRCS, Post Office Box 2890, 

Room 6158–S, Washington, DC 20013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT:

Questions or comments should be 

directed to Dr. Diane Gelburd, 

Designated Federal Official; telephone: 

(202) 720–2587; fax: (202) 720–2646, or 

(202) 720–1814; e-mail: 

Diane.Gelburd@wdc.usda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of 

this meeting is given under the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 

2. Additional information concerning 

AAQTF may be found on the World 

Wide Web at http://aaqtf.tamu.edu/.

Draft Agenda of the September 22–23, 

2005, Meeting of the AAQTF: 

A. Welcome to Ithaca, New York

Local and NRCS officials 

B. Discussion and Approval of Minutes 

from Previous Meeting

C. Federal Agency and Other Update 

Reports

D. Subcommittee Presentations

1. Emerging Issues Committee Report 

2. Research Committee Report 

3. Policy Committee Report 

4. Education/Technology Transfer 

Committee Report 

E. Local Research Presentations 

I. Next Meeting, Time and Place 

J. Public Input

(Time will be reserved in the morning 

and afternoon of each daily session to 

receive public comment. Individual 

presentations will be limited to 5 

minutes.) 

Procedural: 

This meeting is open to the public. At 

the discretion of the Chair, members of 

the public may give oral presentations 

during the meeting. Oral comments 

must be germane to the meeting agenda 

and committee discussions. Those 

persons wishing to make oral 

presentations should contact Dr. 

Gelburd no later than August 29, 2005. 

A person submitting written material 

that would like a copy distributed to 

each member in advance of the meeting 

should submit 50 copies to Dr. Gelburd 

no later than August 29, 2005. 

Information on Services for Individuals 

with Disabilities: 

For information on facilities or 

services for individuals with 

disabilities, or to request special 

assistance at the meeting, please contact 

Dr. Gelburd. The Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) prohibits 

discrimination in its programs and 

activities on the basis of race, color, 

national origin, gender, religion, age, 

sexual orientation, or disability. 

Discrimination on the basis of political 

beliefs and marital or family status is 

also prohibited by statutes enforced by 

USDA (not all prohibited bases apply to 

all programs). Persons with disabilities 

who require alternate means for 

communication of program information 

(Braille, large print, audio tape, etc.) 

should contact the USDA’s Target 

Center at (202) 720–2000 (voice and 

TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity 

provider and employer.

Signed in Washington, DC on July 27, 

2005. 

Bruce I. Knight, 

Chief.

[FR Doc. 05–15634 Filed 8–5–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–16–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–351–603, A–122–601, A–427–602, A–475–

601, A–588–704]

Brass Sheet and Strip from Brazil, 

Canada, France, Italy and Japan; Final 

Results of the Expedited Sunset 

Reviews of the Antidumping Duty 

Orders

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: On April 1, 2005, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) initiated sunset reviews of 

the antidumping duty orders on brass 

sheet and strip from Brazil, Canada, 

France, Italy and Japan pursuant to 

section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (‘‘the Act’’). The 

Department conducted expedited (120-

day) sunset reviews for these orders. As 

a result of these sunset reviews, the 

Department finds that revocation of the 

antidumping duty orders would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of dumping. The dumping 

margins are identified in the Final 

Results of Reviews section of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 8, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Audrey Twyman or David Goldberger, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–3534 and (202) 

482–4136, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On April 1, 2005, the Department 

published the notice of initiation of the 

second sunset reviews of the 

antidumping duty orders on brass sheet 

and strip from Brazil, Canada, France, 

Italy and Japan pursuant to section 

751(c) of the Act. See Initiation of Fiveyear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 70 FR 16800 

(April 1, 2005). The Department 

received the Notice of Intent to 

Participate from Heyco Metals, Inc., 

Olin Corporation - Brass Group, 

Outokumpu American Brass, PMX 

Industries, Inc., Revere Copper 

Products, Inc., Scott Brass, International 

Association of Machinist and Aerospace 

Workers, United Auto Workers (Local 

2367 and Local 1024), and United 

Steelworkers of America AFL–CIO/CLC 

(collectively ‘‘the domestic interested 

parties’’), within the deadline specified 

in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the 

Department’s Regulations (‘‘Sunset 

Regulations’’). The domestic interested 

parties claimed interested party status 

under section 771(9)(C) and (D) of the 

Act, as manufacturers of a domestic–like 

product in the United States, and 

unions whose workers are engaged in 

the production of a domestic–like 

product in the United States.

We received complete substantive 

responses from the domestic interested 

parties within the 30-day deadline 

specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). We 

received no responses from respondent 

interested parties with respect to any of 

the orders covered by these sunset 

reviews.1 As a result, pursuant to 

section 751(c)(4)(A) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the 

Department conducted an expedited 

(120-day) sunset review of these orders 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 151 / Monday, August 8, 2005 / Notices 45651

1The petitioners are Maui Pineapple Company 

Ltd. and the International Longshoreman’s and 

Warehouseman’s Union.

for Brazil, Canada, France, Italy and 

Japan.

Scope of the Orders

The product covered by these orders 

is brass sheet and strip (‘‘BSS’’), other 

than leaded and tinned BSS. The 

chemical composition of the covered 

product is currently defined in the 

Copper Development Association 

(‘‘C.D.A.’’) 200 Series or the Unified 

Numbering System (‘‘U.N.S.’’) C2000. 

These orders do not cover products the 

chemical compositions of which are 

defined by other C.D.A. or U.N.S. series. 

In physical dimensions, the product 

covered by these orders has a solid 

rectangular cross section over 0.006 

inches (0.15 millimeters) through 0.188 

inches (4.8 millimeters) in finished 

thickness or gauge, regardless of width. 

Coiled, wound–on-reels (traverse 

wound), and cut–to-length products are 

included. The merchandise is currently 

classified under Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) item numbers 7409.21.00 

and 7409.29.00. Although the HTSUS 

item numbers are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of these 

orders remains dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in these reviews are 

addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Expedited Sunset 

Reviews of the Antidumping Duty 

Orders on Brass Sheet and Strip from 

Brazil, Canada, France, Italy and Japan; 

Final Results’’ (‘‘Decision Memo’’) from 

Barbara Tillman, Acting Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, to Joseph A. Spetrini, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, dated August 1, 2005, 

which is hereby adopted by this notice. 

The issues discussed in the Decision 

Memo include the likelihood of 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

and the magnitude of the margins likely 

to prevail if the orders were to be 

revoked. Parties can find a complete 

discussion of all issues raised in these 

reviews and the corresponding 

recommendations in this public 

memorandum which is on file in room 

B–099 of the main Commerce building.

In addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memo can be accessed directly 

on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn, 

under the heading ‘‘August 2005.’’ The 

paper copy and electronic version of the 

Decision Memo are identical in content.

Final Results of Reviews

We determine that revocation of the 

antidumping duty orders on brass sheet 

and strip from Brazil, Canada, France, 

Italy and Japan would be likely to lead 

to continuation or recurrence of 

dumping at the following weighted–

average percentage margins:

Manufacturers/Exporters/Producers 

Weighted 

Average 

Margin 

(percent) 

Brazil.

Eluma Corporation ...................... 40.62

All Others .................................... 40.62

Canada.

Wolverine Tube, Inc. .................. 11.54

All Others .................................... 8.10

France.

Trefimetaux S.A. ......................... 42.24

All Others .................................... 42.24

Italy.

LMI - La Metalli Industriale, SpA 5.44

All Others .................................... 5.44

Japan.

Nippon Mining Co., Ltd. .............. 57.98

Sambo Copper Alloy Co., Ltd. ... 13.30

Mitsubishi Shindoh Co., Ltd. ...... 57.98

Kobe Steel, Ltd. .......................... 57.98

All Others .................................... 45.72

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective orders 

(‘‘APO’’) of their responsibility 

concerning the return or destruction of 

proprietary information disclosed under 

APO in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.305 of the Department’s regulations. 

Timely notification of the return or 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective orders 

is hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and terms of an 

APO is a violation which is subject to 

sanction.

We are issuing and publishing the 

results and notice in accordance with 

sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act.

Dated: August 1, 2005.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration.

[FR Doc. E5–4251 Filed 8–5–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration 

[A–549–813] 

Canned Pineapple Fruit From Thailand: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: In response to requests by 

certain producers/exporters of the 

subject merchandise and the 

petitioners,1 the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) is 

conducting an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on canned 

pineapple fruit (CPF) from Thailand. 

This review covers two producers/

exporters of the subject merchandise. 

The period of review (POR) is July 1, 

2003, through June 30, 2004.

The Department has preliminarily 

determined that the companies subject 

to this review made U.S. sales at prices 

less than normal value (NV). If these 

preliminary results are adopted in our 

final results of administrative review, 

we will instruct U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries. Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results of 

review. We will issue the final results of 

review no later than 120 days from the 

date of publication of this notice.

DATES: Effective August 8, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Magd Zalok or Drew Jackson, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 4, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, 

telephone: (202) 482–4162 or (202) 482–

4406, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 1, 2004, the Department 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice of ‘‘Opportunity to Request 

Administrative Review’’ of the 

antidumping duty order on CPF from 

Thailand. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

To Request Administrative Review, 69 

FR 39903 (July 1, 2004). In accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), during July 

2004, the following producers/exporters 

requested that the Department conduct 

an administrative review of their sales 

and entries of subject merchandise into 

the United Stated during the POR: Vita 

Food Factory (1989) Co., Ltd. (Vita); 

Thai Pineapple Canning Industry Corp., 

Ltd. (TPC); and the Dole Food Company, 

Inc., Dole Packaged Foods Company, 

and Dole Thailand, Ltd. (collectively, 

Dole). Additionally, in accordance with 

19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), on July 29, 2004, 

the petitioners requested that the 

Department conduct a review of The 

Thai Pineapple Public Company 

(TIPCO); Vita; The Parchuab Fruit 

Canning Co., Ltd. (PRAFT); Dole; and 

Kuiburi Fruit Canning Co., Ltd. (KFC). 

53688 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 174 / Friday, September 9, 2005 / Notices 

appear at the hearing and make oral 

presentations should attend a 

prehearing conference to be held at 9:30 

a.m. on January 12, 2006, at the U.S. 

International Trade Commission 

Building. Oral testimony and written 

materials to be submitted at the public 

hearing are governed by sections 

201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), 207.24, and 

207.66 of the Commission’s rules. 

Parties must submit any request to 

present a portion of their hearing 

testimony in camera no later than 7 

business days prior to the date of the 

hearing. 

Written submissions. Each party to the 

review may submit a prehearing brief to 

the Commission. Prehearing briefs must 

conform with the provisions of section 

207.65 of the Commission’s rules; the 

deadline for filing is January 9, 2006. 

Parties may also file written testimony 

in connection with their presentation at 

the hearing, as provided in section 

207.24 of the Commission’s rules, and 

posthearing briefs, which must conform 

with the provisions of section 207.67 of 

the Commission’s rules. The deadline 

for filing posthearing briefs is January 

30, 2006; witness testimony must be 

filed no later than three days before the 

hearing. In addition, any person who 

has not entered an appearance as a party 

to the review may submit a written 

statement of information pertinent to 

the subject of the review on or before 

January 30, 2006. On March 3, 2006, the 

Commission will make available to 

parties all information on which they 

have not had an opportunity to 

comment. Parties may submit final 

comments on this information on or 

before March 7, 2006, but such final 

comments must not contain new factual 

information and must otherwise comply 

with section 207.68 of the Commission’s 

rules. All written submissions must 

conform with the provisions of section 

201.8 of the Commission’s rules; any 

submissions that contain BPI must also 

conform with the requirements of 

sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the 

Commission’s rules. The Commission’s 

rules do not authorize filing of 

submissions with the Secretary by 

facsimile or electronic means, except to 

the extent permitted by section 201.8 of 

the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67 

FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Even 

where electronic filing of a document is 

permitted, certain documents must also 

be filed in paper form, as specified in 

II(c) of the Commission’s Handbook on 

Electronic Filing Procedures, 67 FR 

68168, 68173 (November 8, 2002). 

Additional written submissions to the 

Commission, including requests 

pursuant to section 201.12 of the 

Commission’s rules, shall not be 

accepted unless good cause is shown for 

accepting such submissions, or unless 

the submission is pursuant to a specific 

request by a Commissioner or 

Commission staff. 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, 

each document filed by a party to the 

review must be served on all other 

parties to the review (as identified by 

either the public or BPI service list), and 

a certificate of service must be timely 

filed. The Secretary will not accept a 

document for filing without a certificate 

of service. 

Authority: This review is being conducted 

under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act 

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 

section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules. 

Issued: September 2, 2005. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 05–17885 Filed 9–8–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–269 and 270 

and 731–TA–311–314, 317, and 379 (Second 

Review)] 

Brass Sheet and Strip From Brazil, 

Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and 

Japan 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Scheduling of full five-year 

reviews concerning the countervailing 

duty orders on brass sheet and strip 

from Brazil and France and the 

antidumping duty orders on brass sheet 

and strip from Brazil, Canada, France, 

Germany, Italy, and Japan. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of full reviews 

pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)) 

(the Act) to determine whether 

revocation of the countervailing duty 

orders on brass sheet and strip from 

Brazil and France and the antidumping 

duty orders on brass sheet and strip 

from Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, 

Italy, and Japan would be likely to lead 

to continuation or recurrence of material 

injury within a reasonably foreseeable 

time. For further information 

concerning the conduct of these reviews 

and rules of general application, consult 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207). 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 1, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Vincent Honnold (202–205–3314), 

Office of Investigations, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. 

Hearing-impaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background. On July 5, 2005, the 

Commission determined that responses 

to its notice of institution of the subject 

five-year reviews were such that full 

reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of 

the Act should proceed (70 FR 41427, 

July 19, 2005). A record of the 

Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, 

and any individual Commissioner’s 

statements are available from the Office 

of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s Web site. 

Participation in the reviews and 

public service list. Persons, including 

industrial users of the subject 

merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in these reviews as parties 

must file an entry of appearance with 

the Secretary to the Commission, as 

provided in section 201.11 of the 

Commission’s rules, by 45 days after 

publication of this notice. A party that 

filed a notice of appearance following 

publication of the Commission’s notice 

of institution of the reviews need not 

file an additional notice of appearance. 

The Secretary will maintain a public 

service list containing the names and 

addresses of all persons, or their 

representatives, who are parties to the 

reviews. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and BPI service list. Pursuant to section 

207.7(a) of the Commission’s rules, the 

Secretary will make BPI gathered in 

these reviews available to authorized 

applicants under the APO issued in the 

reviews, provided that the application is 

made by 45 days after publication of 

this notice. Authorized applicants must 

represent interested parties, as defined 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 174 / Friday, September 9, 2005 / Notices 53689 

by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to 

the reviews. A party granted access to 

BPI following publication of the 

Commission’s notice of institution of 

the reviews need not reapply for such 

access. A separate service list will be 

maintained by the Secretary for those 

parties authorized to receive BPI under 

the APO. 

Staff report. The prehearing staff 

report in the reviews will be placed in 

the nonpublic record on December 20, 

2005, and a public version will be 

issued thereafter, pursuant to section 

207.64 of the Commission’s rules. 

Hearing. The Commission will hold a 

hearing in connection with these 

reviews beginning at 9:30 a.m. on 

January 24, 2006, at the U.S. 

International Trade Commission 

Building. Requests to appear at the 

hearing should be filed in writing with 

the Secretary to the Commission on or 

before January 11, 2006. A nonparty 

who has testimony that may aid the 

Commission’s deliberations may request 

permission to present a short statement 

at the hearing. All parties and 

nonparties desiring to appear at the 

hearing and make oral presentations 

should attend a prehearing conference 

to be held at 9:30 a.m. on January 18, 

2006, at the U.S. International Trade 

Commission Building. Oral testimony 

and written materials to be submitted at 

the public hearing are governed by 

sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), 207.24, 

and 207.66 of the Commission’s rules. 

Parties must submit any request to 

present a portion of their hearing 

testimony in camera no later than 7 

business days prior to the date of the 

hearing. 

Written submissions. Each party to the 

reviews may submit a prehearing brief 

to the Commission. Prehearing briefs 

must conform with the provisions of 

section 207.65 of the Commission’s 

rules; the deadline for filing is January 

12, 2006. Parties may also file written 

testimony in connection with their 

presentation at the hearing, as provided 

in section 207.24 of the Commission’s 

rules, and posthearing briefs, which 

must conform with the provisions of 

section 207.67 of the Commission’s 

rules. The deadline for filing 

posthearing briefs is February 2, 2006; 

witness testimony must be filed no later 

than three days before the hearing. In 

addition, any person who has not 

entered an appearance as a party to the 

reviews may submit a written statement 

of information pertinent to the subject of 

the reviews on or before February 2, 

2006. On February 23, 2006, the 

Commission will make available to 

parties all information on which they 

have not had an opportunity to 

comment. Parties may submit final 

comments on this information on or 

before February 27, 2006, but such final 

comments must not contain new factual 

information and must otherwise comply 

with section 207.68 of the Commission’s 

rules. All written submissions must 

conform with the provisions of section 

201.8 of the Commission’s rules; any 

submissions that contain BPI must also 

conform with the requirements of 

sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the 

Commission’s rules. The Commission’s 

rules do not authorize filing of 

submissions with the Secretary by 

facsimile or electronic means, except to 

the extent permitted by section 201.8 of 

the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67 

FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Even 

where electronic filing of a document is 

permitted, certain documents must also 

be filed in paper form, as specified in II 

(C) of the Commission’s Handbook on 

Electronic Filing Procedures, 67 FR 

68168, 68173 (November 8, 2002). 

Additional written submissions to the 

Commission, including requests 

pursuant to section 201.12 of the 

Commission’s rules, shall not be 

accepted unless good cause is shown for 

accepting such submissions, or unless 

the submission is pursuant to a specific 

request by a Commissioner or 

Commission staff. 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, 

each document filed by a party to the 

reviews must be served on all other 

parties to the reviews (as identified by 

either the public or BPI service list), and 

a certificate of service must be timely 

filed. The Secretary will not accept a 

document for filing without a certificate 

of service. 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.62 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Issued: September 2, 2005. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 05–17884 Filed 9–8–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging Proposed Consent 

Decree 

In accordance with Departmental 

Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby 

given that a proposed consent decree in 

United States v. Congaree Downs 

Limited Partnership, et al., Case No. 

3:05–cv–02505, was lodged with the 

United States District Court for the 

District of South Carolina on August 30, 

2005. This proposed Consent Decree 

concerns a complaint filed by the 

United States against the Defendants 

pursuant to Section 301(a) of the Clean 

Water Act (‘‘CWA’’), 33 U.S.C. 1311(a), 

to obtain injunctive relief from and 

impose civil penalties against the 

Defendants for filling wetlands without 

a permit. 

The proposed Consent Decree 

requires the defendants to pay a civil 

penalty and restore the impacted 

wetland to its natural grade contour. 

The Department of Justice will accept 

written comments relating to this 

proposed Consent Decree for thirty (30) 

days from the date of publication of this 

notice. Please address comments to 

Emery Clark, Assistant United States 

Attorney, United States Attorney’s 

Office, Wachovia Building, Suite 500, 

1441 Main Street, Columbia, South 

Carolina 29201 and refer to United 

States v. Congaree Downs Limited 

Partnership, et al., Case No. 3:05–cv–

02505. 

The proposed Consent Decree may be 

examined at the Clerk’s Office, United 

States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, 901 Richland Lane, 

Columbia, South Carolina. 

In addition, the proposed Consent 

Decree may be viewed on the World 

Wide Web at http://www.usdoj.gov/ 

enrd/open.html. 

Stephen Samuels, 

Assistant Chief, Environmental Defense 

Section, Environment and Natural Resources 

Division. 

[FR Doc. 05–17848 Filed 9–8–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–M 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Revised Consent 

Decree Under the Clean Air Act 

Under 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby 

given that on August 31, 2005, a First 

Revised Consent Decree in the matter of 

United States, et al. v. Marathon 

Ashland Petroleum LLC, Civil Action 

No. 4:01–CV–40119–PVG, was lodged 

with the United States District Court for 

the Eastern District of Michigan. 

The First Revised Consent Decree 

supercedes a Consent Decree entered in 

the above-referenced action in August of 

2001 (‘‘August 2001 Consent Decree’’) 

among the United States, as Plaintiff, 

the County of Wayne, the State of 

Louisiana, and the State of Minnesota, 

as Plaintiff-Intervenors, and Marathon 

Ashland Petroleum LLC (‘‘MAP’’), as 

Defendant. In the August 2001 Consent 

Decree, MAP agreed to undertake, inter 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 213 / Friday, November 4, 2005 / Notices 67139 

de jure and de facto absence of 

government control over the company’s 

export activities. Accordingly, we will 

issue questionnaires to Xuzhou Jinjiang 

and Xiping Opeck, including a separate 

rates section. The reviews will proceed 

if the responses provide sufficient 

indication that Xuzhou Jinjiang and 

Xiping Opeck are not subject to either 

de jure or de facto government control 

with respect to their exports of 

freshwater crawfish tail meat. However, 

if the exporter does not demonstrate the 

company’s eligibility for a separate rate, 

then the company will be deemed not 

separate from the PRC–wide entity, 

which exported during the POI. An 

exporter unable to demonstrate the 

company’s eligibility for a separate rate 

would hence not meet the requirements 

of CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i) and its new 

shipper review will be rescinded. See, 

Notice of Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review 

and Rescission of New Shipper Reviews: 

Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the 

People’s Republic of China, 69 FR 53669 

(September 2, 2004) and Brake Rotors 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Rescission of Second New Shipper 

Review and Final Results and Partial 

Rescission of First Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 64 FR 61581 

(November 12, 1999). 

In accordance with section 

751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.214(e), we will instruct CBP to 

allow, at the option of the importer, the 

posting, until the completion of the 

review, of a single entry bond or 

security in lieu of a cash deposit for 

certain entries of the merchandise 

exported by either Xuzhou Jinjiang or 

Xiping Opeck. We will apply the 

bonding option under 19 CFR 

351.107(b)(1)(i) only to entries from 

these two exporters for which they are 

also the producers. 

Interested parties that need access to 

proprietary information in these new 

shipper reviews should submit 

applications for disclosure under 

administrative protective orders in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 

351.306. 

This initiation and notice are in 

accordance with section 751(a) of the 

Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 

351.214(d). 

Dated: October 31, 2005. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E5–6128 Filed 11–3–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(C–351–604) 

Final Results of Expedited Sunset 

Review: Brass Sheet and Strip from 

Brazil 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On April, 1, 2005, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) initiated a sunset review 

of the countervailing duty order 

(‘‘CVD’’) on brass sheet and strip from 

Brazil pursuant to section 751(c) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’). On the basis of a notice of intent 

to participate and an adequate 

substantive response filed on behalf of 

the domestic interested parties and 

inadequate response from respondent 

interested parties (in this case, no 

response), the Department determined 

to conduct an expedited sunset review 

of this CVD order pursuant to section 

751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(B). As a result of this 

sunset review, the Department finds that 

revocation of the CVD order would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of a countervailable subsidy 

at the level indicated in the ‘‘Final 

Results of Review’’ section of this 

notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 4, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tipten Troidl or David Goldberger, AD/ 

CVD Enforcement, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 

Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–1767 or (202) 482–

4136, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On April 1, 2005, the Department 

initiated a sunset review of the CVD 

order on brass sheet and strip from 

Brazil pursuant to section 751(c) of the 

Act. See Notice of Initiation of Five-year 

(‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 70 FR 16800 (April 

1, 2005). The Department received a 

notice of intent to participate from the 

following domestic interested parties: 

Heyco Metals, Inc. (‘‘Heyco’’); Olin 

Corporation–Brass Group (‘‘Olin’’); 

Outokumpu American Brass 

(‘‘Outokumpu’’); PMX Industries, Inc. 

(‘‘PMX’’); Revere Copper Products, Inc. 

(‘‘Revere’’); Scott Brass (‘‘Scott’’); the 

International Association of Machinists 

and Aerospace Workers; the United 

Auto Workers (Local 2367 and Local 

1024); and the United Steelworkers of 

America (AFL/CIO–CLC) (hereinafter, 

collectively ‘‘domestic interested 

parties’’), within the deadline specified 

in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). The 

domestic interested parties claimed 

interested party status under sections 

771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act, as domestic 

brass mills, rerollers, and unions 

engaged in the production of brass sheet 

and strip in the United States. 

The Department received a complete 

substantive response collectively from 

the domestic interested parties within 

the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(3)(i). However, the 

Department did not receive a 

substantive response from any 

government or respondent interested 

party to this proceeding. As a result, 

pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), 

the Department conducted an expedited 

review of this CVD order. 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise subject to this CVD 

order is coiled, wound–on-reels 

(traverse wound), and cut–to-length 

brass sheet and strip (not leaded or 

tinned) from Brazil. The subject 

merchandise has, regardless of width, a 

solid rectangular cross section over 

0.0006 inches (0.15 millimeters) through 

0.1888 inches (4.8 millimeters) in 

finished thickness or gauge. The 

chemical composition of the covered 

products is defined in the Copper 

Development Association (‘‘C.D.A.’’) 

200 Series or the Unified Numbering 

System (‘‘U.N.S.’’) C2000; this order 

does not cover products with chemical 

compositions that are defined by 

anything other than C.D.A. or U.N.S. 

series. The merchandise is currently 

classified under Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule (‘‘HTS’’) item numbers 

7409.21.00 and 7409.29.00. The HTS 

item numbers are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes. The 

written description remains dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in this review are 

addressed in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum (‘‘Decision 

Memorandum’’) from Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, to Joseph A. Spetrini, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, dated October 28, 2005, 

which is hereby adopted by this notice. 

Parties can find a complete discussion 

of all issues raised in this review and 

the corresponding recommendation in 

this public memorandum which is on 

file in the Central Records Unit room B–

099 of the main Commerce building. In 

addition, a complete version of the 

67140 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 213 / Friday, November 4, 2005 / Notices 

1The August 22, 2005, memo inadvertently 

omitted the word ‘‘not’’ which has been added to 

the phrase in this document. 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly on the Web at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Final Results of Review 

The Department determines that 

revocation of the CVD order would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of a countervailable subsidy. 

However, as a result of termination of 

all known countervailable programs, the 

Department is unable to determine the 

net countervailable subsidy likely to 

prevail. 

Notification Regarding Administrative 

Protective Order 

This notice serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. 

Timely notification of return/ 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and the terms of an 

APO is a sanctionable violation. 

We are issuing and publishing the 

results and notice are in accordance 

with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) 

of the Act. 

Dated: October 28, 2005. 

Joseph A. Spetrini, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E5–6129 Filed 11–3–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(C–122–815) 

Final Results of Expedited Sunset 

Reviews of the Countervailing Duty 

Orders: Pure Magnesium and Alloy 

Magnesium from Canada 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On July 1, 2005, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) initiated sunset reviews of 

the countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) orders 

on pure magnesium and alloy 

magnesium from Canada pursuant to 

section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (‘‘the Act’’). See Initiation 

of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 70 FR 

38101 (July 1, 2005). On the basis of a 

notice of intent to participate and an 

adequate substantive response filed on 

behalf of the domestic interested party 

and an inadequate response from 

respondent interested parties, the 

Department determined to conduct 

expedited sunset reviews of these CVD 

orders pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C). As a result of these 

sunset reviews, the Department finds 

that revocation of the CVD orders would 

likely lead to continuation or recurrence 

of a countervailable subsidy at the levels 

indicated in the ‘‘Final Results of 

Reviews’’ section of this notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 4, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andrew McAllister or Devta Ohri, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 1, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–1174 or (202) 482–

3853, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 1, 2005, the Department 

initiated sunset reviews of the CVD 

orders on pure magnesium and alloy 

magnesium from Canada pursuant to 

section 751(c) of the Act. See Initiation 

of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 70 FR 

38101 (July 1, 2005). The Department 

received a notice of intent to participate 

from the domestic industry (US 

Magnesium LLC) and the Government of 

Quebec (‘‘GOQ’’), within the deadline 

specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). US 

Magnesium LLC (‘‘US Magnesium’’) 

claimed interested party status under 

section 771(9)(C) of the Act, while the 

GOQ claimed interested party status 

under section 771(9)(B) of the Act. 

The Department received complete 

substantive responses from US 

Magnesium and the GOQ on August 1, 

2005, within the 30-day deadline 

specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). On 

August 5, 2005, the Department 

extended the due date for parties to 

submit rebuttal comments to August 12, 

2005. On August 12, 2005, US 

Magnesium and the GOQ filed rebuttal 

comments. On August 22, 2005, the 

Department, in its adequacy 

determination, stated that because a 

government response alone is not 

sufficient for full sunset reviews in 

which the orders are not1 done on an 

aggregate basis, pursuant to section 

751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), we are 

conducting expedited reviews of these 

CVD orders. See Memorandum from 

Susan Kuhbach to Barbara E. Tillman: 

Adequacy Determination: 2nd Sunset 

Review of the Countervailing Duty 

Orders on Pure Magnesium and Alloy 

Magnesium from Canada, dated August 

22, 2005, which is on file in the Central 

Records Unit, Room B–099 of the main 

Department building. 

Scope of the Orders 

The products covered by these orders 

are shipments of pure and alloy 

magnesium from Canada. Pure 

magnesium contains at least 99.8 

percent magnesium by weight and is 

sold in various slab and ingot forms and 

sizes. Magnesium alloys contain less 

than 99.8 percent magnesium by weight 

with magnesium being the largest 

metallic element in the alloy by weight, 

and are sold in various ingot and billet 

forms and sizes. 

The pure and alloy magnesium 

subject to the orders is currently 

classifiable under items 8104.11.0000 

and 8104.19.0000, respectively, of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written descriptions of the merchandise 

subject to the orders are dispositive. 

Secondary and granular magnesium 

are not included in the scope of these 

orders. Our reasons for excluding 

granular magnesium are summarized in 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value: Pure and Alloy 

Magnesium From Canada, 57 FR 6094 

(February 20, 1992). 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in these reviews are 

addressed in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum (‘‘Decision 

Memorandum’’) from Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, to Joseph A. Spetrini, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, dated October 31, 2005, 

which is hereby adopted by this notice. 

Parties can find a complete discussion 

of all issues raised in these reviews and 

the corresponding recommendation in 

this public memorandum which is on 

file in the Central Records Unit room B–

099 of the main Department building. In 

addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly on the Web at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Final Results of Reviews 

We determine that revocation of the 

countervailing duty orders would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of a countervailable subsidy. 

4348 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2006 / Notices 

comment. The final EIS and decision is 

expected in December 2006. Public 

questions and comments regarding this 

proposal are an integral part of the 

environmental analysis process. 

Comments will be used to identify 

issues and develop alternatives to this 

proposal. To assist the Forest Service in 

identifying and considering issues and 

concerns on the proposed action, 

comments should be as specific as 

possible. 

Preliminary Issues 

A. Long standing outfitter guide 

operators have not received 5-year term 

or priority use permits. 

B. Levels of authorized outfitter-guide 

use (too much commercial use for some 

and not enough opportunities for others) 

and limits on the number of permits in 

the popular and highly marketable 

tourist locations: such as, Broken 

Arrow, Soldier Pass, Greasy Spoon, 

Honanki, etc. 

C. The Forest Service has not 

authorized increased opportunities for 

existing outfitter-guides with temporary 

permits. 

D. Sustaining of historic permits, 

versus adjusting/limiting authorizations 

and opening up new competitive 

opportunities. 

E. The Forest Service has not issued 

new outfitter-guide authorizations in the 

greater Sedona area. 

F. Inconsistencies and deficiencies in 

outfitter-guide quality of service and 

performance. 

G. Demand for group and large 

community events on the National 

Forest is inconsistent with current 

emphasis in the Forest Plan. 

H. Lack of permit system for 

commercial wedding planning and 

operations on the National Forest. 

I. Authorization and management of 

recreation events, such as size, location, 

type of event, limitations. 

J. Authorization and management of 

institutional outfitter-guide activities. 

K. Inconsistencies between desire of 

permit holders for unlimited business 

growth and current Forest Plan 

direction for encounter frequencies and 

limited commercial activities. 

L. Perceived monopoly of business 

income related to certain locations. 

M. Concern related to resource and 

infrastructure impacts and damage from 

outfitter-guide activities and general 

recreation use. 

N. Implementation of new 

regulations. 

O. Some existing outfitter guides 

allocations are not used and that nonuse has not been available for others or 

administered under current policy. 

P. Concerns about delay in 

completing reallocation of existing 

permitted guides. 

Q. Displacement of general public use 

of area as a result of outfitter guide use, 

(common wedding or large group use 

locations.) 

Comment Requested 

This notice of intent initiates the 

scoping process which guides the 

development of the environmental 

impact statement. Comments should be 

as specific as possible including 

location of concern area, why the 

concern is important, and data 

supporting any information considered 

not accurate. Comments should also 

indicate interest in being included on a 

mailing list for the project with accurate 

mailing address and contact 

information. 

Early Notice of Importance of Public 

Participation in Subsequent 

Environmental Review: A draft 

environmental impact statement will be 

prepared for comment. The comment 

period on the draft environmental 

impact statement will be 45 days from 

the date the Environmental Protection 

Agency publishes the notice of 

availability in the Federal Register. 

The Forest Service believes, at this 

early stage, it is important to give 

reviewers notice of several court rulings 

related to public participation in the 

environmental review process. First, 

reviewers of draft environmental impact 

statements must structure their 

participation in the environmental 

review of the proposal so that it is 

meaningful and alerts an agency to the 

reviewer’s position and contentions. 

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. 

NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, 

environmental objections that could be 

raised at the draft environmental impact 

statement stage but that are not raised 

until after completion of the final 

environmental impact statement may be 

waived or dismissed by the courts. City 

of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 

1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin 

Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 

1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of 

these court rulings, it is very important 

that those interested in this proposed 

action participate by the close of the 45- 

day comment period so that substantive 

comments and objections are made 

available to the Forest Service at a time 

when it can meaningfully consider them 

and respond to them in the final 

environmental impact statement. 

To assist the Forest Service in 

identifying and considering issues and 

concerns on the proposed action, 

comments on the draft environmental 

impact statement should be as specific 

as possible. It is also helpful if 

comments refer to specific pages or 

chapters of the draft statement. 

Comments may also address the 

adequacy of the draft environmental 

impact statement or the merits of the 

alternatives formulated and discussed in 

the statement. Reviewers may wish to 

refer to the Council on Environmental 

Quality Regulations for implementing 

the procedural provisions of the 

National Environmental Policy Act at 40 

CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points. 

Comments received, including the 

names and addresses of those who 

comment, will be considered part of the 

public record on this proposal and will 

be available for public inspection. 

(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; 

Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section 

21) 

Dated: January 20, 2006. 

Nora B. Rasure, 

Forest Supervisor, Coconino Naitonal Forest. 

[FR Doc. 06–737 Filed 1–25–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–428–602] 

Brass Sheet and Strip from Germany: 

Final Results of the Full Sunset Review 

of the Antidumping Duty Order 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On October 28, 2005, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) published a notice of 

preliminary results of the full sunset 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on brass sheet and strip (‘‘BSS’’) from 

Germany (70 FR 62093) pursuant to 

section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (‘‘the Act’’). We provided 

interested parties an opportunity to 

comment on our preliminary results. We 

did not receive comments from either 

domestic or respondent interested 

parties. As a result of this review, the 

Department finds that revocation of this 

order would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

at the levels indicated in the ‘‘Final 

Results of Review’’ section of this 

notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 26, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Audrey R. Twyman, Brandon Farlander, 

or David Goldberger, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 1, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2006 / Notices 4349 

Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; 

telephone: 202–482–3534, 202–482–

0182, and 202–482–4136, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On October 28, 2005, the Department 

of Commerce (the ‘‘Department’’) 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice of preliminary results of the full 

sunset review of the antidumping duty 

order on BSS from Germany, pursuant 

to section 751(c) of the Act. See Brass 

Sheet and Strip from Germany: 

Preliminary Results of the Sunset 

Review of Antidumping Duty Order, 70 

FR 62093 (October 28, 2005) 

(‘‘Preliminary Results’’). In our 

Preliminary Results, we determined that 

revocation of the order would likely 

result in continuation or recurrence of 

dumping with a margin of 3.81 percent 

for Wieland–Werke AG and an ‘‘all 

others’’ rate of 7.30 percent. We did not 

receive a case brief on behalf of either 

domestic or respondent interested 

parties within the deadline specified in 

19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i). 

Scope of the Order 

The product covered by this order is 

brass sheet and strip, other than leaded 

and tinned. The chemical composition 

of the covered product is currently 

defined in the Copper Development 

Association (‘‘C.D.A.’’) 200 Series or the 

Unified Numbering System (‘‘U.N.S.’’) 

C2000. This order does not cover 

products with chemical compositions 

that are defined by anything other than 

either the C.D.A. or U.N.S. series. In 

physical dimensions, the product 

covered by this order has a solid 

rectangular cross section over 0.0006 

inches (0.15 millimeters) through 0.1888 

inches (4.8 millimeters) in finished 

thickness or gauge, regardless of width. 

Coiled, wound–on-reels (traverse 

wound), and cut–to-length products are 

included. The merchandise is currently 

classified under Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) item numbers 7409.21.00 

and 7409.29.00. The HTSUS numbers 

are provided for convenience and 

customs purposes. The written 

description of the scope of this order 

remains dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

The Department did not receive case 

briefs from either domestic or 

respondent interested parties. Therefore, 

we have not made any changes to our 

Preliminary Results. 

Final Results of Review 

We determine that revocation of the 

antidumping duty order on BSS from 

Germany would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

at the following weighted–average 

margins: 

Manufacturer/Exporter Margin (percent) 

Wieland–Werke AG .......... 3.81 

All Others .......................... 7.30 

This notice serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely 

notification of return/destruction of 

APO materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and the terms of an APO is a 

sanctionable violation. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results in accordance with sections 

751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: January 20, 2006. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E6–992 Filed 1–25–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–357–812] 

Honey from Argentina: Initiation of 

New Shipper Antidumping Duty 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Initiation of New Shipper 

Antidumping Duty Review. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 26, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Cordell or Robert James, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0408 or (202) 482–

0469, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department received a timely 

request from Patagonik S.A. (Patagonik), 

in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(c), 

for a new shipper review of the 

antidumping duty order on honey from 

Argentina. See Notice of Antidumping 

Duty Order: Honey from Argentina, 66 

FR 63672 (December 10, 2001). 

Patagonik identified itself as the 

exporter of subject merchandise 

produced by its supplier Colmenares 

Santa Rosa s.r.l. 

As required by 19 CFR 

351.214(b)(2)(i),(ii), and (iii)(A), 

Patagonik certified it did not export 

honey to the United States during the 

period of investigation (POI), and that it 

has never been affiliated with any 

exporter or producer which exported 

honey during the POI. As required by 19 

CFR 351.214(b)(2)(ii)(B), Patagonik’s 

supplier, Colmenares Santa Rosa s.r.l., 

certified that it did not export the 

subject merchandise to the United 

States during the POI. Our inquires and 

Customs run queries with U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) show that 

the shipment entered the United States 

shortly after the anniversary month. 

Under section 351.214(f)(2)(ii) of the 

Department’s regulations, when the sale 

of the subject merchandise occurs 

within the period of review (POR), but 

the entry occurs after the normal POR, 

the POR may be extended unless it 

would be likely to prevent the 

completion of the review within the 

time limits set by the Department’s 

regulations. The preamble to the 

Department’s regulations states that 

both the entry and the sale should occur 

during the POR, and that under 

‘‘appropriate’’ circumstances the 

Department has the flexibility to extend 

the POR. See Antidumping Duties; 

Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 

27296, 27319, 27320 (May 19, 1997). In 

this instance, Patagonik’s shipment 

entered in the month following the end 

of the POR. The Department does not 

find that this delay prevents the 

completion of the review within the 

time limits set by the Department’s 

regulations. Accordingly, we are 

extending the POR by one month to 

capture both the sale and subsequent 

entry during the New Shipper POR. 

Scope 

The merchandise under review is 

honey from the Argentina. The products 

covered are natural honey, artificial 

honey containing more than 50 percent 

natural honey by weight, preparations of 

natural honey containing more than 50 

percent natural honey by weight, and 

flavored honey. The subject 

merchandise includes all grades and 

colors of honey whether in liquid, 

creamed, comb, cut comb, or chunk 

form, and whether packaged for retail or 

in bulk form. The merchandise under 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 2006 / Notices 10651 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–427–603] 

Final Results of Full Sunset Review: 

Brass Sheet and Strip from France 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On April 1, 2005, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) initiated a sunset review 

of the countervailing duty order 

(‘‘CVD’’) on brass sheet and strip from 

France pursuant to section 751(c) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’). On the basis of a notice of intent 

to participate and an adequate 

substantive response filed on behalf of 

the domestic interested parties and an 

adequate response from respondent 

interested parties, the Department 

determined to conduct a full sunset 

review of this CVD order pursuant to 

section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.218(e)(2). As a result of this sunset 

review, the Department finds that 

revocation of the CVD order would not 

be likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of a countervailable subsidy. 

Therefore, the Department is revoking 

this CVD order. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 2, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Darla Brown or David Goldberger, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–2849 or (202) 482–

4136, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On April 1, 2005, the Department 

initiated a sunset review of the CVD 

order on brass sheet and strip from 

France pursuant to section 751(c) of the 

Act. See Notice of Initiation of Five–

Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 70 FR 16800 

(April 1, 2005). 

On October 25, 2005, the Department 

published the preliminary results of the 

full sunset review of the instant order. 

See Preliminary Results of Full Sunset 

Review: Brass Sheet and Strip from 

France, 70 FR 61604 (October 25, 2005). 

Interested parties were invited to 

comment on our preliminary results. On 

December 7, 2005, we received case 

briefs from the Government of France 

and the European Union. On December 

12, 2005, we received rebuttal briefs 

from domestic interested parties. 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise subject to the CVD 

order is coiled, wound–on-reels 

(traverse wound), and cut–to-length 

brass sheet and strip (not leaded or 

tinned) from France. The subject 

merchandise has, regardless of width, a 

solid rectangular cross section over 

0.0006 inches (0.15 millimeters) through 

0.1888 inches (4.8 millimeters) in 

finished thickness or gauge. The 

chemical composition of the covered 

products is defined in the Copper 

Development Association (‘‘C.D.A.’’) 

200 Series or the Unified Numbering 

System (‘‘U.N.S.’’) C2000; this order 

does not cover products with chemical 

compositions that are defined by 

anything other than C.D.A. or U.N.S. 

series. The merchandise is currently 

classifiable under Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule (‘‘HTS’’) item numbers 

7409.21.00 and 7409.29.00. The HTS 

item numbers are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes. The 

written description remains dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in this review are 

addressed in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum (‘‘Decision 

Memorandum’’) from Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, to David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, dated February 22, 

2006, which is hereby adopted by this 

notice. Parties can find a complete 

discussion of all issues raised in this 

review and the corresponding 

recommendation in this public 

memorandum which is on file in the 

Central Records Unit, room B–099 of the 

main Commerce building. In addition, a 

complete version of the Decision 

Memorandum can be accessed directly 

on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. 

The paper copy and electronic version 

of the Decision Memorandum are 

identical in content. 

Final Results of Review and Revocation 

The Department determines that 

revocation of the CVD order would not 

be likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of a countervailable subsidy. 

As a result, we are revoking this order, 

effective May 1, 2005, the fifth 

anniversary of the date of publication in 

the Federal Register of the notice of 

continuation (see 65 FR 25304 (May 1, 

2000)). We will notify the International 

Trade Commission of these results. 

Furthermore, we will instruct U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection to 

terminate suspension of liquidation, 

effective May 1, 2005. 

Notification Regarding Administrative 

Protective Order 

This notice serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. 

Timely notification of return/ 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and the terms of an 

APO is a sanctionable violation. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results and notice in accordance with 

sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act. 

Dated: February 22, 2006. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E6–2926 Filed 3–1–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

The Manufacturing Council: Meeting of 

the Manufacturing Council 

AGENCY: International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Manufacturing Council 

will hold a full Council meeting to 

discuss topics related to the state of 

manufacturing. The Manufacturing 

Council is a Secretarial Board at the 

Department of Commerce, established to 

ensure regular communication between 

Government and the manufacturing 

sector. This will be the fifth meeting of 

The Manufacturing Council. For 

information about the Council, please 

visit its Web site at: http:// 

www.manufacturing.gov/council. 

DATES: March 22, 2006. 

TIME: 10:30 a.m. 

ADDRESSES: Donald E. Stephens 

Convention Center, Rosemont, Illinois. 

This program is physically accessible to 

people with disabilities. Requests for 

sign language interpretation or other 

auxiliary aids should be submitted no 

later than March 15, 2006, to The 

Manufacturing Council, Room 4043, 

Washington, DC 20230. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

Manufacturing Council Executive 

Secretariat, Room 4043, Washington, DC 

20230 (Phone: 202–482–1369). 

Interested parties are encouraged to visit 


wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 47 / Friday, March 10, 2006 / Notices 12395 

and Community Self-Determination Act 

of 2000, Public Law 106–393. 

SUMMARY: The BLM Coos Bay District 

RAC is scheduled to meet on March 13, 

2006 from 9 a.m. until 12 p.m. at the 

BLM Coos Bay District Office. The BLM 

Office is located at 1300 Airport Lane in 

North Bend, Oregon. The purpose of 

this meeting will be for the RAC review 

previous fiscal years’ accomplishments 

and budget expenditures. The election 

of the BLM Coos Bay District RAC Chair 

and Vice-chair will also occur at this 

meeting. There will be an opportunity 

for the public to address the BLM Coos 

Bay District RAC at approximately 10:30 

a.m. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark Johnson, BLM Coos Bay District 

Manager, at (541) 756–0100 or Glenn 

Harkleroad, District Restoration 

Coordinator, at (541) 751–4361 or 

glenn_harkleroad@or.blm.gov. The 

mailing address for the BLM Coos Bay 

District Office is 1300 Airport Lane, 

North Bend, Oregon 97459. 

Dated: March 1, 2006. 

M. Elaine Raper, 

Acting Coos Bay District Manager. 

[FR Doc. E6–3428 Filed 3–9–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–33–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 701–TA–270 (Second 

Review)] 

Brass Sheet and Strip From France 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Termination of review. 

SUMMARY: On March 2, 2006, the 

Department of Commerce published 

notice in the Federal Register of a 

negative final determination of the 

likelihood of continuation or recurrence 

of a countervailable subsidy in 

connection with the subject five-year 

review on brass sheet and strip from 

France (71 FR 10651). Accordingly, 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), the fiveyear review of the countervailing duty 

order concerning brass sheet and strip 

from France (investigation No. 701–TA–

270 (Second Review)) is terminated. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 2, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Vincent Honnold (202–205–3314), 

Office of Investigations, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. 

Hearing-impaired individuals are 

advised that information on this matter 

can be obtained by contacting the 

Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

this review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

Authority: This five-year review is being 

terminated under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.69 of the 

Commission’s rules (19 CFR 207.69). 

Issued: March 6, 2006. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E6–3473 Filed 3–9–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

Notice of Determinations Regarding 

Eligibility To Apply for Worker 

Adjustment Assistance 

In accordance with section 223 of the 

Trade Act of 1974, as amended, (19 

U.S.C. 2273), the Department of Labor 

herein presents summaries of 

determinations regarding eligibility to 

apply for trade adjustment assistance for 

workers (TA–W) number and alternative 

trade adjustment assistance (ATAA) by 

(TA–W) number issued during the 

periods of February, 2006. 

In order for an affirmative 

determination to be made and a 

certification of eligibility to apply for 

directly-impacted (primary) worker 

adjustment assistance to be issued, each 

of the group eligibility requirements of 

section 222(a) of the Act must be met. 

I. Section (a)(2)(A) all of the following 

must be satisfied: 

A. A significant number or proportion 

of the workers in such workers’ firm, or 

an appropriate subdivision of the firm, 

have become totally or partially 

separated, or are threatened to become 

totally or partially separated; 

B. The sales or production, or both, of 

such firm or subdivision have decreased 

absolutely; and 

C. Increased imports of articles like or 

directly competitive with articles 

produced by such firm or subdivision 

have contributed importantly to such 

workers’ separation or threat of 

separation and to the decline in sales or 

production of such firm or subdivision; 

or 

II. Section (a)(2)(B) both of the 

following must be satisfied: 

A. A significant number or proportion 

of the workers in such workers’ firm, or 

an appropriate subdivision of the firm, 

have become totally or partially 

separated, or are threatened to become 

totally or partially separated; 

B. There has been a shift in 

production by such workers’ firm or 

subdivision to a foreign county of 

articles like or directly competitive with 

articles which are produced by such 

firm or subdivision; and 

C. One of the following must be 

satisfied: 

1. The country to which the workers’

firm has shifted production of the 

articles is a party to a free trade 

agreement with the United States; 

2. The country to which the workers’

firm has shifted production of the 

articles to a beneficiary country under 

the Andean Trade Preference Act, 

African Growth and Opportunity Act, or 

the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery 

Act; or 

3. There has been or is likely to be an 

increase in imports of articles that are 

like or directly competitive with articles 

which are or were produced by such 

firm or subdivision. 

Also, in order for an affirmative 

determination to be made and a 

certification of eligibility to apply for 

worker adjustment assistance as an 

adversely affected secondary group to be 

issued, each of the group eligibility 

requirements of section 222(b) of the 

Act must be met. 

(1) Significant number or proportion 

of the workers in the workers’ firm or 

an appropriate subdivision of the firm 

have become totally or partially 

separated, or are threatened to become 

totally or partially separated; 

(2) The workers’ firm (or subdivision) 

is a supplier or downstream producer to 

a firm (or subdivision) that employed a 

group of workers who received a 

certification of eligibility to apply for 

trade adjustment assistance benefits and 

such supply or production is related to 

the article that was the basis for such 

certification; and 

(3) Either—

(A) The workers’ firm is a supplier 

and the component parts it supplied for 

the firm (or subdivision) described in 

paragraph (2) accounted for at least 20 

percent of the production or sales of the 

workers’ firm; or 

(B) A loss or business by the workers’

firm with the firm (or subdivision) 

described in paragraph (2) contributed 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
EXPLANATION OF COMMISSION DETERMINATION ON ADEQUACY

in

Brass Sheet and Strip from Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan,

 Inv. Nos. 701-TA-269 and 270, and 731-TA-311-314, 317, and 379 (Second Review)

On July 5, 2005, the Commission unanimously determined that it should proceed to full

reviews in the subject five-year reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930,

as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(5).

With regard to each of the reviews, the Commission determined that the domestic

interested party group response to the notice of institution was adequate. The Commission

received an adequate joint response with company specific data on behalf of six domestic

producers and four domestic trade unions: Heyco Metals, Inc.; Olin Corporation - Brass Group;

Outokumpu American Brass; PMX Industries, Inc.; Revere Copper Products, Inc.; Scott Brass;

International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers; United Auto Workers Local

2367; United Auto Workers Local 1024; and the United Steelworkers. The Commission also

received a response from Wieland Metals, Inc., a domestic producer, as well as an importer of 

subject merchandise. Because the Commission received an adequate response from domestic

producers and unions accounting for a substantial percentage of U.S. production, the

Commission determined that the domestic interested party group response was adequate.

In the review concerning subject imports from Germany, the Commission received

adequate responses from three producers of the subject merchandise in Germany – WielandWerke AG, Prymetall GmbH & Co. KG, and Schwermetall Halbzeugwerk GmbH & Co. KG –

and a U.S. importer of the subject merchandise from Germany – Wieland Metals, Inc. Because

the Commission received adequate responses representing a substantial percentage of the

production of subject brass sheet and strip in Germany, the Commission determined that the

respondent interested party group response for Germany was adequate. Accordingly, the

Commission determined to proceed to a full review in Brass Sheet and Strip from Germany. 

The Commission did not receive a response from any respondent interested parties in the

reviews concerning subject imports from Brazil, Canada, France, Italy, or Japan. However, the

Commission determined to conduct full reviews to promote administrative efficiency in light of

its decision to conduct a full review with respect to Brass Sheet and Strip from Germany. A

record of the Commissioners’ votes is available from the Office of the Secretary and the

Commission’s web site (http://www.usitc.gov).
B-1

APPENDIX B

HEARING WITNESSES

B-3

CALENDAR OF PUBLIC HEARING

Those listed below appeared as witnesses at the United States International Trade Commission’s

hearing:

Subject: Brass Sheet and Strip from Brazil, Canada, France,

Germany, Italy, and Japan

Inv. Nos.: 701-TA-269 and 270 and 731-TA-311-314, 317, and 379

(Second Review)

Date and Time: January 24, 2006 - 9:30 a.m.

Sessions were held in connection with these second five-year review investigations in the Main

Hearing Room, 500 E Street (room 101), SW, Washington, DC.

Opening Remarks:

In Support of the Continuation of the Orders: David A. Hartquist, Collier Shannon Scott, PLLC

In Opposition to the Continuation of the Orders: Philippe M. Bruno, Greenberg Traurig, LLP

 

In Support of the Continuation of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders:

Collier Shannon Scott, PLLC

Washington, DC

on behalf of

The Domestic Interested Parties

Joseph L. Mayer, President, Copper & Brass Fabricators Council, Inc.

Joseph D. Rupp, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Olin Corp.

Jeffrey J. Haferkamp, President, Olin Brass, Division of Olin Corp.

Thomas G. Baker, Vice President, Marketing and Sales, Olin Brass, Division of

 Olin Corp.

Warren E. Bartel, President, Outokumpu American Brass

Michele A. Potter, Marketing Manager, Outokumpu American Brass

Douglas W. Burkhardt, General Manager, Sales and Marketing, PMX Industries, Inc.

Michael T. Kerwin, Economist, Georgetown Economic Services

William B. Hudgens, Economist, Georgetown Economic Services

David A. Hartquist - OF COUNSEL

Jeffrey S. Beckington

Kathleen W. Cannon

Grace W. Kim
B-4

In Opposition to the Continuation of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders:

Arnold & Porter LLP

Washington, DC

on behalf of

Wieland-Werke AG

Prymetall GmbH & Co. KG

Schwermetall Halbzeugwerk GmbH & Co. KG

Werner Traa, Executive Board Member, Wieland-Werke AG

Joerg Hanisch, Executive Board Member, Wieland-Werke AG

Klaus Guttenberg, General Counsel, Wieland-Werke AG

Markus Schuler, Executive Vice President, Wieland Metals, Inc.

Ed Pages, President, Guarantee Specialties, Inc.

Bruce Malashevich, President, Economic Consulting Services, LLC

Michael T. Shor – OF COUNSEL

Greenberg Traurig, LLP

Washington, DC

on behalf of

Eluma S.A. (“Eluma”)

Valmir Baialuna, Sales Manager, Eluma

Philippe M. Bruno - OF COUNSEL

Rebuttal/Closing Remarks:

In Support of the Continuation of the Orders: David A. Hartquist, Collier Shannon Scott, PLLC

In Opposition to the Continuation of the Orders: Michael T. Shor, Arnold & Porter, LLP
C-1

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA

Table C-1

BSS: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 1999-2004, January-September 2004, and January-September 2005

(Quantity=1,000 pounds, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per pound; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-September Jan.-Sept.

Item 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2004 2005 1999-2004 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 602,176 616,895 448,434 495,450 458,962 502,582 392,791 345,713 -16.5 2.4 -27.3 10.5 -7.4 9.5 -12.0

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . 92.6 89.6 85.2 88.1 87.1 85.3 85.9 86.2 -7.3 -3.0 -4.4 2.9 -1.0 -1.8 0.3

 Importers' share (1):

 Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0

 Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.7 0.1 0.2 -0.7 -0.3 0.0 -0.0

 France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0

 Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 -0.2 0.1 -0.0 -0.0 -0.2 -0.1 0.0

 Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0

 Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6 -0.2 -0.1 0.1 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 -0.0

 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 2.4 2.7 1.9 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 -1.2 -0.0 0.2 -0.8 -0.6 -0.1 -0.0

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . 4.9 8.0 12.1 10.0 11.5 13.4 12.9 12.6 8.5 3.1 4.1 -2.1 1.6 1.9 -0.2

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 10.4 14.8 11.9 12.9 14.7 14.1 13.8 7.3 3.0 4.4 -2.9 1.0 1.8 -0.3

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 633,561 706,447 516,891 545,748 519,488 705,952 547,382 566,803 11.4 11.5 -26.8 5.6 -4.8 35.9 3.5

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . 91.4 88.3 84.1 87.3 86.2 83.9 84.6 85.0 -7.5 -3.1 -4.2 3.2 -1.1 -2.3 0.3

 Importers' share (1):

 Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0

 Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.8 1.1 1.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.8 0.3 0.0 -0.9 -0.3 0.0 -0.0

 France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0

 Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.7 -0.3 0.1 -0.0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.2 0.1

 Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0

 Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.9 -0.5 -0.1 -0.0 -0.2 -0.2 -0.0 -0.1

 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 3.5 3.5 2.4 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.6 -1.7 0.1 -0.0 -1.1 -0.6 -0.1 -0.1

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 8.2 12.4 10.3 12.0 14.4 13.7 13.4 9.2 3.0 4.3 -2.1 1.7 2.4 -0.3

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6 11.7 15.9 12.7 13.8 16.1 15.4 15.0 7.5 3.1 4.2 -3.2 1.1 2.3 -0.3

U.S. imports from:

 Brazil:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 697 43 0 115 44 12 12 0 -98.3 -93.8 -100.0 (2) -61.7 -73.1 -100.0

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 735 52 0 95 52 12 12 0 -98.4 -92.9 -100.0 (2) -44.7 -76.9 -100.0

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.05 $1.20 (2) $0.83 $1.19 $1.02 $1.02 (2) -2.9 13.7 (2) (2) 44.4 -14.2 (2)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Canada:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,193 4,756 4,478 1,435 37 72 52 18 -98.3 13.4 -5.9 -67.9 -97.5 97.4 -65.6

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,233 7,693 5,843 1,528 44 172 135 42 -96.7 47.0 -24.0 -73.9 -97.1 291.6 -68.9

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.25 $1.62 $1.31 $1.06 $1.20 $2.39 $2.60 $2.34 91.3 29.6 -19.3 -18.4 13.1 98.3 -9.8

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 France:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 41 54 0 0 142 113 33 76.5 -49.5 33.4 -100.0 -100.0 (2) -71.2

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 53 62 4 0 231 183 63 132.6 -47.1 18.6 -93.8 -100.0 (2) -65.4

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.23 $1.29 $1.15 $350.99 (2) $1.62 $1.62 $1.94 31.8 4.8 -11.1 30,472.8 (2) (2) 20.1

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Germany:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,575 5,272 3,665 4,044 3,006 2,648 1,948 1,736 -42.1 15.2 -30.5 10.3 -25.7 -11.9 -10.9

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,983 7,399 5,350 5,079 4,317 4,464 3,329 3,847 -25.4 23.7 -27.7 -5.1 -15.0 3.4 15.6

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.31 $1.40 $1.46 $1.26 $1.44 $1.69 $1.71 $2.22 28.9 7.3 4.0 -14.0 14.4 17.4 29.7

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Italy:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297 296 178 287 114 182 123 160 -38.8 -0.2 -40.0 61.8 -60.2 58.8 30.1

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395 456 278 445 218 364 243 353 -7.8 15.6 -39.2 60.2 -51.0 66.9 45.2

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.33 $1.54 $1.56 $1.55 $1.90 $2.00 $1.98 $2.20 50.6 15.9 1.3 -1.0 23.2 5.1 11.6

 Ending inventory quantity . . . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 Japan:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,994 4,666 3,672 3,547 2,824 3,163 2,591 2,165 -36.7 -6.6 -21.3 -3.4 -20.4 12.0 -16.4

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,156 9,204 6,599 5,979 4,876 6,620 5,425 5,039 -27.7 0.5 -28.3 -9.4 -18.5 35.8 -7.1

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.83 $1.97 $1.80 $1.69 $1.73 $2.09 $2.09 $2.33 14.2 7.6 -8.9 -6.2 2.4 21.2 11.1

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Subtotal (subject sources):

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,837 15,074 12,046 9,428 6,025 6,218 4,840 4,112 -58.1 1.6 -20.1 -21.7 -36.1 3.2 -15.0

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21,602 24,857 18,132 13,129 9,507 11,863 9,327 9,343 -45.1 15.1 -27.1 -27.6 -27.6 24.8 0.2

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.46 $1.65 $1.51 $1.39 $1.58 $1.91 $1.93 $2.27 31.0 13.3 -8.7 -7.5 13.3 20.9 17.9

 Ending inventory quantity . . . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,526 49,097 54,121 49,501 52,975 67,425 50,479 43,600 128.4 66.3 10.2 -8.5 7.0 27.3 -13.6

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32,854 57,742 64,254 56,168 62,242 101,568 74,822 75,838 209.2 75.8 11.3 -12.6 10.8 63.2 1.4

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.11 $1.18 $1.19 $1.13 $1.17 $1.51 $1.48 $1.74 35.4 5.7 0.9 -4.4 3.5 28.2 17.3

 Ending inventory quantity . . . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44,363 64,171 66,167 58,930 58,999 73,643 55,318 47,712 66.0 44.7 3.1 -10.9 0.1 24.8 -13.7

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54,456 82,599 82,386 69,297 71,749 113,431 84,148 85,182 108.3 51.7 -0.3 -15.9 3.5 58.1 1.2

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.23 $1.29 $1.25 $1.18 $1.22 $1.54 $1.52 $1.79 25.5 4.9 -3.3 -5.6 3.4 26.7 17.4

 Ending inventory quantity . . . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Table continued on next page.

C-3
Table C-1--Continued

BSS: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 1999-2004, January-September 2004, and January-September 2005

(Quantity=1,000 pounds, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per pound; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-September Jan.-Sept.

Item 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2004 2005 1999-2004 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005

U.S. basic producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . 634,779 644,373 587,613 628,599 598,991 606,983 456,363 448,083 -4.4 1.5 -8.8 7.0 -4.7 1.3 -1.8

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . 573,981 558,227 387,191 446,192 407,574 441,125 346,976 302,879 -23.1 -2.7 -30.6 15.2 -8.7 8.2 -12.7

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . 90.4 86.6 65.9 71.0 68.0 72.7 76.0 67.6 -17.7 -3.8 -20.7 5.1 -2.9 4.6 -8.4

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 557,813 552,724 382,267 436,520 399,963 428,939 337,473 298,001 -23.1 -0.9 -30.8 14.2 -8.4 7.2 -11.7

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 579,105 623,848 434,505 476,451 447,739 592,521 463,234 481,621 2.3 7.7 -30.4 9.7 -6.0 32.3 4.0

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.04 $1.13 $1.14 $1.09 $1.12 $1.38 $1.37 $1.62 33.1 8.7 0.7 -4.0 2.6 23.4 17.7

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . 42,229 39,150 31,954 33,027 31,921 36,398 35,479 26,297 -13.8 -7.3 -18.4 3.4 -3.3 14.0 -25.9

 Inventories/total shipments (1) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . 1,560 1,466 1,281 1,348 1,308 1,203 1,217 1,122 -22.9 -6.0 -12.6 5.2 -3.0 -8.0 -7.8

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . 3,433 3,250 2,695 2,855 2,719 2,624 2,021 1,779 -23.6 -5.3 -17.1 5.9 -4.8 -3.5 -12.0

 Wages paid ($1,000) . . . . . . . 73,432 70,554 61,275 63,956 65,239 64,314 46,592 41,061 -12.4 -3.9 -13.2 4.4 2.0 -1.4 -11.9

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . $21.39 $21.71 $22.74 $22.40 $23.99 $24.51 $23.05 $23.08 14.6 1.5 4.7 -1.5 7.1 2.2 0.1

 Productivity (pounds per hour) 167.2 171.8 143.7 156.3 149.9 168.1 171.7 170.3 0.5 2.7 -16.4 8.8 -4.1 12.2 -0.8

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.13 $0.13 $0.16 $0.14 $0.16 $0.15 $0.13 $0.14 14.0 -1.2 25.2 -9.4 11.7 -8.9 1.0

 Net sales (3):

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 618,559 607,953 425,452 477,693 433,965 468,561 367,523 333,216 -24.2 -1.7 -30.0 12.3 -9.2 8.0 -9.3

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 659,604 710,815 502,923 538,653 498,797 662,630 518,715 551,870 0.5 7.8 -29.2 7.1 -7.4 32.8 6.4

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.07 $1.17 $1.18 $1.13 $1.15 $1.41 $1.41 $1.66 32.6 9.6 1.1 -4.6 1.9 23.0 17.3

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . 585,341 634,186 468,186 497,114 460,339 625,773 490,771 533,697 6.9 8.3 -26.2 6.2 -7.4 35.9 8.7

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . 74,263 76,629 34,737 41,539 38,458 36,857 27,944 18,173 -50.4 3.2 -54.7 19.6 -7.4 -4.2 -35.0

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . 25,330 32,920 29,397 31,578 29,035 22,621 16,951 15,825 -10.7 30.0 -10.7 7.4 -8.1 -22.1 -6.6

 Operating income or (loss) . . . 48,933 43,709 5,340 9,961 9,423 14,236 10,993 2,348 -70.9 -10.7 -87.8 86.5 -5.4 51.1 -78.6

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . 48,561 60,409 43,455 18,020 26,874 23,293 15,709 15,417 -52.0 24.4 -28.1 -58.5 49.1 -13.3 -1.9

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.95 $1.04 $1.10 $1.04 $1.06 $1.34 $1.34 $1.60 41.1 10.2 5.5 -5.4 1.9 25.9 19.9

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . $0.04 $0.05 $0.07 $0.07 $0.07 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 17.9 32.2 27.6 -4.3 1.2 -27.8 3.0

 Unit operating income or (loss) $0.08 $0.07 $0.01 $0.02 $0.02 $0.03 $0.03 $0.01 -61.6 -9.1 -82.5 66.1 4.1 39.9 -76.4

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . 88.7 89.2 93.1 92.3 92.3 94.4 94.6 96.7 5.7 0.5 3.9 -0.8 0.0 2.1 2.1

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 6.1 1.1 1.8 1.9 2.1 2.1 0.4 -5.3 -1.3 -5.1 0.8 0.0 0.3 -1.7

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Undefined.

 (3) Financial data include the operations of both basic producers and rerollers.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce and from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

C-4
Table C-2

BSS: Summary data of U.S. rerollers, 1999-2004, January-September 2004, and January-September 2005

(Quantity=1,000 pounds, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per pound; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-September Jan.-Sept.

Item 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2004 2005 1999-2004 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005

U.S. rerollers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . 58,870 59,231 60,121 62,256 60,296 60,283 45,212 45,212 2.4 0.6 1.5 3.6 -3.1 -0.0 0.0

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . 45,314 42,660 27,116 29,586 22,673 30,141 24,475 20,624 -33.5 -5.9 -36.4 9.1 -23.4 32.9 -15.7

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . 77.0 72.0 45.1 47.5 37.6 50.0 54.1 45.6 -27.0 -4.9 -26.9 2.4 -9.9 12.4 -8.5

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43,988 41,707 27,236 29,460 22,681 28,879 23,871 20,025 -34.3 -5.2 -34.7 8.2 -23.0 27.3 -16.1

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64,419 66,090 42,984 43,989 36,638 53,463 47,495 46,389 -17.0 2.6 -35.0 2.3 -16.7 45.9 -2.3

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.46 $1.58 $1.58 $1.49 $1.62 $1.85 $1.99 $2.32 26.4 8.2 -0.4 -5.4 8.2 14.6 16.4

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 Inventories/total shipments (1) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . 122 122 102 109 82 96 96 85 -21.3 0.0 -16.4 6.9 -24.8 17.1 -11.5

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . 291 290 213 237 176 222 177 135 -23.7 -0.3 -26.5 11.0 -25.5 26.1 -23.6

 Wages paid ($1,000) . . . . . . . 5,564 5,607 4,531 5,125 3,609 4,336 3,382 2,639 -22.1 0.8 -19.2 13.1 -29.6 20.1 -22.0

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . $19.09 $19.31 $21.24 $21.65 $20.46 $19.50 $19.15 $19.55 2.1 1.1 10.0 1.9 -5.5 -4.7 2.1

 Productivity (pounds per hour) 155.5 146.9 127.1 125.0 128.5 135.5 138.6 152.8 -12.8 -5.5 -13.5 -1.7 2.8 5.4 10.2

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.12 $0.13 $0.17 $0.17 $0.16 $0.14 $0.14 $0.13 17.2 7.0 27.1 3.7 -8.1 -9.6 -7.4

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

C-5

D-1

APPENDIX D

U.S. PRODUCERS’, U.S. IMPORTERS’, U.S. PURCHASERS’, AND FOREIGN

PRODUCERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE EFFECTS OF THE 

COUNTERVAILING DUTY ORDERS AND THE ANTIDUMPING DUTY

ORDERS AND THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION; 

FOREIGN PRODUCERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING CHANGES IN

FACTORS AFFECTING SUPPLY

D-3

U.S. PRODUCERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE EFFECTS OF THE ORDERS AND THE

LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

U.S. producers were asked whether they anticipated any changes in the character of their

operations or organization relating to the production or rerolling of C20000-series BSS in the future if the

countervailing duty and antidumping duty orders were to be revoked (Question II-4). Their responses

were as follows: 

* * * * * * *

U.S. producers were asked whether they anticipated any changes in their production capacity,

production, U.S. shipments, inventories, purchases, employment, revenues, costs, profits, cash flow,

capital expenditures, research and development expenditures, and asset values relating to the production

of BSS in the future if the countervailing duty and antidumping duty orders were to be revoked (Question

II-17). Their responses were as follows:

* * * * * * *

U.S. producers were asked to describe the significance of the existing countervailing duty and

antidumping duty orders covering imports of C20000-series BSS from the subject countries in terms of

their effect on their production capacity, production, U.S. shipments, inventories, purchases, employment,

revenues, costs, profits, cash flow, capital expenditures, research and development expenditures, and asset

values (Question II-16). Their responses were as follows:

* * * * * * *

U.S. IMPORTERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE EFFECTS OF THE ORDERS AND THE

LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

U.S. importers were asked whether they anticipated any changes in the character of their

operations or organization relating to the importation of C20000-series BSS in the future if the

countervailing duty and antidumping duty orders were to be revoked (Question II-4). Their responses

were as follows:

* * * * * * *

U.S. importers were asked whether they anticipated any changes in their imports, U.S. shipments

of imports, or inventories of C20000-series BSS in the future if the countervailing duty and antidumping

duty orders were to be revoked (Question II-10). Their responses were as follows: 

* * * * * * *

U.S. importers were asked to describe the significance of the existing countervailing duty and

antidumping duty orders covering imports of C20000-series BSS from the subject countries in terms of

their effect on their imports, U.S. shipments of imports, and inventories (Question II-9). Their responses

were as follows:

* * * * * * *
D-4

U.S. PURCHASERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE EFFECTS OF THE ORDERS AND THE

LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

U.S. purchasers were asked to describe the likely effects of any revocation of the countervailing

duty and antidumping duty orders covering BSS from Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan

in terms of: (1) the purchaser’s future activities and (2) the U.S. market as a whole (Question III-35). 

Their responses were as follows:

* * * * * * *

FOREIGN PRODUCERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE EFFECTS OF THE ORDERS AND

THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

Foreign producers were asked whether they anticipated any changes in the character of their

operations or organization relating to the production of C20000-series BSS in the future if the

countervailing duty and/or antidumping duty orders were to be revoked (Question II-3). Their responses

were as follows:

* * * * * * *

Foreign producers were asked whether they anticipated any changes in their production capacity,

production, home market shipments, exports to the United States and other markets, or inventories

relating to the production of C20000-series BSS in the future if the countervailing duty and/or

antidumping duty orders were to be revoked (Question II-15). Their responses were as follows:

* * * * * * *

Foreign producers were asked to describe the significance of the existing countervailing duty

and/or antidumping duty orders covering imports of C20000-series BSS from the subject countries in

terms of their effect on their production capacity, production, home market shipments, exports to the

United States and other markets, and inventories (Question II-14). Their responses were as follows:

* * * * * * *

FOREIGN PRODUCERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING CHANGES IN FACTORS 

AFFECTING SUPPLY

Foreign producers were asked whether any changes have occurred in any other factors affecting

supply (e.g., changes in availability or prices of energy or labor; transportation conditions; production

capacity and/or methods of production; technology; export markets; or alternative production

opportunities) that affected the availability of Brazilian, Canadian, French, German, Italian, or Japaneseproduced C20000-series BSS in the U.S. market since 1999 (Question III-6). Their responses were as

follows:

* * * * * * *
D-5

Foreign producers were asked whether they anticipated any changes in terms of the availability of

Brazilian, Canadian, French, German, Italian, or Japanese-produced C20000-series BSS in the U.S.

market in the future (Question III-7). Their responses were as follows:

* * * * * * *

Foreign producers were asked to describe how easily they can shift their sales of C20000-series

BSS between the U.S. market and alternative country markets (Question III-8). Their responses were as

follows:

* * * * * * *

Foreign producers were asked whether the product range, product mix, or marketing of C20000-

series BSS in their home market is significantly different from the product range, product mix, or

marketing of C20000-series BSS for export to the United States or to third-country markets (Question III9). Their responses were as follows:

* * * * * * *

Foreign producers were asked to discuss any anticipated changes in terms of the product range,

product mix, or marketing of C20000-series BSS in their home market, for export to the United States, or

for export to third-country markets in the future, identifying the time period(s) involved and the factor(s)

that they believe would be responsible for such changes (Question III-10). Their responses were as

follows: 

* * * * * * *

Foreign producers were asked if the C20000-series BSS produced by their firm and sold in their

home market is interchangeable (i.e., can be used in the same applications) with their firm’s C20000-

series BSS sold to the United States and/or to third-country markets (Question III-14). Their responses

were as follows:

* * * * * * *

Foreign producers were asked to describe the end uses of the C20000-series BSS that they

manufacture and sell to their home market. If these end uses differ from those of the C20000-series BSS

that they sell to the U.S. market or to third-country markets, explain (Question III-15). Their responses

were as follows:

 * * * * * * *