U.S. International Trade Commission

Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod

from Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, Mexico,

Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and

Ukraine

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-417 and 731-TA-953, 954, 957-959, 961, and 962

(Review)

Publication 4014 June 2008

Washington, DC 20436
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS 

 

Daniel R. Pearson, Chairman 

Shara L. Aranoff, Vice Chairman 

Deanna Tanner Okun 

Charlotte R. Lane 

Irving A. Williamson 

Dean A. Pinkert

Staff assigned

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

Robert A. Rogowsky

Olympia Hand, Investigator

Jeremy Wise, Industry Analyst

Amelia Preece, Economist

David Boyland, Accountant

Marc Bernstein, Attorney

Steven Hudgens, Statistician

Douglas Corkran, Supervisory Investigator

Director of Operations

Special assistance from

Gabriel Ellenberger, Research Assistant

Darlene Smith, Statistical Assistant

Craig Anthony Rychel, Investigations Intern
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4014 June 2008

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-417 and 731-TA-953, 954, 957-959, 961, and 962

(Review)

Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod

from Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, Mexico,

Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and

Ukraine

i

CONTENTS

Page

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

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

Dissenting Views of Chairman Daniel R. Pearson and Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun

Concerning Subject Imports from Trinidad and Tobago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Separate and Dissenting Views of Chairman Daniel R. Pearson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Part I: Introduction and overview

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

The original investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2

Summary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Previous and related Title VII and safeguard investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-9

Safeguard investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

Safeguard TRQ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

Statutory criteria and organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

Statutory criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

Organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

Commerce’s reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-15

Administrative reviews of wire rod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-15

Results of expedited five-year reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-17

Distribution of Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-19

The subject merchandise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-21

Commerce’s scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-21

Tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-22

The domestic like product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-22

Description and uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-22

Manufacturing process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-24

Domestic like product issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-28

U.S. market participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-28

U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-28

U.S. importers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-29

U.S. purchasers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-34

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-34

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

Market characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1

U.S. channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1

Supply and demand considerations ................................................ II-4

U.S. supply ............................................................... II-4

U.S. demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-9

Substitutability issues .......................................................... II-11

Factors affecting purchasing decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-12

Comparisons of domestic products and subject imports ............................. II-21

Elasticity estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-25

U.S. supply elasticity ........................................................ II-25

U.S. demand elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-25

Substitution elasticity ....................................................... II-25
ii

CONTENTS

Page

Part III: Condition of the U.S. industry

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-1

Background ............................................................... III-1

Changes experienced in operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-1

Anticipated changes in capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-3

Anticipated changes in operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-3

U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization .......................... III-3

Constraints on capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-5

Alternative products ........................................................ III-5

U.S. producers’ domestic shipments, company transfers, and export shipments ............. III-5

U.S. producers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-7

U.S. producers’ imports and purchases ............................................. III-7

U.S. producers’ employment, wages, and productivity ................................ III-8

Financial experience of the U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-9

Background ............................................................... III-9

Operations on wire rod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-9

Research and development expenses, capital expenditures, assets, and return on investment III-16

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

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

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1

Leading nonsubject sources of imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-6

U.S. importers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-9

Cumulation considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-10

Fungibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-11

Geographic markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-14

Presence in the market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-14

The subject foreign industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-15

Actual and anticipated changes in capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-15

Exports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-16

Net trade balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-16

Tariff or non-tariff barriers to trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-16

Arcelor Mittal’s role in wire rod production and shipments worldwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-19

Gerdau’s role in wire rod production and shipments worldwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-20

The industry in Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-21

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-21

Wire rod operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-22

Product mix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-25

The industry in Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-25

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-25

Wire rod operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-26

Product mix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-29

The industry in Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-30

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-30

Wire rod operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-31

The industry in Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-33

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-33

Wire rod operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-35

Product mix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-37
iii

CONTENTS

Page

Part IV: U.S. imports and the foreign industries – Continued

The industry in Moldova . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-38

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-38

Wire rod operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-38

Product mix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-39

The industry in Trinidad & Tobago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-40

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-40

Wire rod operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-40

Product mix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-41

The industry in Ukraine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-41

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-41

Wire rod operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-42

Product mix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-44

Global market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-44

Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-44

Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-45

Prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-45

Additional global supply and demand factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-49

Global raw material availability and prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-53

Part V: Pricing and related information

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

Raw material and energy costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Transportation costs to the U.S. market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2

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

Exchange rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2

Pricing practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-6

Pricing methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-6

Sales terms and discounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-7

Price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-8

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. Comments by U.S. producers, importers, purchasers, and foreign producers regarding the 

effects of the orders and the likely effects of revocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

E. Company specific shipment data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-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

 Chairman Daniel R. Pearson dissenting with respect to Mexico.

 3

 Chairman Daniel R. Pearson and Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun dissenting with respect to Trinidad and

Tobago.

 4

 Commissioners Charlotte R. Lane and Dean A. Pinkert dissenting with respect to Canada.

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-417 and 731-TA-953, 954, 957-959, 961, and 962 (Review)

CARBON AND CERTAIN ALLOY STEEL WIRE ROD FROM BRAZIL, CANADA,

INDONESIA, MEXICO, MOLDOVA, TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO, AND UKRAINE

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)), that revocation of the countervailing duty order on carbon and certain alloy

steel wire rod from Brazil, and the antidumping duty orders on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod

from Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico,2

 Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago,3 and Ukraine would be likely to lead to

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

foreseeable time. The Commission further determines that revocation of the antidumping duty order on

carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod 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.4

 

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted these reviews on September 4, 2007 (72 F.R. 50696) and determined

on December 10, 2007 that it would conduct full reviews (72 F.R. 73880, December 28, 2007). 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 January 14, 2008

(73 F.R. 2273). The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on April 17, 2008, and all persons who

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

 1

 Chairman Pearson determines that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on wire rod from Mexico and

Trinidad and Tobago 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. See Dissenting Views of Chairman Daniel R. Pearson and

Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun; Separate and Dissenting Views of Chairman Daniel R. Pearson. 

Commissioner Okun determines that revocation of the antidumping duty order on wire rod from Trinidad

and Tobago 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. See Dissenting Views of Chairman Daniel R. Pearson and

Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun. 

 2 Commissioner Lane and Commissioner Pinkert determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on

wire rod from Canada would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the

United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. They join sections I, II, III.A.-C., and IV.A.-D. of this opinion.

 3 Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, Canada, Germany, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova,

Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, and Ukraine, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-417-421, 731-TA-953, 954, 956-959, 961, and 962

(Final), USITC Pub. 3546 (Oct. 2002) (“Original Determinations”). The Commission determined that subject

imports from Germany were negligible. Notwithstanding the case caption, there was no final Commission

determination concerning subject imports from Turkey; that investigation had previously been terminated in light of

a negative Commerce subsidy determination.

 4 67 Fed. Reg. 64871 (Oct. 22, 2002).

 5 69 Fed. Reg. 3330 (Jan. 23, 2004).

 6 67 Fed. Reg. 65944-47 (Oct. 29, 2002).

 7 Petitioners challenged the Commission’s determination that subject imports from Germany were negligible. 

That litigation is still active, as the Court of International Trade vacated a prior order dismissing the action pending

entry of a final judgment in the Gerdau Ameristeel action discussed below.

(continued...)

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 countervailing duty order on carbon and

certain alloy steel wire rod (“wire rod”) from Brazil and the antidumping duty orders on wire rod from

Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine would be likely to lead to

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

foreseeable time.1

 We further determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on wire rod 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.2

I. BACKGROUND

Original Determinations. In October 2002, the Commission determined that a domestic industry

was materially injured by reason of subsidized imports of wire rod from Brazil and Canada and by reason

of less than fair value imports of wire rod from Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad

and Tobago, and Ukraine.3

 The U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) published countervailing

duty orders on subject imports from Brazil and Canada on October 22, 2002.4

 Commerce subsequently

revoked the countervailing duty order on subject imports from Canada.5

 Commerce published

antidumping duty orders on subject imports from Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad

and Tobago, and Ukraine on October 29, 2002.6

Respondents from Canada, Mexico, and Trinidad and Tobago filed actions challenging

affirmative Commission determinations.7

 Mexican producer Sicartsa filed a request for a NAFTA
 7

(...continued)

The petition also included subject imports from Egypt, South Africa, and Venezuela. The investigations

concerning imports from these three subject countries were terminated after the Commission found in its preliminary

determination that imports from these three subject countries were negligible. Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire

Rod from Brazil, Canada, Egypt, Germany, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, South Africa, Trinidad and Tobago,

Turkey, Ukraine, and Venezuela, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-417-421, 731-TA-953-963 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3456

(Oct. 2001). Petitioners challenged the Commission’s consequent termination of the investigations concerning

subject imports from Egypt, South Africa, and Venezuela. That litigation, captioned Gerdau Ameristeel U.S. Inc. v.

USITC, is still active. Currently before the CIT is the Commission’s third remand determination, in which it again

determined that subject imports from Egypt, South Africa, and Venezuela were negligible. Carbon and Certain

Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Egypt, South Africa, and Venezuela, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-955, 960, and 963 (Preliminary)

(Third Remand), USITC Pub. 3987 (March 2008).

 8 68 Fed. Reg. 47547 (Aug. 11, 2003).

 9 In re Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada, File No. USA-CDA-2002-1904-09 (Binational

Panel Apr. 18, 2005); In re Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada, File No. USA-CDA-2002-1904-

09 (Binational Panel Aug. 12, 2004).

 10 Original Determinations, USITC Pub. 3546 at 18, 36-38. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(G)(ii)(III).

 11 Caribbean Ispat, Ltd. v. United States, 366 F. Supp.2d 1300 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2005).

 12 Caribbean Ispat, Ltd. v. United States, 450 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

 13 Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago, Inv. No. 731-TA-961 (Final) (Remand),

USITC Pub. 3903 (Jan. 2007) (“Trinidad Remand Determination”).

 14 Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States, 495 F. Supp.2d 1374 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2007). 

 15 The statute requires the Commission to modify any “final disposition” of an antidumping or countervailing

duty investigation or review “consistent with the final disposition of the court.” 19 U.S.C. § 1516(c)(3). An

appealed CIT judgment is not a “final disposition” for purposes of this provision. Timken Co. v. United States, 893

F.2d 337, 339-40 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Even a Federal Circuit judgment is not a “final disposition” until at least the

period necessary to file a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court has expired. Fujitsu General America, Inc. v.

United States, 283 F.3d 1364, 1378-79 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

4

Binational Panel review, but did not pursue the litigation, which was terminated at the parties’ consent.8

Canadian producer Ivaco did pursue its request for Binational Panel review. The panel affirmed the

Commission’s affirmative determination after one remand.9

 

There is active litigation concerning the affirmative determination on subject imports from

Trinidad and Tobago. In contrast to the other affirmative determinations, in which the Commission

cumulated all subject imports, the Commission made its affirmative determination on subject imports

from Trinidad and Tobago on a non-cumulated basis, pursuant to the Caribbean Basic Economic

Recovery Act (CBERA).10 The Trinidadian producer, then named Caribbean Ispat, appealed the

Commission’s determination. The Court of International Trade sustained the Commission.11 The Federal

Circuit then reversed on appeal.12 On remand, a divided Commission made a negative determination,

with the Commission plurality indicating that the negative determination was due solely to the application

of the legal standard concerning causation that the Federal Circuit compelled the Commission to use.13

The CIT sustained the negative determination on remand.14 Petitioners appealed to the Federal Circuit,

where the case has been briefed and argued, and is currently awaiting decision.

While the litigation is pending, the antidumping duty order on subject imports from Trinidad and

Tobago continues to be effective.15 Thus, notwithstanding the Commission’s negative determination on
 16 See generally Tin- and Chromium-Coated Steel Sheet from Japan, Inv. No. 731-TA-860 (Review), USITC

Pub. 3860 at 4 (June 2006). 

 17 72 Fed. Reg. 50696 (Sept. 4, 2007). 

 18 See Confidential Report (CR) and Public Report (PR), Appendix A (reproducing Explanation of Commission

Determinations on Adequacy).

 19 Ukraine also submitted final comments which contained new factual information in violation of 19 U.S.C. §

1677m(g) and 19 C.F.R. § 207.68(b). We have accordingly disregarded the third, fourth, and fifth paragraphs of the

first page of Ukraine's final comments, as well as the first paragraph of the second page.

5

remand – and the CIT’s affirmance of that determination – we must render a determination in the review

of the antidumping duty order on subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago.16

Reviews. The Commission instituted these five-year reviews on the outstanding wire rod orders

on September 4, 2007.17 There were responses to the notice of institution from: (1) six domestic

producers; (2) Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P. and Sivaco Ontario (collectively “Ivaco”), producers and

exporters of subject merchandise from Canada; (3) Hylsa, S.A. de C.V., a producer of subject

merchandise from Mexico; and (4) JSCC Moldova Steel Works (“MSW”), a producer of subject

merchandise from Moldova. On December 10, 2007, the Commission determined that the domestic

interested party group response was adequate for all reviews, and that the respondent interested party

group response was adequate for the reviews on the orders on subject imports from Canada and Moldova,

and inadequate for all other reviews. The Commission decided to conduct full reviews in the reviews of

the orders on subject imports from Canada and Moldova in light of the adequate domestic and respondent

interested party responses. It determined to conduct full reviews in each of the other reviews to promote

administrative efficiency.18

Parties to the Proceeding. The Commission received two sets of briefs from domestic interested

parties. One set of briefs was jointly filed by Gerdau Ameristeel US Inc., Arcelor Mittal USA, Inc.,

Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., and Rocky Mountain Steel Mills (collectively “Gerdau Parties”). 

Each of these entities is a domestic producer of wire rod. The other set of briefs was jointly filed by

domestic wire rod producers Nucor Corp., Cascade Steel Rolling Mills, Inc., and Republic Steel

(collectively “Nucor Parties”). Gerdau Parties and Nucor Parties, which both appeared at the

Commission hearing, will be referenced collectively as “Domestic Producers.”

The Commission received several sets of briefs from parties that support revocation of the orders. 

Ivaco, Hylsa, De Acero de C.V. (a producer of subject merchandise from Mexico), and the American

Wire Producers Association (AWPA) (an association of U.S. purchasers of wire rod) filed briefs. Ivaco,

Hylsa, De Acero, AWPA, and Lincoln Electric Co. (a U.S. purchaser of wire rod) appeared at the

Commission hearing. The Government of Ukraine filed a prehearing statement.19 MSW filed a

posthearing statement.

Data Coverage. In these reviews, the Commission received questionnaire responses from ten

domestic producers believed to have accounted for all domestic production of wire rod in 2007 and 26

U.S. importers believed to have accounted for 90 percent of 2007 subject imports and 73 percent of total

wire rod imports in 2007 from other sources. The Commission also received foreign producers’

questionnaires from three Brazilian producers that estimate they account for *** percent of that country’s

total production; two Canadian producers accounting for all production of that country’s subject

merchandise; three producers in Mexico that estimate that they account for *** percent of that country’s

total production; the sole known producer of subject merchandise in Moldova; the sole producer of

subject merchandise in Trinidad and Tobago; and one Ukrainian producer estimated to account for the
 20 CR at I-18, PR at I-14.

 21 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 22 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).

 23 See, e.g., Internal Combustion Industrial Forklift Trucks From Japan, Inv. No. 731-TA-377 (Second Review),

USITC Pub. 3831 at 8-9 (December 2005); Crawfish Tail Meat From China, Inv. No. 731-TA-752 (Review),

USITC Pub. 3614 at 4 (July 2003); Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Turkey, Inv. No. 731-TA-745 (Review),

USITC Pub. 3577 at 4 (February 2003).

 24 73 Fed. Reg. 1321, 1322 (Jan. 8, 2008).

 25 As the scope definition states: 

Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above–noted physical characteristics and

meeting the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) definitions for (a)

stainless steel; (b) tool steel; (c) high nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; and (e) concrete

reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded are (f) free machining steel products (i.e., products that

contain by weight one or more of the following elements: 0.03 percent or more of lead, 0.05

percent or more of bismuth, 0.08 percent or more of sulfur, more than 0.04 percent of phosphorus,

more than 0.05 percent of selenium, or more than 0.01 percent of tellurium).

73 Fed. Reg. at 1322.

 26 Grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod is defined as: 

wire rod measuring 5.0 mm or more but not more than 6.0 mm in cross–sectional diameter; (ii)

with an average partial decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual

200 microns); (iii) having no non–deformable inclusions greater than 20 microns and no

(continued...)

6

vast majority of that country’s production. The Commission received no questionnaire response from any

Indonesian foreign producer.20

II. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT AND INDUSTRY

In making its determination under section 751(c) of the Act, the Commission defines “the

domestic like product” and the “industry.”21 The Act defines “domestic like product” as “a product which

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

investigation under this subtitle.”22 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.23

A. Domestic Like Product

The Department of Commerce has defined the scope of the orders under review as follows:

certain hot–rolled products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately

round cross section, 5.00 mm or more, but less than 19.00 mm, in solid cross–sectional

diameter.24

This definition is subject to several lengthy exclusions. Among the items excluded from the

scope are rebar; articles made with stainless steel, tool steel, high nickel steel, ball bearing steel, and free

machining steel;25 grade 1080 tire cord quality rod;26 and grade 1080 tire bead quality rod.27
 26(...continued)

deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns; (iv) having a carbon segregation per heat average

of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04–114; (v) having a surface quality with no surface

defects of a length greater than 0.15 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.30 mm or

less with 3 or fewer breaks per ton, and (vii) containing by weight the following elements in the

proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 0.01 percent of aluminum, (3)

0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.006 percent or less of

nitrogen, and (5) not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium.

73 Fed. Reg. at 1322.

 27 Grade 1080 tire bead quality rod is defined as: 

wire rod measuring 5.5 mm or more but not more than 7.0 mm in cross–sectional diameter; (ii)

with an average partial decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual

200 microns); (iii) having no non–deformable inclusions greater than 20 microns and no

deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns; (iv) having a carbon segregation per heat average

of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04–114; (v) having a surface quality with no surface

defects of a length greater than 0.2 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.78 mm or

larger with 0.5 or fewer breaks per ton; and (vii) containing by weight the following elements in

the proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 0.01 percent of soluble

aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.008 percent

or less of nitrogen, and (5) either not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of copper, nickel

and chromium (if chromium is not specified), or not more than 0.10 percent in the aggregate of

copper and nickel and a chromium content of 0.24 to 0.30 percent (if chromium is specified).

73 Fed. Reg. at 1322.

 28 Commerce made these scope exclusions after the Commission issued its preliminary determinations. The

petitioners supported including these excluded articles in the domestic like product. Original Determinations,

USITC Pub. 3546 at 6.

 29 Original Determinations, USITC Pub. 3546 at 7-8.

 30 These included tire cord quality wire rod, cold heading quality (CHQ) wire rod meeting Industrial Fasteners

Institute specification IFI-140, and clean steel precision bar in coils. The Commission found that, although each of

these products was a high-end product that met exacting quality requirements, there was no clear dividing line

between any one of these products and other wire rod products. See Original Determinations, USITC Pub. 3546 at

8-12. Instead, the Commission concluded that “the wire rod industry is composed of so many different products,

used in so many different applications, that the only clear dividing line is between wire rod and other steel products.” 

Id. at 12.

 31 Original Determinations, USITC Pub. 3546 at 12.

7

In the original determinations, the Commission determined to include in the domestic like product

grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod, which Commerce had

excluded from the scope.28 The Commission observed that Commerce had retained tire cord wire rod and

tire bead wire rod of both higher and lower grades in the scope, and that the record did not contain

information indicating that the differences among grades of tire bead or tire cord wire rod were

significant. Instead, it found that other domestic tire cord wire rod and tire bead wire rod articles that

corresponded directly to products within the scope closely shared physical characteristics, uses, prices,

channels of distribution, and production processes with the excluded grade 1080 articles.29 The

Commission rejected arguments asserted by respondents that several specialty types of wire rod should be

considered separate like products.30 Accordingly, the Commission defined a single domestic like product

consisting of all wire rod, including the grade 1080 tire cord and grade 1080 tire bead wire rod that

Commerce had excluded from the scope.31

No party in these reviews argued that the Commission should depart from the like product

definitions it adopted in the original investigations. Additionally, the record in these reviews indicate no
 32 CR at I-27-36, PR at I-22-27. 

 33 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). The definitions in 19 U.S.C. § 1677 are applicable to the entire subtitle containing

the antidumping and countervailing duty laws, including 19 U.S.C. §§ 1675 and 1675a. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677.

 34 The Commission found that three domestic producers were subject to exclusion pursuant to the related parties

provision because they had imported subject merchandise during the period examined. However, it concluded that

appropriate circumstances did not exist to exclude any of these producers from the domestic industry. Original

Determinations, USITC Pub. 3546 at 14. The Commission further concluded that a fourth producer that purchased

subject merchandise during the period examined was not a related party because its purchases were insufficient to

constitute direct or indirect control of an importer. Id. 

 35 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B).

 36 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B)(ii)(III); see CR/PR, Tables I-13-14.

 37 19 C.F.R. § 1677(4)(B)(i); CR at III-14, PR at III-7.

 38 Tr. at 70 (Kerkvliet); *** Foreign Producers Questionnaire.

 39 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B)(ii)(III). In light of Nucor Parties’ arguments, we have also examined whether

domestic producer Sterling is a related party. Neither Sterling nor its parent Leggett & Platt imported subject

merchandise during the period of review. CR at III-14, PR at III-7; CR/PR, Table I-14. *** during the period of

review. *** Purchasers Questionnaire. The Commission has 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 share 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

(September 2001) at 8-9; Certain Cut-to-Length Steel Plate From the Czech Republic, France, India, Indonesia, Italy,

Japan, Korea, and Macedonia, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-387-392 and 731-TA-815-822 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3181 at

12 (April 1999); Certain Brake Drums and Rotors From China, Inv. No. 731-TA-744 (Final), USITC Pub. 3035 at

10 n.50 (April 1997). 

(continued...)

8

material changes in pertinent product characteristics from the original investigations or any other reason

to revisit the like product definition.32 Consequently, we continue to define the domestic like product to

encompass all wire rod, including the grade 1080 tire cord and grade 1080 tire bead wire rod that

Commerce has excluded from the scope.

B. Domestic Industry

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the relevant industry as the domestic “producers as a

[w]hole of a domestic like product, or those producers whose collective output of a domestic like product

constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”33 In the original

determinations, the Commission defined the domestic industry to encompass all domestic producers of

wire rod.34

In light of our domestic like product definition, we continue to find one domestic industry

consisting of all domestic producers of wire rod. The only domestic industry issue in these five-year

reviews is whether any producers should be excluded under the related parties provision.35 Three

domestic producers of wire rod are related parties. Domestic producer Arcelor Mittal USA is a related

party because it has common ownership with Arcelor Mittal entities that exported subject merchandise

from Canada, Mexico, and Trinidad and Tobago during the period of review.36 Domestic producer *** is

a related party because it imported subject merchandise during the period of review.37 Domestic Producer

Gerdau Ameristeel is under common control with ***, which exported subject merchandise from Brazil

during the period of review.38 Consequently, it is also a related party.39 Gerdau Parties argue that all
 39(...continued)

The record does not indicate that *** controlled large volumes of subject imports. The only non-domestic

supplier that *** and thus were not a predominant share. Compare *** Purchasers Questionnaire, response to

questions II-1, V with *** Importers Questionnaire, response to question II-7a. *** also reported purchases of

subject imports from *** during each year of the period of review. However, these purchases were very small in

comparison with total subject imports from ***; moreover, ***. Compare *** Purchasers Questionnaire, response

to questions II-1, V, with CR/PR, Table IV-1. It is true that ***. Id. However, nothing in the record links these

purchases to a specific importer; moreover, the record indicates that there were several firms importing subject

merchandise from *** during the period of review, and that some of these importers imported wire rod from

additional subject and nonsubject sources as well. CR/PR, Table I-14. In light of these considerations, we conclude

that Sterling is not a related party.

 40 CR/PR, Table I-13.

 41 CR/PR, Table I-13.

 42 CR/PR, Table IV-12.

 43 See CR/PR, Table IV-12. Consequently, in 2007 Arcelor Mittal’s exports of subject merchandise were ***

percent of its production of the domestic like product. There were *** exports of subject merchandise to the United

States in 2007 by Arcelor Mittal mills in Brazil or Ukraine. CR/PR, Tables IV-15, IV-35.

 44 CR/PR, Table III-13.

 45 CR/PR, Table III-13.

 46 See, e.g., Allied Mineral Products, Inc. v. United States, Slip Op. 04-139 at 6-8 (Ct. Int’l Trade Nov. 12,

2004).

 47 In these reviews, Vice Chairman Aranoff and Commissioner Pinkert do not rely on individual company

operating income margins in assessing whether particular related parties benefit from importation of subject

merchandise. Rather, they have based their determination regarding whether to exclude related parties principally on

the ratios of subject imports to domestic shipments and on whether the parties’ primary interests lie in domestic

production or importation.

9

domestic producers should be included in the domestic industry. Ivaco argues that appropriate

circumstances exist to exclude related party Arcelor Mittal USA from the domestic industry.

We conclude that appropriate circumstances do not exist to exclude Arcelor Mittal USA from the

domestic industry. In 2007, Arcelor Mittal USA was the *** largest domestic wire rod producer,

accounting for *** percent of domestic production.40 Arcelor Mittal USA supports continuation of all

orders under review.41 In 2007, Arcelor Mittal USA produced *** short tons of wire rod.42 Arcelor

Mittal mills in Canada, Mexico, and Trinidad and Tobago exported *** short tons of subject merchandise

to the United States in 2007.43 Arcelor Mittal USA’s operating margin was *** of the six years of the

period of review.44

The record does not indicate that the activities of the Arcelor Mittal group importing subject

merchandise have benefitted Arcelor Mittal USA. While it is true, as Ivaco contends, that Arcelor Mittal

USA’s financial results could be characterized as different from the rest of the industry, particularly

inasmuch as***,45 we do not examine variance from the industry average in isolation to determine

whether there are appropriate circumstances warranting exclusion. Instead, we examine whether

differences in financial performance indicate that the related party producer experienced a substantial

benefit from its relation to subject imports.46 47 Because the record does not support such a conclusion

with respect to Arcelor Mittal USA, Arcelor Mittal USA has substantial production operations, and

Arcelor Mittal principally supplied the U.S. market with domestic production, as opposed to subject

imports, we conclude that appropriate circumstances do not exist for its exclusion from the domestic

industry. 
 48 In 2007, *** was the *** largest domestic wire rod producer, accounting for *** percent of domestic

production. It *** on continuation of the orders under review. CR/PR, Table I-13. *** imported subject

merchandise ***. It stated that ***. CR at III-14, PR at III-7. *** annual imports of subject merchandise during the

period of review ranged from *** short tons, and in no year did these imports exceed *** percent of *** domestic

production. CR/PR, Table III-10. *** operating margin was *** of the period of review. CR/PR, Table III-13. 

Although *** financial performance was better than most domestic producers, it could not be characterized as an

outlier in any calendar year during the period of review. Moreover, the firm’s subject imports were so small, in both

absolute terms and relative to its U.S. production, that they did not accord any significant benefit to the firm. 

In 2007, Gerdau Ameristeel was the *** domestic wire rod producer, accounting for *** percent of

domestic production. Gerdau Ameristeel supports continuation of all orders under review. CR/PR, Table I-13. 

Gerdau *** only exports of subject merchandise to the United States during the period of review were *** short tons

in 2002. *** Foreign Producers Questionnaire, Response to Question II-16a. During that year, Gerdau Ameristeel’s

total commercial sales and transfers were *** short tons; the sum of this producer’s total commercial sales and

related transfers was at least *** short tons during every year of the period of review. CR/PR, Table III-13. Gerdau

Ameristeel’s operating margin was *** of the six years of the period of review, ***. Id. The *** nature of Gerdau

*** exports during the period of review, Gerdau Ameristeel’s *** domestic production, and Gerdau Ameristeel’s

*** operating performance all indicate that Gerdau’s limited export activities during the period of review have not

accorded any substantial benefit to Gerdau Ameristeel. 

 49 Chairman Pearson and Commissioner Okun note that while they consider the same issues discussed in this

section in determining whether to exercise their discretion to cumulate the subject imports, their analytical

framework begins with whether imports from the subject countries are likely to face similar conditions of

competition. For those subject imports which are likely to compete under similar conditions of competition, they

next proceed to consider whether those imports are likely to compete with each other and with the domestic like

product. Finally, if based on that analysis they intend to exercise their discretion to cumulate one or more subject

countries, they analyze whether they are precluded from cumulating such imports because the imports from one or

more subject countries, assessed individually, are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic

industry. See Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Belarus, China, Indonesia, Korea, Latvia, Moldova, Poland, and

Ukraine, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-873-875, 877-880, and 882 (Review), USITC Pub. 3933 (July 2007) (Separate and

Dissenting Views of Chairman Daniel R. Pearson and Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun Regarding Cumulation).

 50 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7).

10

We similarly conclude that appropriate circumstances do not exist for exclusion of related party

producers *** and Gerdau Ameristeel. The imports of *** and the exports of the affiliates of Gerdau

Ameristeel of subject merchandise during the period of review were each small, both in absolute terms

and relative to the respective U.S. producer’s domestic production.48 Consequently, we conclude that

neither producer benefitted from its or its affiliates’ activities in the import or export of subject

merchandise. We therefore define the domestic industry to encompass all U.S. producers of wire rod.

III. CUMULATION49

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.50
 51 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(G)(I).

 52 See, e.g., Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States, 475 F. Supp.2d 1370, 1378 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2006)

(recognizing the wide latitude the Commission has in selecting the type of factors it considers relevant in deciding

whether to exercise discretion to cumulate subject imports in five-year reviews).

 53 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

(Ct. Int’l Trade 1989).

 54 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).

 55 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7).

 56 SAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. I at 887 (1994).

11

Cumulation therefore is discretionary in five-year reviews, unlike original investigations, which are

governed by section 771(7)(G)(i) of the Act.51 52

The Commission may exercise its discretion to cumulate, however, 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 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.53 Only a “reasonable overlap” of competition is

required.54 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.

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.55 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.56 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.

In the original determinations, for purposes of the determinations on subject imports from Brazil,

Canada, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, and Ukraine, the Commission cumulated imports from these six

subject countries and subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago. With respect to fungibility, it found that

domestically produced wire rod and wire rod from each of the subject sources was generally

interchangeable. It also found a reasonable product overlap between the domestic industry and the

subject imports, and between subject imports from each of the subject countries. It observed, however,

that there was somewhat less overlap between subject imports from Canada, on the one hand, and subject

imports from Moldova and Ukraine, on the other hand, than between other subject country
 57 Original Determinations, USITC Pub. 3546 at 19-21.

 58 Original Determinations, USITC Pub. 3546 at 22.

 59 Original Determinations, USITC Pub. 3546 at 22; Confidential Original Determinations at 33.

 60 Original Determinations, USITC Pub. 3546 at 23.

 61 Original Determinations, USITC Pub. 3546 at 18.

 62 See 72 Fed. Reg. 50696 (Sept. 4, 2007).

 63 The CBERA exception to cumulation is applicable to cumulation in original investigations. Section

771(7)(G)(i) of the Act requires the Commission in certain circumstances to cumulate subject imports in analyzing

material injury by reason of subject imports in original investigations “subject to clause (ii).” 19 U.S.C. §

1677(7)(G)(i). Clause (ii) contains four exceptions to cumulation, including the CBERA exception. 19 U.S.C. §

1677(7)(G)(ii). By contrast, section 752(a)(7) of the Act, which governs cumulation in five-year reviews, permits

the Commission to cumulate subject imports under three conditions: (1) all reviews were initiated on the same day;

(2) the subject imports would be likely to compete with each other and the domestic like product; and (3) the subject

imports are not likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7). 

Neither section 752(a)(7) of the Act nor the CBERA provision cross-reference each other.

 64 Because Chairman Pearson has found that subject imports from Mexico would likely compete in the U.S.

market under different conditions of competition than other subject imports, he does not reach the issue of whether

revocation of the antidumping duty order on subject imports from Mexico is likely to have no discernible adverse

impact on the domestic industry.

 65 CR/PR, Table I-1.

 66 CR/PR, Table IV-1. 

12

combinations.57 The Commission found sufficient geographic overlap, because the domestic like product

and imports from all subject countries were generally marketed throughout the United States.58 The

Commission also found an overlap of channels of distribution because both the domestic like product and

the subject imports were sold *** to end users.59 The domestic like product and imports from all subject

countries were present in the U.S. market throughout the period examined.60

For purposes of the determination on subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago, the Commission

did not cumulate subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago with any other subject imports. The statute

precluded such cumulation, because Trinidad and Tobago was a beneficiary country under CBERA.61

In these reviews, we find that the statutory threshold for cumulation is satisfied, because the

reviews were initiated on the same day, September 4, 2007.62 In contrast to the original investigations,

imports from all seven subject countries are eligible for cumulation in these five-year reviews.63

B. Likelihood of No Discernible Adverse Impact

Based on the record, we do not find that subject imports from any of the subject countries are

likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry in the event of revocation of the

orders covering those imports. 

Mexico is the only subject country for which a no discernible adverse impact argument has been

asserted.64 In the original investigations, the quantity of subject imports from Mexico increased from

122,038 short tons in 1999 to 266,925 short tons in 2001.65 Subject imports from Mexico declined to

123,380 short tons in 2002, declined further in 2003, rose to 68,498 short tons in 2004, and since 2005

have not exceeded 11,480 short tons.66 During the period of review, the share of the quantity of apparent
 67 CR/PR, Table I-16.

 68 CR at IV-69, PR at IV-33. *** data suggest that the three reporting producers may account for a lower share

(although still a majority) of production. CR at IV-69-71, PR at IV-33-34.

 69 CR/PR, Table IV-25.

 70 DeAcero ***. De Acero Foreign Producers Questionnaire, responses to questions II-5, II-8. Hylsa ***. 

Hylsa Foreign Producers Questionnaire, response to question II-5. Sicartsa is an integrated operation that mines its

own iron ore and produces billets as well as rolling rebar and wire rod. Hylsa Posthearing Brief, ex. 6 at 57.

 71 CR/PR, Table IV-25.

 72 CR/PR, Tables IV-11, IV-25.

 73 CR/PR, Tables IV-25, IV-26. 

 74 See CR/PR, Tables IV-5, IV-27.

 75 De Acero and Hylsa argue that they are either historically disinclined or poorly located geographically to

export more than insignificant volumes of subject merchandise to the United States. Even assuming these

representations are accurate, these two individual firms do not constitute the entire Mexican industry. We observe in

this regard that the Sicartsa complex contains a port facility on Mexico’s Pacific Coast, which, according to its

owner Arcelor Mittal, “gives Sicartsa a privileged position to reach North American, South American, and Asian

markets.” Hylsa Posthearing Brief, ex. 6 at 57. 

13

U.S. consumption represented by subject imports from Mexico ranged from 0.1 percent in 2006 and 2007

to 1.6 percent in 2002.67 

The Commission received responses to its questionnaires from three producers that collectively

estimate that they accounted for *** percent of subject wire rod production in Mexico during 2007: De

Acero, Hylsa, and Sicartsa.68 The questionnaire responses indicate that there is excess capacity in the

Mexican industry. During the last three calendar years of the period of review, capacity utilization of the

reporting Mexican producers was under *** percent; by contrast, capacity utilization had been as high as

*** percent earlier in the period of review.69 Hylsa and De Acero argue that Mexican wire rod producers

are unable to produce at stated rolling capacity because of difficulties in obtaining billets. Producers’

questionnaire responses and other information in the record do not corroborate this assertion.70 Moreover,

the inventories of the reporting Mexican producers were *** higher in 2007 both on an absolute basis and

as a ratio to shipments than they were at the beginning of the period of review in 2002.71 Consequently,

we find that the record indicates that the Mexican wire rod industry does not lack the ability to increase

shipments to the United States.

We acknowledge that the Mexican industry is heavily focused on supplying its home market and

that Mexico was increasingly a net importer of wire rod during the period of review.72 Notwithstanding

this, the Mexican industry consistently exported subject wire rod to other North, Central, or South

American markets during the period of review, with considerable annual fluctuation in the quantities

shipped to individual markets.73 Moreover, the Mexican industry focuses on producing industrial quality

wire rod products, which are also the predominant products the domestic industry supplies to the U.S.

market.74 In light of this overlap in product mix, excess capacity, and increasing inventories, we find that

some increase in subject imports from Mexico is likely upon revocation.75 Because of these

considerations, we do not find that subject imports from Mexico would have no discernible adverse

impact on the domestic industry if the antidumping duty order was revoked.

No party argued that imports from any of the other subject countries would have no discernible

adverse impact on the domestic industry upon revocation, and the record does not support such a
 76 Chairman Pearson and Commissioner Okun have found that subject imports from Canada and Trinidad and

Tobago are likely to compete in the U.S. market under different conditions of competition than other subject imports. 

They consequently do not reach the issue of whether revocation of the antidumping duty orders on subject imports

from Canada or Trinidad and Tobago is likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.

 77 CR/PR, Tables IV-15, IV-19, IV-22, IV-29, IV-32, IV-35.

 78 CR/PR, Tables IV-15 (Brazil), IV-22 (information available on Indonesia), IV-32 (Trinidad and Tobago), IV35 (Ukraine).

 79 CR/PR, Tables IV-15 (Brazil), IV-22 (information available on Indonesia), IV-35 (Ukraine).

 80 See generally Chefline Corp. v. United States, 219 F. Supp. 2d 1313, 1314 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002). 

 81 See Mukand Ltd. v. United States, 937 F. Supp. 910, 917 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996).

 82 For the reasons stated above, in light of their decision to exercise their discretion not to cumulate imports from

particular subject countries due to differences in likely conditions of competition, Chairman Pearson does not find it

necessary to address likely reasonable overlap of competition for subject imports from Canada, Mexico, and

Trinidad and Tobago, and Commissioner Okun does not find it necessary to address likely reasonable overlap of

competition for subject imports from Canada and Trinidad and Tobago.

 83 Commissioner Lane notes that, with respect to fungibility, her analysis does not require such similarity of

products that a perfectly symmetrical fungibility is required and that this factor would be better described as an

analysis of whether subject imports from each country and the domestic like product could be substituted for each

other. See Separate Views of Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane, Certain Lightweight Thermal Paper from China,

Germany, and Korea, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-451 and 731-TA-1126-1128 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3964 at 32-33

(Nov. 2007).

 84 CR/PR, Table II-6.

 85 In the two exceptions, a majority of purchasers comparing subject imports from Brazil and Mexico and Canada

and Mexico said the products were at least sometimes interchangeable. CR/PR, Table II-6.

14

finding.76 Each of these countries’ industries has exported substantial quantities of subject merchandise

during the period of review.77 Most of the industries in these subject countries have substantial excess

capacity.78 Several of the industries expanded their capacity during the period of review.79 Based on

these considerations, we do not find that subject imports from Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, Moldova,

Trinidad and Tobago, or Ukraine would likely have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic

industry if the orders under review were revoked.

C. Likelihood of a Reasonable Overlap of Competition

With regard to likely overlap of competition, the relevant inquiry is whether there would likely be

competition even if there are no current imports from a subject country.80 Only a “reasonable overlap” of

competition is required.81 We analyze below the four factors the Commission typically examines in

determining whether there would likely be a reasonable overlap of competition.82

Fungibility.

83 The questionnaires asked market participants whether wire rod from different

sources was interchangeable. A majority of U.S. producers said wire rod from different sources was

always interchangeable in every comparison between the domestic like product and subject imports and

among subject imports from different sources.84 A majority of purchasers said that wire rod was at least

frequently interchangeable in all comparisons between the domestic like product and the subject imports,

and in all but two comparisons between subject imports from different sources.85 A plurality or majority

of importers said that wire rod was at least frequently interchangeable in all but two comparisons between
 86 The comparisons in which at least a plurality of importers did not respond that products were at least

frequently interchangeable were United States-Indonesia and United States-Ukraine. CR/PR, Table II-6.

 87 CR/PR, Table II-6.

 88 CR/PR, Table IV-5.

 89 CR/PR, Tables IV-5, IV-17, IV-27, IV-30, IV-33, IV-37. For each of these countries except Indonesia and

Mexico, the majority of imports and shipments for every year was in the low carbon industrial quality category.

 90 CR/PR, Table IV-5.

 91 CR/PR, Table IV-21.

 92 CR/PR, Table IV-5.

 93 CR at II-1, PR at II-1.

 94 See *** Importers Questionnaires (response to question III.B.9), CR/PR, Table I-14.

 95 CR/PR, Table II-1.

 96 CR/PR, Table II-1. 

 97 CR at II-3, PR at II-1; CR/PR, Table II-1.

15

the domestic like product and the subject imports.86 A majority of importers stated that wire rod was at

least sometimes interchangeable in comparisons between subject imports from different sources.87

The Commission also sought product mix data from the domestic and subject industries,

requesting breakouts of shipments in six different product categories and a residual category. The

domestic industry shipped products in each of the categories, with the two largest being low and mediumlow carbon industrial and standard quality (“low carbon industrial quality”) (53.6 percent of 2007

shipments), and high and medium-high carbon industrial and standard quality (“high carbon industrial

quality”) (21.9 percent of 2007 shipments).88 For each subject country except Canada, the vast majority

of imports or shipments during the period of review was in these two categories.89 For Canada, a majority

of imports to the United States in 2007, as well as three of the five prior years in the period of review, was

cold-heading quality (CHQ).90 CHQ was also the largest category of shipments by the Canadian industry

for each year in the period of review.91 Nevertheless, the low carbon industrial and high carbon industrial

quality categories combined for *** percent of Canada’s imports to the United States in 2007.92

Geographic Overlap. Five of ten responding U.S. producers and seven of 15 responding

importers of subject merchandise reported selling nationwide.93 Importers that reported selling

nationwide or in multiple geographic regions across the country imported merchandise from each of the

seven subject countries.94

Channels of Distribution. The overwhelming majority of domestically produced wire rod is sold

directly to end users.95 The majority of wire rod imported from subject sources other than Trinidad and

Tobago during the period of review was also sold directly to end users.96 By contrast, the majority of

subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago was sold to a ***.97

Simultaneous Presence in Market. Imports from all seven subject countries were present in the

U.S. market during 2002, although imports from Indonesia, Moldova, and Ukraine were each present

during only two months of that year. Since 2003, subject imports from Brazil, Indonesia, Moldova, and

Ukraine have essentially been absent from the U.S. market. Subject imports from Canada have been
 98 CR/PR, Table IV-7.

 99 CR at II-3, IV-37, PR at II-1, IV-19. Additionally, importers of wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago also

imported wire rod from *** during the period of review. CR/PR, Table I-14.

16

present in each month, subject imports from Mexico have been present in 56 of 60 months, and subject

imports from Trinidad and Tobago have been present in 53 of 60 months.98

Analysis. Market participants overwhelmingly find wire rod from different sources to be at least

sometimes interchangeable. CHQ grades constitute a *** greater proportion of subject imports from

Canada than of shipments of the domestic like product or imports from other subject countries. 

Nevertheless, there is a sufficient overlap between the subject imports from Canada, the domestic like

product, and imports from other subject sources in industrial quality grades to support a finding of

fungibility. 

The domestic like product and imports from subject sources other than Trinidad and Tobago are

predominantly sold directly to end users and sold throughout the United States. While Trinidadian

imports, unlike the other subject imports, are *** sold through distributors, this does not indicate a lack of

overlap of competition. The *** to which Arcelor Mittal Trinidad currently sells its shipments, ***,

handles U.S. marketing for several domestic, subject, and nonsubject mills.99 

The absence of imports from several of the subject countries from the U.S. market during the bulk

of the period of review was influenced by the imposition of the orders. We find that upon revocation

subject imports will likely be simultaneously present in the market as they were during the original

investigations.

No party has argued that a reasonable overlap of competition is not likely. In view of that fact

and the foregoing considerations, we conclude that there will be a likely reasonable overlap of

competition between the domestic like product and imports from subject imports, and among imports

from the different subject countries, should the orders be revoked. 
 100 Commissioner Lane and Commissioner Pinkert do not join this section of the opinion. Where, in a five-year

review, they do not find that the subject imports would be likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the

domestic industry if the order were revoked, and find that such imports would be likely to compete with each other

and with the domestic like product in the U.S. market, they cumulate such imports unless there is a condition or

propensity – not merely a trend – that is likely to persist for a reasonably foreseeable time and that significantly

limits competition such that cumulation is not warranted. In these reviews, they find there is no such condition or

propensity with respect to the imports from any of the subject countries. Consequently, they cumulate subject

imports from all seven subject countries.

Ivaco’s arguments on differences in pricing, product mix, and volume trends with respect to Canada do not

relate to such a set of circumstances. Commissioner Lane and Commissioner Pinkert acknowledge that subject

imports from Canada consistently oversold the domestic like product during the period of review, but find that

subject imports from Canada are likely to be priced more competitively if the order were revoked, as they were

during the original investigation. CR/PR, Table V-10. Moreover, they note that Canada maintains significant

“divertible capacity” that is not currently being directed to the U.S. market and is likely to be diverted to that market

in the event of revocation, given that Canadian producers ship almost all of their exports to the U.S. market. CR/PR,

Table IV-19 (only *** percent of 2007 Canadian shipments went to non-U.S. export markets). Canada’s total 2007

divertible capacity (which we define as excess capacity, end-of-period inventories, and exports) was *** short tons;

*** short tons of that capacity were exported to the United States in 2007, and an additional *** short tons were

available for export.

Although subject imports from Canada unquestionably include high value, specialized products, Canadian

producers manufacture and ship a wide range of products. The share of Canadian producers’ total shipments of

subject merchandise in the low/medium-low carbon quality and high/medium-high carbon quality wire rod increased

over the period of review, while the share of higher-value CHQ and welding quality wire rod decreased. CR/PR,

Table IV-21. Unlike subject imports from several of the subject countries, subject imports from Canada remained in

the U.S. market in significant volumes despite the order. In fact, despite a declining market, their share of the U.S.

market in 2007 by quantity was higher than in either 1999 or 2000. CR/PR, Table I-1. Commissioner Lane and

Commissioner Pinkert conclude that subject imports from Canada would be likely to continue to compete in the U.S.

market with a wide range of products and with competitive prices if the order were revoked, a circumstance that

would make the U.S. market even more accessible. 

Hylsa argues that subject imports from Mexico should not be cumulated with other subject imports because

of likely differences in conditions of competition. Hylsa maintains in this regard that wire rod consumption in

Mexico exceeds production, the Mexican industry is not export-oriented, and Mexico borders on the United States

(and its producers thus operate in a more integrated manner with U.S. purchasers than most of the other subject

producers). Hylsa Posthearing Brief at 12-13. 

None of these circumstances significantly limits the ability of subject imports from Mexico to compete in

the U.S. market. As we indicated in our discernible adverse impact analysis, the Mexican industry focuses on

producing industrial quality wire rod products, which are also the products the domestic industry predominantly

supplies to the U.S. market. CR/PR, Tables IV-5, IV-27. In 2007, subject producers in Mexico had significant

unused production capacity, exports to nearby markets other than the U.S. market, and *** short tons in end-ofperiod inventories. CR/PR, Tables IV-25, IV-26. Finally, Hylsa’s argument regarding Mexico’s proximity to the

United States fails to demonstrate that Mexican wire rod (1) is not likely to compete with the domestic like product

and/or wire rod from other subject countries, or (2) would likely be limited in its competition with those products. 

 101 See, e.g., Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 475 F. Supp. 2d at 1378 (recognizing the wide latitude the Commission

has in selecting the type of factors it considers relevant in deciding whether to exercise discretion to cumulate

subject imports in five-year reviews).

17

D. Other Considerations100

In determining whether to exercise our discretion to cumulate the subject imports, we assess

whether the subject imports from Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and

Ukraine are likely to compete under similar or different conditions in the U.S. market.101
 102 CR/PR, Table I-1.

 103 CR/PR, Table I-1.

 104 CR/PR, Tables IV-18, IV-19.

 105 CR/PR, Table IV-8. Moreover, 2007 capacity utilization in Canada of *** percent was higher than 2007 (or

most recent available) reported capacity utilization in all but one of the other subject countries. See CR/PR, Tables

IV-15, IV-19, IV-22, IV-25, IV-29, IV-32, IV-35.

 106 CR/PR, Table V-10.

 107 CR/PR, Table V-9.

 108 CR/PR, Table IV-5.

 109 CR/PR, Table IV-5.

18

1. Canada

We determine that subject imports from Canada are likely to compete in the U.S. market under

sufficiently different conditions of competition than imports from the other subject countries that we

decline to exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports from Canada with any other subject

imports. Subject imports from Canada have exhibited different volume trends than have imports from the

other subject countries since imposition of the orders. While there was some reduction in the quantity of

subject imports from Canada immediately after imposition of the orders, these imports remained in the

U.S. market in substantial quantities. Indeed, the *** percentage share of apparent U.S. consumption that

subject imports from Canada held during 2007 is greater than the market penetration that these imports

held during two calendar years examined in the original investigations.102 By contrast, during the latter

portion of the period of review, the quantity and market penetration of subject imports from Mexico and

Trinidad and Tobago were far lower than the levels attained during the original period of investigation. 

Subject imports from Brazil, Moldova, and Ukraine exited the U.S. market after 2002, and subject

imports from Indonesia exited after 2004.103

The Canadian industry has also shown different trends in capacity since the original period of

investigation than industries in the other subject countries. Canadian capacity for production of wire rod

was lower in 2007 than in either 2001 or 2002.104 By contrast, the capacity of the industry in every other

subject country increased or was stable during the period of review.105

Subject imports from Canada have followed different pricing patterns than have imports from

other subject sources since the period examined in the original investigations. During the original

investigations, subject imports from Canada oversold the domestic like product in 54 of 78 quarterly

comparisons. By contrast, imports from every other subject country undersold the domestic like product

in at least 69 percent of comparisons.106 Similarly, during the period of review, subject imports from

Canada oversold the domestic like product in 117 of 118 quarterly comparisons. Subject imports from

Mexico undersold the domestic like product in almost half (26 of 54) of all comparisons, and imports

from every other subject country undersold the domestic like product in the majority of comparisons.107

Finally, there are distinctions in the product mix between subject imports from Canada and the

other subject imports. During every year of the period of review, at least *** percent of the subject

imports from Canada – which remained present in the U.S. market in appreciable quantities – consisted of

CHQ and welding quality categories.108 Of the other subject countries, only Mexico and Trinidad and

Tobago exported any of these categories to the United States during the period of review.109 More

importantly, these categories constituted only negligible to modest shares of the total shipments of the
 110 CR/PR, Tables IV-17, IV-27, IV-30, IV-33, IV-37.

 111 Chairman Pearson joins this discussion insofar as it concerns subject imports from Brazil, Indonesia,

Moldova, and Ukraine. Commissioner Okun joins this discussion insofar as it concerns subject imports from Brazil,

Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, and Ukraine. Chairman Pearson and Commissioner Okun find that subject imports

from Trinidad and Tobago will likely compete in the U.S. market under different conditions of competition than

imports from other subject sources, and Chairman Pearson further finds that subject imports from Mexico will likely

compete in the U.S. market under different conditions of competition than imports from other subject sources. See

their Dissenting Views.

 112 CR/PR, Tables IV-5 (information available on Indonesia), IV-17, IV-27, IV-30, IV-33, IV-37.

 113 CR/PR, Table IV-1.

 114 CR/PR, Table I-1.

 115 CR/PR, Tables IV-15, IV-22, IV-25, IV-29, IV-32, IV-35.

 116 Vice Chairman Aranoff, Commissioner Okun, and Commissioner Williamson considered Hylsa’s arguments

concerning why the Commission should exercise its discretion not to cumulate subject imports from Mexico, but

found them unpersuasive in light of the considerations discussed above.

Vice Chairman Aranoff and Commissioner Williamson exercise their discretion to cumulate subject imports

from Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine. Chairman Pearson exercises his

discretion to cumulate subject imports from Brazil, Indonesia, Moldova, and Ukraine. Commissioner Okun

exercises her discretion to cumulate subject imports from Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, and Ukraine.

19

industry of each subject country other than Canada.110 Although, as we found above, there is an overlap

of competition between subject imports from Canada and imports from the other subject countries in

industrial quality grades, Canadian producers heavily participate in the U.S. market in more specialized

products which the other subject industries have not offered, and are unlikely to offer, in significant

quantities in the U.S. market. Thus, we conclude that Canadian producers will, upon revocation, likely

export a different mix of products to the United States than will other subject producers.

In light of these differences in volume trends, capacity trends, pricing patterns, and product mix,

we conclude that subject imports from Canada are likely to compete in the U.S. market under different

conditions of competition than imports from other subject countries. Accordingly, we have declined to

exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports from Canada with any other subject imports. 

2. Other Subject Countries

We do not find any significant differences in likely conditions of competition among imports

from subject sources other than Canada.111 The information available indicates that the industry in each

of these countries produces a product mix focusing heavily on low-carbon and high-carbon industrial

grade products.112 Each of the other subject countries had largely similar volume trends during the period

of review.113 In the original investigations, the market penetration of five of the six subject countries

other than Canada increased from 1999 to 2001, and the remaining country’s market penetration was

unchanged.114 Each of the subject countries other than Canada had significant quantities of unused

capacity during portions of the period of review.115 We accordingly exercise our discretion to cumulate

imports from the remaining subject countries.116
 117 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

 118 SAA at 883-84. 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.” Id. at 883. 

 119 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.

 120 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, 140

Fed.Appx. 268 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 26 CIT 1416, 1419 (2002) (same); Usinor

Industeel, S.A. v. United States, 26 CIT 1402, 1404 nn.3, 6 (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,

26 CIT 767, 794 (2002) (“‘likely’ is tantamount to ‘probable,’ not merely ‘possible’”).

 121 For a complete statement of Commissioner Okun’s interpretation of the likely standard, see 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).

 122 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 these reviews and all

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

addresses this issue. 

 123 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).

20

IV. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY IF

ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY ORDERS ARE REVOKED

A. Legal Standards

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

antidumping or countervailing 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 or countervailing duty order “would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of

material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.”117 The SAA states that “under the likelihood

standard, the Commission will engage in a counterfactual 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.”118 Thus, the

likelihood standard is prospective in nature.119 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.120 121 122

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.”123 According to
 124 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.

 125 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

 126 As stated above, the remand determination concerning subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago is not yet

final. Consequently, we have generally cited our original determination concerning Trinidad and Tobago. In any

event, all four Commissioners who issued opinions in connection with the remand determination concluded that

application of the statutory criteria of volume, price, and impact would have warranted issuance of an affirmative

determination. See Trinidad Remand Determination, USITC Pub. 3903 at 6-11. The plurality reached a negative

determination solely by virtue of its application of the “replacement/benefit” test mandated by the Federal Circuit. 

See id. at 14, 22.

While the issue was not briefed by the parties in these reviews, we have previously explained that the

“replacement/benefit test” articulated by the Federal Circuit in Bratsk Aluminum Smelter v. United States, 444 F.3d

1369 (Fed. Cir. 2006), is not applicable to five-year reviews. Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from

India and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-415, 713-TA 933-934 (Review), USITC Pub. 3994 at 28 n.203 (April 2008).

 127 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). 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). Although the Commission must consider all factors, no one factor is

necessarily dispositive. SAA at 886. 

Commerce has not made duty absorption findings with respect to any of the orders under review. CR at I19 n.31, PR at I-15 n.31.

 128 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

 129 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A-D).

21

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.”124

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.”125 It

directs the Commission to take into account its prior injury determination,126 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).127

In evaluating the likely volume of imports of subject merchandise if the orders under review 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.128 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 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.129

In evaluating the likely price effects of subject imports if the orders under review were revoked,

the Commission is directed to consider whether there is likely to be significant underselling by the subject
 130 See 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.

 131 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 132 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 or the magnitude of the net countervailable subsidy” 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 conducted expedited sunset reviews of each of the antidumping duty orders. With respect to the

antidumping duty order on subject imports from Brazil, Commerce found likely margins of 94.73 percent for Belgo

Mineira and 74.45 percent for all others. With respect to the antidumping duty order on subject imports from

Canada, Commerce found likely margins of 3.86 percent for Ispat Sidbec Inc., 9.90 percent for Ivaco, and 8.11

percent for all others. With respect to the antidumping duty order on subject imports from Indonesia, Commerce

found likely margins of 4.06 percent for P.T. Ispat Indo and all others. With respect to the antidumping duty order

on subject imports from Mexico, Commerce found likely margins of 20.11 percent for Sicartsa and all others. 

Commerce published a countrywide likely margin of 369.10 percent for subject imports from Moldova. With

respect to the antidumping duty order on subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago, Commerce published a likely

margin of 11.40 percent for Caribbean Ispat and all others. With respect to the antidumping duty order on subject

imports from Ukraine, Commerce published a likely margin of 116.37 percent for Krivorozhstal and all others. 73

Fed. Reg. 1321, 1323 (Jan. 8, 2008).

With respect to the countervailing duty order on subject imports from Brazil, Commerce conducted an

expedited sunset review and found likely subsidy rates of 2.76 percent for Gerdau, 6.74 percent for Belgo Mineira,

and 5.64 percent for all others. 73 Fed. Reg. 1323, 1325 (Jan. 8, 2008). Commerce further concluded that three of

Brazil’s countervailable subsidy programs were prohibited subsidies within the meaning of Article 3.1 of the WTO

Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. See generally CR at I-22, PR at I-17.

 133 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.

22

imports as compared to the domestic like product 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 the domestic like product.130

In evaluating the likely impact of imports of subject merchandise if the orders under review 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 the following: 

(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 product.131 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.132 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 orders at issue and whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the orders were

revoked.133

As stated above, the Commission has relatively complete data coverage for the domestic industry

and the industries in all subject countries except Indonesia. We have relied on the facts otherwise
 134 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a) authorizes the Commission to “use the facts otherwise available” in reaching a

determination when (1) necessary information is not available on the record or (2) an interested party or any other

person withholds information requested by the agency, fails to provide such information in the time or in the form or

manner requested, significantly impedes a proceeding, or provides information that cannot be verified pursuant to 19

U.S.C. § 1677m(i). The verification requirements in 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(i) are applicable only to Commerce. See

Titanium Metals Corp. v. United States, 155 F. Supp. 2d 750, 765 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002) (“the ITC correctly

responds that Congress has not required the Commission to conduct verification procedures for the evidence before

it, or provided a minimum standard by which to measure the thoroughness of Commission investigations.”).

 135 Commissioner Okun notes that the statute authorizes the Commission to take adverse inferences in five-year

reviews, but such authorization does not relieve the Commission of its obligation to consider the record evidence as

a whole in making its determination. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e. She generally gives credence to the facts supplied by

the participating parties and certified by them as true, but bases her decision on the evidence as a whole, and does

not automatically accept participating parties’ suggested interpretations of the record evidence. Regardless of the

level of participation and the interpretations urged by participating parties, the Commission is obligated to consider

all evidence relating to each of the statutory factors and may not draw adverse inferences that render such analysis

superfluous. “In general, the Commission makes determinations by weighing all of the available evidence regarding

a multiplicity of factors relating to the domestic industry as a whole and by drawing reasonable inferences from the

evidence it finds most persuasive.” SAA at 869.

 136 Original Determinations, USITC Pub. 3546 at 23.

 137 Original Determinations, USITC Pub. 3546 at 24.

 138 Original Determinations, USITC Pub. 3546 at 24.

 139 Original Determinations, USITC Pub. 3546 at 25.

23

available when appropriate in these reviews, which consist primarily of information from the original

investigations, information submitted in these reviews, and information available from published

sources.134 135

B. The Original Determinations

In the original determinations, the Commission characterized wire rod as an intermediate product

used to make a variety of products. It stated that there was a continuum of wire rod products; the Iron and

Steel Society divided wire rod into 11 major categories. Categories corresponded to various levels of

quality and end uses.136 Apparent U.S. consumption of wire rod, measured by quantity, declined from

1999 to 2001. Purchasers asserted that a reason for the decline in demand was increased imports of

downstream products incorporating wire rod.137

At the time of the original determinations, the domestic industry consisted of 12 producers. The

producers were dispersed geographically and most individual producers produced a variety of products. 

Five domestic producers experienced bankruptcies or partial to full shutdowns of their wire rod

operations late in the period examined. As a result, the domestic industry’s capacity declined in 2001. 

The Commission observed that, while the domestic industry’s capacity was less than apparent U.S.

consumption of wire rod, the industry never operated near full capacity at any time during the period

examined.138

The Commission stated that most purchasers reported that subject imports from most sources and

the domestic like product were used in the same applications. Purchasers identified quality, price, and

availability, in that order, as the most important factors in selecting a supplier.139

The share of the U.S. market held by nonsubject imports was relatively stable from 1999 to 2001. 

Wire rod imports from all countries except Canada and Mexico were subject to a tariff rate quota that the
 140 Original Determinations, USITC Pub. 3546 at 25-26.

 141 Original Determinations, USITC Pub. 3546 at 27-28. 

 142 Original Determinations, USITC Pub. 3546 at 28.

 143 Original Determinations, USITC Pub. 3546 at 28-29.

 144 Original Determinations, USITC Pub. 3546 at 29-30.

 145 Original Determinations, USITC Pub. 3546 at 31.

 146 Original Determinations, USITC Pub. 3546 at 32.

 147 Original Determinations, USITC Pub. 3546 at 32.

 148 Original Determinations, USITC Pub. 3546 at 33.

24

President imposed affective March 1, 2000 as a safeguard measure under section 203(a)(3) of the Trade

Act of 1974.140

The Commission found that cumulated subject import volume and market penetration rose during

the period of investigation. The volume of subject imports increased from 2000 to 2001 despite a

simultaneous decline in U.S. apparent consumption. The Commission further found that the increase in

market share by cumulated subject imports came at the expense of the domestic industry. Accordingly,

the Commission found the volume of cumulated subject imports, and the increase in that volume, to be

significant both in absolute terms and relative to production or consumption in the United States.141

The Commission emphasized that purchasers ranked price as the second most important factor,

after quality, in selecting a wire rod supplier. A majority of responding purchasers indicated that they

always or usually purchased wire rod offered at the lowest price. Additionally, the Commission found

that the subject imports and the domestic like product, insofar as they were the same type of wire rod

product, were highly interchangeable.142

The Commission found significant underselling of the domestic like product by the cumulated

subject imports. Cumulated subject imports undersold the domestic like product in approximately twothirds of all comparisons. The Commission highlighted the consistently high underselling margins of

subject imports from Brazil, Moldova, and Ukraine.143 The Commission further concluded that the

subject imports suppressed prices to a significant degree, as the domestic industry could not raise prices to

cover increased costs.144

The Commission found that the domestic industry lost market share as the volume of the

cumulated subject imports increased, notwithstanding declines in apparent consumption. Indicators such

as production, domestic shipments, and capacity utilization declined from 1999 to 2000, and then fell

more sharply from 2000 to 2001.145 The Commission characterized the domestic industry’s increasing

operating losses as the “most striking negative performance indicator for the domestic industry.”146 It also

referenced declines in employment-related indicators from 2000 to 2001. The Commission

acknowledged that while factors other than cumulated subject imports contributed to the domestic

industry’s financial problems, “subject imports were a significant cause of material injury to the entire

industry, playing a significant role in the adverse market conditions facing the domestic industry,

including the loss of sales and market share to lower-priced subject imports.”147 It consequently

concluded that cumulated subject imports had a significant impact on the domestic industry.148

In the original determination concerning Trinidad and Tobago, the Commission observed that

Trinidad and Tobago was the second or third largest source of subject imports during the period of

investigation. It noted that the volume and market penetration of subject imports from Trinidad and

Tobago increased during the period. The Commission emphasized that the Trinidadian subject imports

were concentrated in low carbon industrial quality products, and that the market for such products was
 149 Original Determinations, USITC Pub. 3456 at 36-37.

 150 Original Determinations, USITC Pub. 3546 at 37.

 151 Original Determinations, USITC Pub. 3546 at 37-38. 

 152 Original Determinations, USITC Pub. 3546 at 38. 

 153 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 154 CR at II-14, PR at II-9; Tr. at 20-21 (Kerkvliet).

 155 CR at II-14-15, PR at II-9.

 156 CR/PR, Table I-16.

 157 See CR/PR, Tables I-16, III-5.

25

very price sensitive. The Commission found that, in light of the price-sensitive market, the volume of

subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago was significant.149

The Commission emphasized the nature of the price competition between subject imports from

Trinidad and Tobago and the domestic like product. Both the domestic like product and the subject

imports from Trinidad and Tobago were concentrated in the price-sensitive low carbon industrial quality

category.150 Subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago undersold the domestic like product in 70.8

percent of quarterly comparisons. In light of the importance of price in purchasing decisions and the

significant and increasing volume of Trinidadian subject imports, the Commission found this underselling

to be significant. The Commission further found that subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago had

significant price-suppressing effects, for reasons paralleling those presented in the cumulated analysis.151

The impact discussion in the original determinations concerning subject imports for Trinidad and Tobago

referenced the discussion for cumulated subject imports.152

C. Conditions of Competition and the Business Cycle

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.”153

1. Demand Conditions

Wire rod continues to be used as an intermediate product. Most wire rod is sold to wire drawers,

which use the wire rod as an input in the production of such products as nails, wire hangers, galvanizing

wire, netting, and strand.154 Consequently, demand for wire rod depends on the demand for these

downstream products. The parties agree that the most important factor in the level of demand for wire

rod is construction activity.155 

Apparent U.S. consumption of wire rod was lower at the conclusion of the period of review than

at its inception, but fluctuated on an annual basis. Apparent consumption declined from 7.8 million short

tons in 2002 to 6.6 million short tons in 2003, and then rose to a period high of 8.1 million short tons in

2004. Apparent consumption then declined to 6.5 million short tons in 2005, increased to 7.1 million

short tons in 2006, and then declined to a period low of 5.9 million short tons in 2007.156 Apparent U.S.

consumption exceeded the capacity of the domestic industry throughout the period of review.157

Market participants cited several different reasons for recent decreases in U.S. demand, including

declines in construction activity, a weakened U.S. automotive market, and increases in imports of finished
 158 CR at I-49, II-15, PR at I-34, II-9-10.

 159 CR at II-17, PR at II-11.

 160 CR at II-17, PR at II-11; Tr. at 104 (Kerkvliet), 105 (Simon), 105 (Nystrom).

 161 CR/PR, Table I-16.

 162 CR/PR, Figure I-2, CR at I-38, PR at I-29. Arcelor Mittal USA consists of former producers Ispat Inland

(owned by Arcelor Mittal’s predecessor Mittal Steel) and Georgetown Steel (which Mittal Steel acquired in 2005). 

Charter consists of former producer Birmingham Steel (acquired in 2002) combined with pre-existing operations. 

Gerdau Ameristeel consists of former producers Co-Steel and Ameristeel (merged in 2002) and North Star (acquired

in 2004). Nucor consists of former producer Connecticut Steel (acquired in 2006) combined with pre-existing

operations. CR/PR, Figure I-2, Table III-1.

 163 CR/PR, Table III-1.

 164 CR at III-3, PR at III-3; CR/PR, Table III-2.

 165 CR/PR, Table III-5.

 166 CR/PR, Table III-3.

 167 CR/PR, Table IV-12, CR at IV-36, PR at IV-19.

 168 CR at IV-42, PR at IV-20.

 169 CR/PR, Table I-16. This figure does not include merchandise from subject countries that is outside the scope

definition or is not subject to an order.

26

downstream wire products.158 Market participants provided mixed assessments of likely future demand

for wire rod in the United States.159 Many market participants, including several domestic producers,

anticipate further declines in U.S. demand.160

2. Supply Conditions

Throughout the period of review the domestic industry was the largest supplier of wire rod to the

U.S. market. The domestic industry’s share of U.S. apparent consumption fluctuated on an annual basis,

increasing in 2003, declining to a period low of 50.3 percent in 2004, increasing in 2005, declining in

2006, and increasing to a period high of 69.6 percent in 2007.161 There has been considerable

restructuring of the domestic industry since the original investigations. Several firms declared

bankruptcy. Some firms closed operations, while others reorganized. Current producers Arcelor Mittal

USA, Charter, Gerdau Ameristeel, and Nucor are all the product of mergers of previously distinct wire

rod producers.162 Mid-American began production operations in 2004.163 Several domestic producers

have expanded or made improvements to their production facilities during the period of review.164 As a

result of these changes, the domestic industry’s capacity was greater in 2007 than it was in 2002.165 Two

producers anticipate further capacity increases between 2008 and 2010.166

As previously discussed, domestic producers Arcelor Mittal USA and Gerdau Ameristeel are

affiliated with producers of subject merchandise. Arcelor Mittal produces wire rod in Brazil, Canada,

Mexico, Trinidad and Tobago, Ukraine, and several nonsubject countries, in addition to the United

States.167 Gerdau Ameristeel is affiliated with Gerdau, S.A., which owns wire rod mills in Brazil.168

Nonsubject imports were the next largest supplier to the U.S. wire rod market after the domestic

industry. The share of apparent U.S. consumption supplied by nonsubject countries increased irregularly

from 29.2 percent in 2002 to a period high of 35.9 percent in 2006, and then declined to a period low of

16.9 percent in 2007.169 China was a major supplier of nonsubject imports during the period of review
 170 In addition to China, other major nonsubject suppliers during the period of review included Turkey, Germany,

and Japan. CR/PR, Table IV-3.

 171 CR/PR, Table IV-3.

 172 Gerdau Parties Prehearing Brief at 6; Ivaco Prehearing Brief at 24-25.

 173 CR/PR, Table IV-3. The parties did not agree on why nonsubject imports from sources other than China

declined during 2007. Domestic Producers asserted that purchasers that previously augmented inventories drew

them down in 2007 as prices for imports rose more rapidly than those for the domestically produced product. See

Tr. at 77-78 (Kerwin), 103 (Simon), 120 (Simon). Respondents disputed that the declines in nonsubject imports

were part of a cyclical drawdown process. AWPA stated that by February 2008 its members’ inventories were at

historic lows. AWPA Posthearing Brief at 11, ex. 7.

 174 CR/PR, Table I-16.

 175 CR at I-27-28, PR at I-22; CR/PR, Table I-12.

 176 CR/PR, Table IV-5.

 177 CR/PR, Tables IV-17, IV-27, IV-30, IV-33, IV-37. There are no data concerning shipments by producers in

Indonesia.

 178 CR/PR, Table IV-21.

 179 CR at II-18-19, PR at II-11.

 180 Tr. at 181 (DeShane), 266-70 (Goldsmith).

27

and the largest individual source of supply during 2005 and 2006.170 While it was also the largest source

of supply during 2007, the quantity of Chinese imports dropped by over half between 2006 and 2007.171

The parties agree that a major cause for this decline was a change in Chinese export tax policies affecting

wire rod.172 The decline in imports from China accounted for approximately half of the decline in

nonsubject imports from 2006 to 2007.173

During the period of review, subject imports supplied smaller quantities of wire rod to the U.S.

market than did either the domestic industry or nonsubject sources. The share of apparent U.S. 

consumption held by subject imports fell irregularly from *** percent in 2002 to a period low of ***

percent in 2006, and then increased to *** percent in 2007. Canada continued to be the largest supplier

of subject imports.174

3. Other Conditions 

Wire rod sold in the United States is categorized by “quality” according to end use. There are at

least 11 major “quality” categories.175 The Commission asked market participants to classify shipments

into seven different categories. The domestic industry produces merchandise in each category: the three

largest are low carbon industrial quality (accounting for 53.6 percent of U.S. producers’ domestic

shipments in 2007), high carbon industrial quality (21.9 percent of shipments), and CHQ (14.2 percent of

shipments).176 Low carbon industrial quality also constituted a majority of 2007 shipments for five of the

six subject countries whose industries provided data.177 For the remaining subject country, Canada, CHQ

was the largest category in 2007, but low carbon industrial quality still constituted *** percent of the

Canadian subject producers’ total shipments that year.178

Particularly for industrial quality grades, domestically produced wire rod and subject imports of

the same type tend to be highly substitutable.179 While respondents did not contest this proposition, their

witnesses claimed that there are quality distinctions and limited substitutability between certain specialty

products imported from Canada and domestically produced wire rod.180
 181 CR at I-30, PR at I-24.

 182 CR at V-1, PR at V-1.

 183 CR/PR at V-1, Figure V-1.

 184 CR/PR, Table V-1.

 185 CR/PR, Table IV-42. The wire rod product measured in the reports and projections on worldwide production

and consumption does not necessarily correspond to either Commerce’s scope definition or the Commission’s

definition of the domestic like product.

 186 CR/PR, Table IV-43.

 187 CR at II-17, PR at II-11.

 188 CR/PR, Tables IV-39-40.

 189 CR/PR, Table IV-1.

28

Most U.S. wire rod producers use minimill technology to melt scrap in an electric arc furnace.181

As a result, the principal inputs used in the production of wire rod by U.S. minimills are billets (typically

produced from steel scrap), natural gas, and electricity.182 The price of steel scrap has increased

dramatically – albeit with some fluctuations – since 2002, and increases have been particularly dramatic

in 2008.183 Natural gas and electricity prices have risen since 2002.184

Data published by a commercial monitoring service indicate that worldwide consumption of wire

rod products increased throughout the period of review.185 This service projects that consumption of the

wire rod product it measures will continue to increase through 2011, with the ***.186 Most market

participants that responded to the Commission questionnaire also anticipated that worldwide wire rod

demand would increase.187 Worldwide production of wire rod is forecast to increase in tandem with

demand; ***.188

D. Revocation of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders on Cumulated

Subject Imports Is Likely to Lead to Continuation or Recurrence of Material Injury

1. Likely Volume of Subject Imports

For each cumulation combination under consideration, cumulated subject import volume declined

during the period of review. For the six subject countries on which the Commission has reached

affirmative determinations (Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine), the

quantity of subject imports declined sharply after imposition of the orders. From a period peak of ***

short tons in 2002, the quantity of cumulated subject imports declined sharply in 2003, rose in 2004 to

359,053 short tons, declined sharply in 2005 to 117,355 short tons, rose in 2006, and then declined,

reaching a period low of 103,569 short tons in 2007.189 The share of apparent U.S. consumption held by

subject imports from these six countries followed similar trends. From a period high of *** percent in

2002, these imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption declined in 2003, rose in 2004, declined in 2005

to a period low of 1.8 percent, rose in 2006, and then again reached the period low of 1.8 percent in
 190 CR/PR, Table I-16.

 191 Commissioner Lane and Commissioner Pinkert have cumulated imports from all seven subject countries. 

From a period peak of *** short tons in 2002, the quantity of cumulated subject imports declined in 2003, rose in

2004, declined in 2005 to a period low of *** short tons, rose *** in 2006 to *** short tons, and rose further in 2007

to *** short tons. From 2003 to 2007, the vast majority of subject imports were from Canada. CR/PR, Table IV-1. 

Cumulated subject imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption, measure by quantity, followed similar trends. 

From a period high of *** percent in 2002, subject imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption declined irregularly

to a period low of *** percent in 2006. This share increased to *** percent in 2007. CR/PR, Table I-16.

 192 Chairman Pearson has cumulated subject imports from Brazil, Indonesia, Moldova, and Ukraine. Subject

imports from these four countries largely disappeared from the U.S. market after imposition of the orders. From a

period peak of *** short tons in 2002, the quantity of subject imports declined to 29,937 short tons in 2004. Imports

from these four subject countries were not present in the U.S. market in 2003, 2005, 2006, and 2007. CR/PR, Table

IV-1. The share of apparent U.S. consumption held by subject imports from these subject countries was *** percent

in 2002, 0.4 percent in 2004 and zero in all other years. CR/PR, Table I-16.

 193 Commissioner Okun has cumulated subject imports from Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, and Ukraine. 

The quantity of subject imports from these five countries declined sharply after imposition of the orders. From a

period peak of *** short tons in 2002, the quantity of subject imports declined sharply in 2003, rose in 2004,

declined sharply in 2005 to 12,551 short tons, reached a period low of 4,256 short tons in 2006, and rebounded

slightly to 8,244 short tons in 2007. After 2002, the bulk of these imports were from Mexico. CR/PR, Table IV-1.

The share of apparent U.S. consumption held by subject imports from these subject countries followed similar

trends. From a period high of *** percent in 2002, these imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption never

exceeded 0.3 percent in any subsequent year except 2004, when their share was 1.2 percent. CR/PR, Table I-16.

 194 CR/PR, Table IV-8. 

 195 CR/PR, Table IV-8. 

 196 Commissioner Lane and Commissioner Pinkert note that total capacity in 2007 for all subject countries for

which data were reported was *** short tons. If 2006 data for Indonesia were included, total capacity for all subject

countries would be *** short tons. See CR/PR, Tables IV-8, IV-22.

Chairman Pearson notes that total reported capacity in 2007 for Brazil, Moldova, and Ukraine was ***

short tons. If 2006 data available for Indonesia were included, total capacity for the subject countries he has

cumulated would be *** short tons. See id.

Commissioner Okun notes that total reported capacity in 2007 for Brazil, Mexico, Moldova, and Ukraine

was *** short tons. If 2006 data available for Indonesia were included, total capacity for the subject countries she

has cumulated would be *** short tons. See id.

 197 CR/PR, Table IV-22. Because no Indonesian producer responded to the Commission’s questionnaire and the

most recent Indonesian industry data available are for 2006, we have reported Indonesia’s data separately.

 198 CR/PR, Table I-16.

29

2007.190 191 192 193 Accordingly, the orders have had a substantial restraining effect on imports from these

subject countries.

The industries in the cumulated subject countries are substantial. Even the smallest industry in

any subject country, that of Moldova, had a capacity of *** short tons in 2007.194 Aggregate capacity

reported by producers in Brazil, Moldova, Mexico, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine for 2007 – which

accounts for a substantial majority of the actual capacity in these subject countries – was 10.8 million

short tons.195 196 The most recent information available for Indonesia, which is for 2006, indicates that

capacity in that country is ***.197 Thus, total capacity in the cumulated subject countries far exceeds the

5.9 million short tons of apparent U.S. consumption of wire rod in 2007.198

There is considerable unused capacity (in other words, the difference between capacity and

production) in the cumulated subject countries. The aggregate unused capacity in 2007 for Brazil,
 199 CR/PR, Tables IV-15, IV-25, IV-29, IV-32, IV-35. 

 200 Commissioner Lane and Commissioner Pinkert note that total reported unused capacity in 2007 for all subject

countries for which questionnaire data are available was *** short tons. Chairman Pearson notes that total reported

unused capacity in 2007 for Brazil, Moldova, and Ukraine was *** short tons. Commissioner Okun notes that total

reported unused capacity in 2007 for Brazil, Mexico, Moldova, and Ukraine was *** short tons.

 201 CR/PR, Table IV-22.

 202 CR at IV-46, PR at IV-23.

 203 We have also considered in our analysis of likely subject import volume several other statutory factors. 

Reported end-of-period inventories for 2007 for Brazil, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine were

493,966 short tons. CR/PR, Tables IV-15, IV-25, IV-29, IV-32, IV-35. In 2007, there were no U.S. inventories of

imports from these subject countries. CR/PR, Table IV-4.

There are existing or potential barriers to exports of wire rod applicable to two of the cumulated subject

countries. Wire rod exports from Ukraine are subject to quotas in Russia and the European Union, although the EU

quota may be revoked upon Ukraine’s entry to the EU. CR at IV-34, PR at IV-16. Wire rod from Moldova is

currently subject to an antidumping investigation in the EU, although no provisional or final duties have yet been

imposed. Id.

Some producers in the cumulated subject countries produce other products in the same facilities where they

produce wire rod. Wire rod producers in Brazil produce nonsubject wire rod products. CR at IV-45, PR at IV-22. 

Wire rod producers in Mexico, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine additionally produce ***. CR at IV-69-70, IV-75,

IV-89, IV-96, PR at IV-34-35, IV-40, IV-42. Domestic Producers concede, however, that wire rod is currently a less

attractive product in the U.S. market than is this alternative product. Tr. at 24 (Kerkvliet), 33-34 (Simon).

 204 In addition, Commissioner Lane and Commissioner Pinkert took into consideration end-of-period inventories

in the subject countries to find that significant additional volumes of cumulated subject imports are likely upon

revocation. Reported end-of-period inventories for 2007 for Brazil, Canada, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and

Tobago, and Ukraine were *** short tons, or *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in that year. See CR/PR,

Tables I-16, IV-15, IV-19, IV-25, IV-29, IV-32, IV-35. U.S. inventories of subject merchandise from Canada were

*** short tons in 2007. CR/PR, Table IV-4.

 205 Commissioner Okun notes that end-of-period inventories for 2007 for Brazil, Mexico, Moldova, and Ukraine

were *** short tons. CR/PR, Tables IV-15, IV-25, IV-29, IV-35.

 206 CR/PR, Table IV-46. The data in this table include some varieties of wire rod excluded from Commerce’s

scope definition.

Public data are not available for 2007, the year when nonsubject wire rod imports to the United States

declined and AWPA contends that the United States became an unattractive export market. However, AWPA’s

principal argument to the Commission was that the United States market can easily absorb additional quantities of

imports in light of its members’ stated difficulties in obtaining wire rod. In light of this, the large U.S. market would

still attract additional quantities of imports.

30

Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine reported in the questionnaires was 2.7 million short

tons.199 200 Available information for 2006 indicates that there were *** short tons of unused capacity in

Indonesia.201 A monitoring service reports that two new wire rod mills are projected to begin production

in Brazil between 2008 and 2010. The capacity that will be added by these new mills will be *** short

tons in 2008, increasing to *** short tons in 2009 and *** short tons in 2010.202

We find that producers in the subject countries will likely direct substantial quantities of this

unused and new capacity to the United States market should the pertinent orders be revoked.203 204 205 In

2006, the most recent year for which such data are available, the United States was the world’s largest

single market for wire rod imports.206 The cumulated subject countries, in the aggregate, exported
 207 See generally CR/PR, Tables IV-15, IV-22, IV-25, IV-29, IV-32, IV-35. 

 208 CR/PR, Table IV-47. Again, 2006 is the most recent year for which these data are available. The data in this

table include some varieties of wire rod excluded from Commerce’s scope definition.

 209 CR/PR, Tables IV-44, IV-45.

 210 CR/PR, Table IV-44. Because these services report prices in dollars, the relatively higher European prices

appear to reflect the decreased value of the U.S. dollar compared to currencies such as the Euro. 

 211 CR/PR, Tables IV-44, IV-45. Far Eastern markets are major export destinations for Indonesia. CR/PR, Table

IV-23.

 212 We observe that the information presented by respondents to support the proposition that U.S. prices for wire

rod are currently lower than those in the rest of the world consisted largely of testimony by industry witnesses and

press reports. Such anecdotal comments regarding pricing are, in our view, less probative in these reviews than the

empirical data provided by the monitoring services.

Respondents further argue that even when U.S. prices are nominally higher than those in other world

markets, high and increasing ocean freight rates would make exports to the United States unattractive. However,

there is no discernible historical relationship between ocean freight rates and import levels. Ocean freight rates

increased dramatically during portions of 2004, a year in which total imports of wire rod to the United States

increased dramatically. Conversely, total wire rod imports fell substantially in 2005 notwithstanding a decline in

ocean freight rates that year. Compare CR/PR, Table IV-1 with Ivaco Prehearing Brief, ex. 4.

 213 CR at IV-42, PR at IV-21. We observe that neither of Gerdau S.A.’s mills in Brazil ***. See *** Foreign

Producers Questionnaires.

While AWPA asserts that Gerdau Ameristeel has circulated price lists offering for sale both domestically

produced and Brazilian wire rod, Gerdau Ameristeel indicates that it has no such practice. Specifically, it states that

(continued...)

31

substantial quantities of wire rod during the period of review.207 Indeed, in 2006, Ukraine ranked third

and Brazil ranked fifth among all world exporters of wire rod.208

We have also examined two considerations that respondents contend will serve to deter additional

exports from entering the United States upon revocation. Respondents first contend that the United States

is an unattractive export market because U.S. prices are below those available to exporters in other

markets. While such an alleged price differential might discourage exporters from shifting to the United

States exports currently destined for other markets, it would not likely deter a producer from using some

excess or new capacity to ship product not sold to other markets to the United States. Indeed, no

respondent argued that a subject producer could not profitably sell subject merchandise in the United

States upon revocation.

Moreover, the record in these reviews indicates that the United States has been the highest priced

market, or among the highest priced markets, for wire rod during most of the period of review.209 It is

true that one monitoring service reported that prices in 2008 in some world markets, particularly in

Europe, were appreciably higher than those in the United States.210 Nevertheless, even in 2008, U.S.

prices were higher than those reported in several markets in the Far East.211 In light of these

considerations, we decline to give dispositive weight to the pricing data provided both in the monitoring

service materials and information submitted by respondents showing wire rod was priced lower in the

U.S. market than in other world markets during 2008.212

Respondents next contend that Gerdau and Arcelor Mittal are unlikely to increase exports from

subject countries in a manner that would impair the operations of their domestic production affiliates. 

Gerdau, however, does not act as a single entity. Gerdau indicates the following: (1) its individual mills

control their sales; (2) Gerdau S.A., which operates subject wire rod mills in Brazil, does not coordinate

sales with Gerdau Ameristeel; and (3) Gerdau Ameristeel has no control over the price, volume, or

customer choice of Gerdau, S.A. in the United States.213 Given that Gerdau does not act as a single entity,
 213(...continued)

***. Gerdau Parties Posthearing Brief, ex. 3, ¶ 9.

 214 CR at IV-37, PR at IV-19.

 215 Chairman Pearson and Commissioner Okun find that the incorporation of Arcelor Mittal USA in a single

unified entity that controls all production in, and imports from, Trinidad and Tobago will serve to deter the

exportation to the U.S. market of Trinidadian wire rod. The volumes and prices of such exports likely would not

materially injure the domestic industry.

 216 Vice Chairman Aranoff and Commissioner Pinkert find that Arcelor Mittal will likely balance the interests of

its various wire rod operations, including its U.S. operations, in deciding whether to export subject merchandise to

the United States. In 2007, Arcelor Mittal's exports of subject merchandise (excluding exports from Canada) totaled

*** percent of its domestic production, and *** percent including Canada. CR/PR at Table IV-12.

 217 The amount of reported unused capacity in 2007 for Brazil, Mexico, and Moldova attributable to producers

not controlled by Arcelor Mittal is *** short tons. See Foreign Producers Questionnaires. (All reported unused

capacity in Trinidad and Tobago and Ukraine is attributable to Arcelor Mittal.) All unused capacity in Indonesia, as

well as any unused capacity from producers in Brazil, Mexico, and Ukraine that did not respond to the

Commission’s questionnaires, is attributable to firms not controlled by Arcelor Mittal. See CR at IV-36 n.19, PR at

IV-19 n.19. All new capacity projected for Brazil is attributable to firms not controlled by Arcelor Mittal. CR at IV46, PR at IV-23.

 218 Should the Federal Circuit affirm the Commission’s negative remand determination in the original

investigation concerning subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago, and should the Supreme Court not grant any

writ of certiorari filed to review the Federal Circuit’s judgment, the antidumping duty order on subject imports from

Trinidad and Tobago will be revoked. Because of this circumstance, Gerdau Parties have suggested that the

Commission should consider whether it would have reached the same determination had it not cumulated subject

imports from Trinidad and Tobago with other subject imports. See Gerdau Parties Posthearing Brief, ex. 1 at 47-48. 

Those Commissioners who have not examined subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago on a non-cumulated basis

agree that such an examination is appropriate in the event the antidumping duty order on subject imports from

Trinidad and Tobago is ultimately revoked.

Accordingly, Vice Chairman Aranoff and Commissioners Lane, Williamson, and Pinkert note that their

findings on both the magnitude of unused and new capacity available for export to the United States, and the

attractiveness of the U.S. market as a destination for such capacity, would not be appreciably different if subject

imports from Trinidad and Tobago were not included in the cumulated analysis. They find that the likely volume of

cumulated subject imports would remain significant even in that circumstance. 

32

the record does not provide a basis for us to conclude that Gerdau S.A.’s affiliation with Gerdau

Ameristeel will serve materially to restrain Gerdau S.A.’s exports to the United States upon revocation of

the orders from Brazil.

By contrast, Arcelor Mittal does act as a single entity in the United States. ***.214 Even

assuming arguendo that Arcelor Mittal’s corporate structure will serve to deter it from exporting large

additional quantities of subject merchandise upon revocation in light of a desire to protect Arcelor Mittal

USA,215 216 much of the unused and additional capacity in the subject countries is attributable to

companies not controlled by Arcelor Mittal.217

Consequently, producers in the cumulated subject countries that would not be restrained from

increasing subject imports to the United States upon revocation control a significant quantity of unused

and projected new capacity. Given these producers’ overall export orientation on a cumulated basis and

the size and the relative attractiveness of the U.S. market, we conclude that there will be a significant

increase in cumulated subject imports to the United States, both in absolute terms and relative to U.S.

consumption, upon revocation.218
 219 CR/PR, Table II-3.

 220 CR/PR, Table II-4.

 221 CR at V-8, PR at V-7.

 222 Tr. at 64 (Cheek, Kerkvliet), 253 (De Shane), 273 (Woltz).

 223 Tr. at 255 (McCall), 273 (Robertson), 273-74 (Woltz), 275 (McCall), 277 (De Shane).

 224 Tr. at 65 (Simon).

 225 CR at V-9, PR at V-8.

 226 See CR/PR, Tables V-2, V-5, V-7 (peak price for domestic product reached in 2004), V-3 (fourth quarter

2004 price only $2 below 2007 peak); V-4 (peak price for domestic product reached in 2005, second highest in

2004), V-6 (*** prices for domestic product reached in 2005, *** in 2004).

 227 Tr. at 90 (Simon, Cheek, and Kerkvliet).

 228 See AWPA Prehearing Brief, exs. 2-10.

 229 Tr. at 23 (Kerkvliet), 103-04 (Cheek), 248 (McCall), 249 (Moffitt).

33

2. Likely Price Effects of Subject Imports

Price plays an important role in purchasing decisions for wire rod. Purchasers variously listed

price most frequently as the first, second, or third most important factor in selecting a supplier.219 It was

characterized as a “very important” purchasing factor by 38 out of 41 purchasers. No other factor was 

characterized as “very important” by as many purchasers.220 

Two other factors pertinent to the importance of price were discussed in section IV.C.3. above. 

First, both the domestic like product and the cumulated subject imports tend to be concentrated in the

industrial quality grades. Second, particularly for these industrial quality grades, the domestic like

product and subject imports are considered good substitutes. In light of this and the importance of price

in purchasing decisions, the industrial quality grades of wire rod are highly price sensitive.

Most U.S. producers and importers set prices on a transaction-by-transaction basis.221 While

some purchasers and producers testified that they had entered into long-term agreements,222 there was

considerable purchaser testimony that long-term contracts were frequently problematic, citing concerns

including legal liability, product supply, and price fluctuations.223 A producer testified that long-term

contracts are not as prevalent as they were in the past.224

The Commission collected quarterly pricing data on six wire rod products for purposes of these

reviews – two industrial quality products, a mesh quality product, a product for spring applications, a

CHQ product, and a welding quality product.225 Prices for the domestically produced products were

higher at the conclusion of the period than at its inception. For each of the products, prices for the

domestically produced product increased most rapidly during 2004. Prices for each of the products also

increased during 2007. Nevertheless, for each product, prices for the domestic like product were at or

near their peak levels during 2004 or 2005.226 The pricing patterns observed during the period of review

corroborate the testimony of domestic industry witnesses that prices for both lower-value and highervalue wire rod products tend to follow the same trends.227 

The record further indicates that domestic producers have sought to impose numerous price

increases in 2008.228 The producers contend and the purchasers acknowledge that these increases reflect

rising raw material costs.229 

We previously found that upon revocation, significant additional quantities of cumulated subject

imports are likely. The quantities of additional cumulated subject imports upon revocation are likely to

exceed greatly any amount needed to rectify what purchasers maintain are short supply conditions that
 230 Respondents contend that Gerdau, S.A. and Arcelor Mittal are unlikely to import subject merchandise at

prices that would harm their domestic affiliates. For the reasons stated in the discussion of likely volume, we do not

accept this argument with respect to Gerdau, S.A., because Gerdau’s Brazilian operations will likely conduct

marketing operations in the United States independently of Gerdau Ameristeel. Even assuming arguendo that

Arcelor Mittal will not intentionally price any additional subject imports at levels that would harm the operations of

Arcelor Mittal USA, the likely volume of additional subject imports from entities not controlled by Arcelor Mittal

will be sufficiently large to cause significant price effects.

 231 Chairman Pearson and Commissioner Okun, and Vice Chairman Aranoff and Commissioner Pinkert, refer to

their footnotes in section IV.D.1. above about the likely behavior of Arcelor Mittal.

 232 For the six subject countries on which the Commission has made affirmative determinations, cumulated

subject imports undersold the domestic like product in 154 of 192 quarterly comparisons during the period examined

in the original investigations and in 51 of 85 quarterly comparisons during the period of review. CR/PR, Tables V9-10.

 233 Commissioner Lane and Commissioner Pinkert note that for all seven subject countries, cumulated subject

imports undersold the domestic like product in 178 of 270 quarterly comparisons during the period examined in the

original investigations. CR/PR, Table V-10. Under the discipline of the orders, with imports from several of the

seven subject countries having exited the market, there was underselling during 52 out of 203 quarterly comparisons

during the period of review. CR/PR, Table V-9. They find that without the discipline of the orders subject imports,

including those from Canada, will be priced more competitively in the U.S. market.

 234 For the subject countries that Chairman Pearson has cumulated, cumulated subject imports undersold the

domestic like product in 81 of 94 quarterly comparisons during the period examined in the original investigations

and in all 17 quarterly comparisons during the period of review. CR/PR, Tables V-9-10.

 235 For the subject countries that Commissioner Okun has cumulated, cumulated subject imports undersold the

domestic like product in 117 of 146 quarterly comparisons during the period examined in the original investigations

and in 43 of 71 quarterly comparisons during the period of review. CR/PR, Tables V-9-10.

 236 CR/PR, Table III-13.

 237 CR/PR, Table III-12.

 238 Vice Chairman Aranoff and Commissioners Lane, Williamson, and Pinkert note that their findings on likely

significant underselling and likely significant price-suppressing and -depressing effects of the subject imports would

not be different had they not cumulated subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago. As previously discussed, likely

subject import volume would still be significant even if they had not cumulated Trinidad and Tobago. Moreover, the

(continued...)

34

have existed in the U.S. market during 2008. Consequently, importers will need to sell the subject

imports on the basis of price, not merely availability.230 231 The cumulated subject imports predominantly

undersold the domestic like product during both the original investigations and the period of review.232 233

234 235 In light of the likely volume of cumulated subject imports and their historic pattern of underselling,

we conclude that significant underselling by cumulated subject imports is likely upon revocation.

The cumulated subject imports will also have likely significant price-suppressing or -depressing

effects. As previously discussed, raw material costs for domestic producers, particularly the price of

scrap, generally rose during the latter portion of the period of investigation. Indeed, the unit raw material

costs of the domestic industry increased during every year of the period of review. The unit metal spread

– the difference between average sales values and raw material costs – declined from 2004 to 2007.236

Similarly, the ratio of cost of goods sold to net sales increased by over ten percentage points from 2004 to

2007, reaching 94.6 percent in 2007.237 Significant additional quantities of low-priced subject imports

will likely exacerbate the domestic industry’s recent inability to raise prices commensurately with

increases in costs.

We accordingly conclude that the subject imports are likely to have significant price effects.238
 238(...continued)

underselling data for the periods examined during both the original investigations and these reviews do not change

appreciably if data from Trinidad and Tobago are excluded.

 239 CR/PR, Table III-5.

 240 CR/PR, Table III-1.

 241 CR/PR, Table III-3.

 242 CR/PR, Table III-5.

 243 CR/PR, Table III-5. Respondents assert that the domestic industry’s capacity utilization data are seriously

understated, and that the industry is now effectively operating at full capacity. Several domestic producers credibly

testified at the Commission hearing, however, that they were ready and able to add additional shifts, which would

permit them to operate at full capacity, if they could anticipate or receive sufficient purchase commitments. Tr. at

115-16 (Simon), 116 (Kerkvliet), 117 (Nystrom).

 244 CR/PR, Table III-8.

 245 CR/PR, Table III-9.

 246 CR/PR, Table III-11.

35

3. Likely Impact of Subject Imports

Since imposition of the orders, the domestic industry’s capacity has increased. Capacity

increased irregularly from a period low of 4.8 million short tons in 2002 to a period high of 5.4 million

short tons in 2007.239 During this period, one producer (Mid-American) began production operations, and

another (Sterling) restarted production at a previously closed facility.240 Two domestic producers

anticipate increasing their capacity during 2008 or 2009.241

The domestic industry’s production fluctuated within a fairly narrow range during the period of

review. Production increased from 4.04 million short tons in 2002 to a period high of 4.09 million tons in

2004, declined to a period low of 3.74 million short tons in 2005, and then increased the next two years,

reaching 4.07 million short tons in 2007.242 Because capacity increased more rapidly than production,

capacity utilization declined over the period of review. Capacity utilization was at a period high of 84.6

percent in 2002. It fluctuated before reaching a period low of 69.4 percent in 2005. Capacity utilization

increased the subsequent two years, reaching 74.9 percent in 2007.243

Domestic producers’ U.S. shipments also fluctuated during the period of review. Domestic

producers’ U.S. shipments increased from 3.99 million short tons in 2002 to a period high of 4.14 million

short tons in 2003, declined the next two years, reaching a period low of 3.73 million short tons in 2005,

and then increased the next two years, reaching 4.08 million short tons in 2007.244 Inventories declined

from a period peak of 250,935 short tons in 2002 to a period low of 136,816 short tons in 2003 and

fluctuated thereafter. Inventories were 152,512 short tons in 2007.245

Employment levels fluctuated over a fairly narrow range during the period of review. The 2,397

production employees in 2007 were fewer than the 2,461 employees in 2002. Hourly wages rose during

every year of the period of review. Productivity fluctuated on an annual basis, ranging from a period low

of 727.7 short tons per thousand hours in 2002 to a period high of 786.2 short tons per thousand hours in

2007.246

In contrast to the period examined in the original investigations, domestic producers generally

operated profitably during the period of review. However, operating performance fluctuated considerably

on an annual basis. Operating performance declined in each year that apparent U.S. consumption
 247 Compare CR/PR, Tables III-12, I-16.

 248 CR/PR, Table III-12.

 249 CR/PR, Table III-15. Research and development expenses were at a period high in 2007. Most domestic

producers, however, did not incur research and development expenses during any portion of the period of review. 

Id. 

 250 Chairman Pearson, Commissioner Okun, and Commissioner Pinkert do not find that the domestic industry is

currently in a vulnerable state. Since 2004, the industry has been much more profitable than it was during the three

full years of the original period of investigation. Although Domestic Producers have argued that current profitability

levels are low, the industry has historically had relatively low operating margins, with the exception of 2004. See

Ivaco Prehearing Brief, ex. 16. It has generally been able to increase its prices to cover cost increases. It has

strengthened its dominant position in the U.S. market, increasing its market share by 18.1 percentage points from

2002 to 2007, and by 15.9 percentage points from 2006 to 2007. Although lower apparent U.S. consumption, fewer

production workers, and higher unit COGS in 2007 than in 2002 suggest some degree of vulnerability, there is a new

entrant to the industry, and capacity, production, shipments, and sales have all increased since 2005. In addition,

productivity and capital expenditures are higher in 2007 than they were in 2002. CR/PR, Table I-1. 

 251 Vice Chairman Aranoff, Commissioner Lane, and Commissioner Williamson find that the domestic industry

is currently in a vulnerable or weakened state as contemplated by the statute. Demand in the United States for wire

rod reached a period low in 2007, and further declines are anticipated. Domestic industry capacity utilization

improved somewhat since 2005, but remained below levels during 2002-04. Unit COGS are increasing faster than

shipment unit values, and operating income margins, while positive, are low. Although prices have risen over the

period, reflecting the increased raw material costs, the underselling by the subject imports during the original

investigation period continued during the review period.

 252 CR/PR, Table I-16.

 253 CR at II-17, PR at II-11.

36

declined and reached its peak during 2004, the year that consumption was at its height.247 The domestic

industry had a 4.6 percent operating profit in 2002, a 3.4 percent operating loss in 2003, and a period high

14.0 percent operating profit in 2004. Operating performance declined in the subsequent three years. In

2007, the industry had a 3.2 percent operating profit, with four of the ten domestic producers posting

operating losses.248 The industry’s capital expenditures in 2007 were above the period low reached in

2002, but below the period high reached in 2005.249

As discussed above, the orders have restrained the volume of cumulated subject imports shipped to

the U.S. market. By restraining the volume of such imports, the orders contributed to the industry’s

improved financial performance during the period of review.250 251

We previously found that a significant volume of additional cumulated subject imports will likely

enter the U.S. market if the antidumping and countervailing duty orders are revoked, that these imports

will likely significantly undersell the domestic like product, and that these imports will likely have

significant price-suppressing or -depressing effects. The quantity of additional imports will likely be

significantly greater than needed to rectify any current shortages of supply that may exist in the U.S.

market. Moreover, given that wire rod demand in the United States was lower in 2007 than in any prior

year during the period of review,252 and is anticipated by many market participants to decline further in the

foreseeable future,253 the additional imports will not simply be absorbed by increased demand. In these

circumstances, we find that revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on the cumulated

subject imports would likely have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry’s output, sales,

market share, employment, profits, and return on investment.

We consequently determine that revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on

subject imports from Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine would be
 254 Vice Chairman Aranoff, Commissioner Lane, Commissioner Williamson, and Commissioner Pinkert have

found the cumulated subject imports will likely have a significant adverse impact because of their likely significant

volume and likely significant price effects. As explained above, they would have found likely subject import

volume and likely price effects to be significant even if they had not cumulated subject imports from Trinidad and

Tobago. They consequently find that they would have found subject imports likely to have a significant adverse

impact even if they had not cumulated subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago.

 255 Commissioner Lane and Commissioner Pinkert determine that revocation of the antidumping and

countervailing duty orders on subject imports from Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and

Tobago, and Ukraine would be likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic wire

rod industry within a reasonably foreseeable time. They do not join the remainder of this opinion.

 256 Chairman Pearson determines that revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on subject

imports from Brazil, Indonesia, Moldova, and Ukraine would be likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of

material injury to the domestic wire rod industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.

 257 Commissioner Okun determines that revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on subject

imports from Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, and Ukraine would be likely to lead to the continuation or

recurrence of material injury to the domestic wire rod industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.

 258 CR/PR, Table IV-1.

 259 CR/PR, Table I-16.

 260 CR/PR, Table I-1.

 261 CR/PR, Table IV-19, CR at IV-56, IV-59, PR at IV-27. We have relied on the capacity data provided by the

two subject Canadian producers, Ivaco and Arcelor Mittal Canada, in their questionnaires. Gerdau Parties question

the accuracy of the questionnaire data on capacity in Canada, because the *** monitoring service reports greater

capacity. The differences between the *** data and the questionnaire data are principally due to a mathematical

error *** and by *** inclusion of wire rod capacity Ivaco uses to produce merchandise excluded from Commerce’s

scope definition. CR at IV-55 n.43, PR at IV-26 n.43. In light of these discrepancies, we find that the questionnaire

(continued...)

37

likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic wire rod industry within a

reasonably foreseeable time.254 255 256 257

E. Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Order on Subject Imports from Canada Is Not

Likely to Lead to Continuation or Recurrence of Material Injury

1. Likely Volume of Subject Imports

While the quantity of subject imports from Canada fell immediately after imposition of the

antidumping duty order, these imports have maintained a sizeable presence in the U.S. market. The

quantity of subject imports from Canada attained a period peak of *** short tons in 2002. Canadian

subject imports fell in 2003, rose in 2004, and fell the next two years, reaching a period low of *** short

tons in 2006. Subject imports from Canada then increased to *** short tons in 2007.258 The share of

apparent U.S. consumption represented by subject imports from Canada was at a period high of ***

percent in 2002, and fell the next four years, reaching a period low of *** percent in 2006. This share then

increased to *** percent in 2007.259 During the period examined in the original investigations, the annual

market penetration of subject imports from Canada ranged from *** percent in 1999 to *** percent in

2001.260

The Canadian industry has limited means or incentive to increase exports to the United States

significantly. The industry’s capacity allocated to production of subject merchandise declined during the

period of review, and the subject Canadian producers do not have any plans to increase capacity.261 In
 261(...continued)

data are more reliable.

 262 CR/PR, Table IV-19.

 263 CR/PR, Table IV-19. There were *** U.S. inventories of subject merchandise from Canada at the end of

2007. CR/PR, Table IV-4.

 264 Indeed, the quantity of subject merchandise that Canadian producers exported to markets other than the

United States during 2007 was only *** short tons. CR/PR, Table IV-19. Subject imports from Canada are not

subject to any tariff or non-tariff barriers to trade in other markets. CR at IV-34, PR at IV-16.

 265 CR/PR, Table IV-19. Over the period of review, between *** percent of the Canadian industry’s shipments

either went to the home market or were internally consumed. Id.

 266 CR at IV-59, PR at IV-27. The other Canadian subject producer, Arcelor Mittal Canada, states that ***. CR

at IV-56, PR at IV-27.

 267 Ivaco Prehearing Brief at 35 n.82.

 268 Chairman Pearson notes further that the presence of subject imports from Canada in the U.S. market appears

not to have been significantly affected by the presence or absence of antidumping and countervailing duty orders on

these imports.

 269 See CR/PR, Tables IV-5, IV-21.

38

2007, Canada’s capacity utilization was *** percent and unused capacity was only approximately ***

short tons.262 End-of-period inventories of the subject merchandise in Canada in 2007 were *** short tons,

had declined from the levels of 2006, and were only *** percent of that year’s total shipments.263 We

further find it is unlikely that the Canadian industry will seek to increase exports to the United States by

directing to the United States shipments currently made to other markets. *** of the Canadian industry’s

exports are already directed to the United States.264 Moreover, both the quantity and proportion of total

shipments directed to internal consumption increased during the latter portion of the period of review.265

The record does not indicate that it is likely that Canadian producers will direct internally consumed

production elsewhere.

Ivaco produces nonsubject wire rod products on the same equipment that it uses to produce subject

merchandise.266 Gerdau Parties suggest that, were the orders revoked, Ivaco could increase its capacity to

produce subject wire rod by switching production from nonsubject to subject product. We find that any

such product shifting is not likely. Ivaco represents that ***.267

Based on these considerations, we believe that any increase in subject imports from Canada would

not be significant, either in absolute levels or relative to U.S. consumption or production. Instead, subject

imports from Canada will likely continue to be at or near the levels observed during the period of

review.268

2. Likely Price Effects of Subject Imports

We incorporate by reference the discussion in section IV.D.2. above about the importance of price

in purchasing decisions, how market participants set prices, and pricing trends during the period of review. 

We observe that during the period of review subject imports from Canada were more highly concentrated

in CHQ and welding quality grades than were imports from other subject countries.269 With these more

specialized products, non-price considerations, such as technical support or the ability to meet specific
 270 See CR at II-23, PR at II-15; Tr. at 194-95 (Lynch).

 271 CR/PR, Table V-10.

 272 Original Determinations, USITC Pub. 3546 at 28-30.

 273 CR/PR, Table V-9.

 274 CR/PR, Tables I-1, V-9.

 275 CR/PR, Table I-1.

 276 CR/PR, Table I-16.

 277 CR/PR, Table I-1.

39

chemical specifications, may play a greater role in purchasing decisions than with industrial grade

products.270

Subject imports from Canada predominantly oversold the domestic like product during the period

examined in the original investigations, with overselling in 54 of 78 quarterly observations.271 Indeed, the

Commission’s cumulated price effects discussion in the original investigations did not reference subject

imports from Canada.272 During the period of review, overselling by subject imports from Canada

continued, with overselling in 117 of 118 quarterly comparisons.273 In 2007, when the volume of subject

imports from Canada increased on both an absolute and relative basis, the subject imports from Canada

still oversold the domestic like product in 19 of 20 quarterly comparisons.274

We have previously found that the volume of subject imports from Canada is unlikely to increase

significantly upon revocation. In light of this, we believe that the pricing behavior of these imports will be

similar to that observed during both the period before the order became effective and the period of review. 

In other words, subject imports from Canada will continue predominantly to oversell the domestic like

product and significant underselling is not likely. 

Because neither significant underselling nor a significant increase in volume is likely, we further

find that subject imports from Canada are not likely to have significant price-depressing or -suppressing

effects. We accordingly conclude that subject imports from Canada are not likely to have significant price

effects upon revocation.

3. Likely Impact of Subject Imports

We incorporate by reference the discussion in section IV.D.3. above concerning the condition of

the industry during the period of review and our findings concerning vulnerability.

While we found, with respect to cumulated subject imports, that revocation of the orders

contributed in part to the improved condition of the domestic industry during the period of review by

restraining the volume of subject imports, subject imports from Canada continued to be present in

substantial volumes in the U.S. market during the period of review. Indeed, as discussed above, their

import penetration during the period of review was comparable to that prior to imposition of the orders.275

Moreover, during the period of review, there was no apparent correlation between the appreciable

quantities of subject imports from Canada that remained in the U.S. market and key indicators of domestic

industry performance. The domestic industry had its highest market share during the period of review in

2007, a year in which the Canadian industry had its *** market penetration. Indeed, the market share of

both the domestic industry and the subject imports from Canada increased from 2006 to 2007.276

Moreover, during three of the four years in the period of review when the market penetration of the subject

imports from Canada declined, the domestic industry’s operating performance also declined.277

We have previously found that the volume of subject imports from Canada is not likely to increase

significantly upon revocation, and that these imports’ historic pattern of predominant overselling is not
 278 Chairman Pearson and Commissioner Okun dissenting with respect to Trinidad and Tobago and Chairman

Pearson dissenting with respect to Mexico.

 279 Commissioner Lane and Commissioner Pinkert dissenting.

40

likely to change. Consequently, the lack of any apparent nexus observed during the period of review

between subject imports from Canada and the domestic industry’s performance is likely to continue after

revocation. 

In light of our prior findings that the volume of subject imports from Canada is not likely to

increase significantly and that these imports are not likely to have significant price effects, we further find

that revocation of the antidumping duty order would not be likely to have a significant adverse impact on

the domestic industry’s output, sales, market share, employment, profits, or return on investment. 

Accordingly, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on wire rod from Canada is not

likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic wire rod industry.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we determine that revocation of the countervailing duty order on wire

rod from Brazil and the antidumping duty orders on wire rod from Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova,

Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury

to the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.278 We also determine that revocation of the

antidumping duty order on wire from Canada would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of

material injury to the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.279
 1

 See Views of the Commission, Section III.A, regarding the legal standard for cumulation.

 2

 See Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Belarus, China, Indonesia, Korea, Latvia, Moldova, Poland, and

Ukraine, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-873-875, 877-880, and 882 (Review), USITC Pub. 3933 (July 2007) (Separate and

Dissenting Views of Chairman Daniel R. Pearson and Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun Regarding Cumulation).

 3

 ArcelorMittal USA consists of former producers Ispat Inland (owned by ArcelorMittal’s predecessor Mittal

Steel) and Georgetown Steel (which Mittal Steel acquired in 2005). CR/PR at Table I-13, and Figure I-2. 

ArcelorMittal SA was a new entity created in 2007 from a merger of Arcelor S.A. and Mittal Steel Co. NV.

41

DISSENTING VIEWS OF CHAIRMAN DANIEL R. PEARSON AND

COMMISSIONER DEANNA TANNER OKUN

CONCERNING SUBJECT IMPORTS FROM TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO

I. INTRODUCTION

Based on the record in this five-year review, we determine under section 751(c) of the Tariff Act

of 1930, as amended, that revocation of the antidumping duty order on carbon and certain alloy steel wire

rod (“wire rod”) from Trinidad and Tobago 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.

We join the Views of the Commission concerning domestic like product, domestic industry, the

legal standard concerning five-year reviews, conditions of competition, and the negative determination on

subject imports from Canada. In addition, Chairman Pearson joins the Views of the Commission

concerning cumulation with regard to all subject countries except Mexico and Trinidad and Tobago, and

the affirmative determination on cumulated subject imports with respect to Brazil, Indonesia, Moldova,

and Ukraine; Commissioner Okun joins the Views of the Commission concerning cumulation with regard

to all subject countries except Trinidad and Tobago, and the affirmative determination on cumulated

subject imports with respect to Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, and Ukraine.

II. CUMULATION1

Our analytical framework begins with whether imports from the subject countries are likely to

face similar conditions of competition. For those subject imports which are likely to compete under

similar conditions of competition, we next proceed to consider whether those imports are likely to

compete with each other and with the domestic like product. Finally, if based on that analysis we intend

to exercise our discretion to cumulate one or more subject countries, we analyze whether we are

precluded from cumulating such imports because the imports from one or more subject countries,

assessed individually, are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.2

A. Subject Imports from Trinidad and Tobago Would Likely Compete Under Different

Conditions of Competition From Other Subject Imports

Based on our review of the record, we find that subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago would

be likely to compete under different conditions of competition from subject imports from the other subject

countries – Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, and Ukraine. We consequently decline to

exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago with subject imports from

the other subject countries.

Domestic wire rod producer ArcelorMittal USA is owned by ArcelorMittal SA.3

 ArcelorMittal

USA is a significant domestic producer; it has two wire rod facilities and accounted for a substantial
 4

 CR/PR at Table I-13. We note that U.S. wire rod production is fairly evenly dispersed between a number of

producers; six producers accounted for about *** of U.S. wire rod production in 2007, with these six producers

ranging in size from*** to***. Id.

 5

 CR/PR at Tables I-14 and IV-12.

 6

 CR at IV-86; PR at IV-40.

 7

 CR at IV-36, n.19, IV-40, IV-41, IV-92 and Tables I-13, I-14, IV-12; PR at IV-19, n.19, IV-20, IV-41 and

Tables I-13, I-14, IV-12.

 8

 CR at IV-37; PR at IV-19.

 9

 ArcelorMittal USA Response to Commission Questions in Gerdau Parties’ Posthearing Brief, Exhibit 1 at 3-4. 

ArcelorMittal USA also stated: ***.

CR at IV-36 (quoting email from ***, March 6, 2008); PR at IV-19.

42

share, ***, of domestic wire rod production in 2007.4

 ArcelorMittal SA also owns ArcelorMittal Point

Lisas Limited (“ArcelorMittal Trinidad”) (a manufacturer and exporter of wire rod in Trinidad and

Tobago, and an importer of subject merchandise from Trinidad and Tobago).5

 ArcelorMittal Point Lisas

is the sole producer of subject merchandise in Trinidad and Tobago.6

 While ArcelorMittal SA also owns

wire rod producers in other subject countries (Brazil, Canada, Mexico, and Ukraine) and several

nonsubject countries, much of the capacity in these other subject countries, except Trinidad and Tobago,

is attributable to companies not controlled by ArcelorMittal SA.7

 Thus, in any of the other subject

countries, there is no similar relationship between any combination of U.S. producers and a subject

producer that controls all or virtually all production.

ArcelorMittal acts as a single entity in the United States. ***.8

 In its response to questions from

the Commission, ArcelorMittal gave the following explanation regarding its decision making process for

wire rod sales and importation: ***.9

The incorporation of a significant U.S. producer in a single unified entity that controls all

production of subject wire rod in Trinidad and Tobago will likely result in all wire rod exported from

Trinidad and Tobago competing in the U.S. wire rod market in a different manner than the industries in

any of the other subject countries, which individually or in the aggregate lack any similar relationship

with the domestic wire rod industry. Concerns raised by certain other domestic producers provide added

support that ArcelorMittal’s Trinidad and Tobago wire rod products would likely compete in the U.S.

market under different conditions of competition from other subject imports. Specifically, they

acknowledge that ArcelorMittal acts as a single entity in making decisions regarding sales in the U.S.
 10 Nucor Parties Posthearing Brief, Ex. 1 at 3, n.3. Nucor and Gerdau Parties recognize that ultimate decisions on

exports and imports are made by the ArcelorMittal management, but they contend that such decisions are for the

benefit of the global entity which, even if its imports were restricted to shelter its U.S. facilities, would injure other

members of the domestic industry. See, e.g., Nucor Parties Posthearing Brief, Ex. 1 at 3 (“Mittal’s principal

economic interests lie in maximizing profits; if the revocation of the orders render it commercially impossible to

protect the interests of the U.S. facilities, Mittal will protect its bottom line at expense of the rest of the industry.”)

and 6 (“Mittal’s profit maximizing interest is not inexorably aligned with U.S. wire rod production.”); see also

Gerdau Parties Posthearing Brief, Ex. 1 at 8 (“***”) and 10 (“***”).

Gerdau Parties also posit that ArcelorMittal USA *** and can serve its overall corporate interests by

importing from subject facilities wire rod ***. Gerdau Parties Posthearing Brief, Ex. 1 at 4-8 and 15 (“The issue

here is not one of commitment by ArcelorMittal USA to this market, it is simply a matter of its total capacity, its

ability to supply limited aspects of the U.S. rod market, ***. A more limited ability to supply the U.S. market vis-avis other U.S. producers and vis-a-vis its foreign affiliates creates a very different market dynamics. . . .”); see also

Nucor Parties Posthearing Brief, Ex. 1 at 3-8.

 11 Nucor Parties also question ArcelorMittal’s commitment to U.S. production in light of ***, and what it

characterizes as ArcelorMittal’s historical strategy of shuttering marginal production facilities. Nucor Parties

Posthearing Brief, Ex. 1 at 5-8.

In response, ArcelorMittal USA states that it “is fully committed to its U.S. wire rod business, as

demonstrated by its investments there, and is not considering closing Georgetown in favor of importing from any

affiliate. If that were the case, why would ArcelorMittal support continuation of the subject orders? . . .

ArcelorMittal strongly objects to such mischaracterizations as it has a substantial stake in the U.S. steel industry”

and maintains that “nothing in the record supports [Nucor’s] notion.” ArcelorMittal USA’s Response to Questions

in Gerdau Parties Posthearing Brief, Ex. 1 at 2-3.

 12 Original Determinations, USITC Pub. 3456 at 1 and 39-46. In the original investigation, Commissioner Okun

was precluded by statute – the exception to cumulation of a beneficiary country under the Caribbean Basin

Economic Recovery Act (CBERA) – from cumulating subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago, which is a

beneficiary country under CBERA, with any other subject imports. Id. at 18 and 39. Chairman Pearson did not

participate in the original wire rod investigations or subsequent remand investigations.

43

market for all ArcelorMittal affiliates, and that Trinidad and Tobago is the only subject country in which

the sole producer is an ArcelorMittal affiliate.10 11

B. Conclusion

In sum, we determine that, based on the existence of unique conditions of competition facing the

Trinidad and Tobago’s industry, subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago would be likely to compete

under different conditions of competition with the subject imports from the other subject countries –

Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, and Ukraine. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above,

we do not exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago and we consider

them separately from all other subject imports.

II. Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Order on Subject Imports from Trinidad and Tobago

Is Not Likely to Lead to Continuation or Recurrence of Material Injury to the Domestic

Industry

In the original determination concerning Trinidad and Tobago, Commissioner Okun determined

that an industry in the United States was not materially injured or threatened with material injury by

reason of imports of wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago that were sold in the United States at less than

fair value.12 In doing so, she found that between 1999 and 2001, subject import volume from Trinidad

and Tobago fluctuated, but increased by less than 4 percent (that is, by less than *** of market share),

accounting for at most *** of the U.S. market during that period. Thus, the record indicated that subject
 13 CR/PR at Table I-1. In the original investigations, the quantity of subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago

fluctuated between years and was 355,089 short tons in 2001. Id.

 14 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 15 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 16 CR/PR at Tables IV-31 and IV-32. ArcelorMittal Trinidad’s production capacity was *** from 2002 to 2007,

down from *** in 2001. Id.

 17 CR at IV-89; PR at IV-40.

44

imports from Trinidad and Tobago constituted a small portion of the U.S. market and increased only

modestly over the period examined, particularly in comparison to the combined volume of subject

imports of wire rod from Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, and Ukraine, and the volume of

nonsubject imports.

Subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago generally were priced higher than comparable wire

rod from other subject countries, generally increased in price in the second half of 2001, and did not result

in any confirmed instances of lost sales or lost revenues by the domestic industry. Although subject

imports from Trinidad and Tobago frequently were priced lower than comparable domestic wire rod,

underselling was often by margins of less than 5 percent. Commissioner Okun found that this suggested

that the significant volume loss and market-disrupting low prices experienced by the domestic industry

were not by reason of the subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago, and that such imports did not have a

significant adverse impact on the domestic industry. Moreover, she found that because the Trinidadian

producer, then called Caribbean Ispat, had limited available capacity and already depended on the U.S.

market for a substantial portion of its sales, subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago did not threaten

the domestic wire rod industry.

The relevant facts regarding Trinidad and Tobago in the original investigation have not changed

during this five-year review – Trinidad wire rod production capacity still is relatively small, Trinidad

already is dependent on the U.S. market for a substantial portion of its sales, and capacity, even if

production is increased, will limit additional exports to the U.S. market to levels at or lower than in the

original investigation. In fact, the one change since the original investigation – the fact that ArcelorMittal

currently owns both the sole Trinidad wire rod producer and a substantial U.S. wire rod producer – will

ensure that exports to the U.S. market are in volumes and at prices that will not materially affect the U.S.

industry. Therefore, for the reasons discussed below, we determine that revocation of the antidumping

duty order on subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago would not be likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.

A. Likely Volume of Subject Imports

While the quantity of subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago declined after imposition of the

antidumping duty order, these imports have remained in the U.S. market. The quantity of subject imports

from Trinidad and Tobago attained a period peak of 386,419 short tons in 2002. Trinidadian subject

imports fell in 2003, rose in 2004 to 260,618 short tons, and declined irregularly the next three years,

reaching a period low of 95,325 short tons in 2007.13 The share of apparent U.S. consumption

represented by subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago was *** in 2002, its peak level during the

period of review, and fluctuated between years for the next five years ranging from *** in 2005 and

2007.14 During the period examined in the original investigations, the annual market share of subject

imports from Trinidad and Tobago ranged from *** to ***.15

Trinidad and Tobago’s sole wire rod producer, ArcelorMittal Point Lisas, has limited means to

increase exports to the United States significantly. The production capacity for Trinidad wire rod was

relatively small, remained constant over the period of review, and was *** below that reported in 2001.16

ArcelorMittal Trinidad also reported that it had *** plans to increase capacity.17 We recognize that,
 18 CR/PR at Table IV-32. Trinidadian capacity utilization was *** in 2007. Id. Exports as a share of total

shipments declined from a period high of ***. Id.

 19 For example, in 2004, ArcelorMittal Trinidad’s capacity utilization was *** and its exports to the United States

as a share of its shipments ***, but the volume of these exports was lower than ***. CR/PR at Tables I-1 and IV-32.

 20 CR at IV-37; PR at IV-19; ArcelorMittal USA Response to Commission Questions in Gerdau Parties’

Posthearing Brief, Exhibit 1 at 3-4.

 21 CR/PR at Table I-13.

 22 ArcelorMittal USA Response to Commission Questions in Gerdau Parties’ Posthearing Brief, Exhibit 1 at 1-2. 

ArcelorMittal “strongly object[ed] to” Nucor’s questioning of ArcelorMittal’s commitment to its U.S. production

facility, and indicated that it “is fully committed to its U.S. wire rod business, as demonstrated by its investments

there, and is not considering closing Georgetown in favor of importing from any affiliate.” Id. at 2. The value of

ArcelorMittal USA’s Georgetown operation is ***. Id. at 1.

 23 ArcelorMittal USA’s Response to Questions in Gerdau Parties’ Posthearing Brief, Ex. 1 at 3 and 4 (“Prices of

individual wire rod products are interrelated and aggressively low prices for one product would have an impact on

all wire rod products.”).

 24 See, e.g., CR/PR at II-1.

45

during the period of review, ArcelorMittal Trinidad’s reported capacity utilization declined, end-of period

inventories increased, and exports accounted for at least *** of its shipments each year.18 However, we

also take into account that ArcelorMittal Trinidad already is dependent on the U.S. market for a

substantial portion of its sales, and its capacity will limit additional exports to the U.S. market to levels

comparable to, or lower than, those during the original investigation.19

ArcelorMittal USA, as discussed in our cumulation analysis, informed the Commission that all

commercial decisions regarding sales of wire rod in the United States ***.20 We find that the

ArcelorMittal group’s strategy for its subsidiaries and trading group is to serve local markets with local

production, and therefore not to serve export markets where it has a producer. This global marketing

strategy limits the motivation of the sole subject producer in Trinidad and Tobago to significantly

increase shipments to the U.S. market. The ArcelorMittal group’s substantial investment in ArcelorMittal

USA makes it in the ArcelorMittal group’s interests not to disrupt the U.S. market. ArcelorMittal USA

had two wire rod facilities in the United States during the period of review, and accounts for *** of

domestic production in 2007.21 ArcelorMittal maintains that the millions spent in acquisition and 

investments ensure that ArcelorMittal is committed to the U.S. wire rod business.22

While it is possible that ArcelorMittal Long Carbon North America would direct some increases

in imports from its subject facility in Trinidad and Tobago if the orders were revoked, the evidence in

these reviews indicates that ArcelorMittal’s interests in maintaining a profitable U.S. market, which

involves nationwide sales of this price sensitive product, would make it unlikely that significant volumes

of subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago would enter the U.S. market. Moreover, ArcelorMittal’s

control over the products that enter the U.S. market, ***, makes it unlikely that its affiliated subject

producer in Trinidad and Tobago will move aggressively to capture U.S. market share or sell its products

in a manner that would have a negative effect on prices that ArcelorMittal USA receives.23 We also find

that the nature of the U.S. wire rod market, in which producers and importers compete in nearly all

geographic markets, makes significant imports in any region of the country likely to have a disruptive

impact on the overall U.S. market; thus, substantial increases in imports from any ArcelorMittal source,

and particularly from the sole producer in Trinidad and Tobago, is a course that ArcelorMittal USA is

unlikely to pursue.24

For all of these reasons, and taking into consideration our findings above concerning the

conditions of competition that are distinctive to this industry, we do not find it likely that the volume of

imports of subject wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago would be significant, in absolute terms or relative
 25 In this review, there were 14 price comparisons possible regarding the subject imports from Trinidad and

Tobago (8 instances of underselling and 6 instances of overselling), with the most recent comparison in the second

quarter of 2006. CR/PR at Tables V-2, V-3, V-4, and V-9.

 26 CR/PR at Table V-10.

 27 CR/PR at Table II-6.

 28 CR/PR at II-1 and Table II-3.

 29 Gerdau Parties’ Posthearing Brief, Ex. 1 at 8 (“If ArcelorMittal, or indeed any subject foreign producer, were to

export just one subproduct or type of rod to the U.S. market at low prices, there would be a definite volume effect as

well as price effect on other U.S. rod prices.”) and 9 (“To the extent that the prices at which the foreign product is

sold are at low levels, those low prices in turn would lead to a downward pricing spiral for other producers and

ripple effects across the prices of other wire rod products. . . . Due to the price-sensitive nature of the U.S. rod

market, sales are largely made based on offers at the lowest price.”).

46

to production or consumption in the United States, within a reasonably foreseeable time in the event of

revocation.

B. Likely Price Effects of Subject Imports

We incorporate by reference the discussion in Section IV.D.2 of the Views of the Commission

regarding the importance of price in purchasing decisions, how market participants set prices, and pricing

trends during the period of review. In this review, there are limited pricing data specific to wire rod from

Trinidad and Tobago available to compare to the domestic like product.25 While imports from Trinidad

and Tobago undersold the domestic like product in the majority of price comparisons in the original

investigation, the margins of underselling were small.26 Moreover, as discussed above, ArcelorMittal

now has no incentive to allow subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago to be priced aggressively so as

to move large volumes of wire rod at low prices into the U.S. market. Wire rod of the same

characteristics and requirements for a specific application or end use is always or frequently

interchangeable whether it is domestically produced or imported.27 Price plays an important role in

purchasing decisions and wire rod is sold on a nationwide basis.28 Thus, given the nature of this market,

low priced imports in any region of the country will have a disruptive effect on pricing of wire rod

throughout the country.29 Given the likely small volume of subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago in

the event of revocation and taking into consideration our findings above concerning the conditions of

competition that are distinctive to this industry, we find that revocation of the antidumping duty order on

subject imports of wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago would not be likely to lead to significant

underselling or significant price depression or suppression within a reasonably foreseeable time.

C. Likely Impact of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely impact on the domestic industry, we note, as explained in more detail in

the majority opinion above, that we have not found that the domestic industry currently is in a vulnerable

or weakened state as contemplated by the statute. Given that we do not find it likely that there will be a

significant volume of subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago or that there will likely be significant

price effects from these imports, and taking into consideration our findings above concerning the

conditions of competition that are distinctive to this industry, we find that revocation of the antidumping

duty order on subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago is not likely to lead to a significant adverse

impact on the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.

Thus, we conclude that revocation of the antidumping duty order on subject imports from

Trinidad and Tobago would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the

domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.
 1 19 U.S.C. § 1675(d)(2).

 2 I also find that material injury is not likely to continue or recur within a reasonably foreseeable time if the

antidumping duty order on wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago is revoked. For my views on subject imports from

Trinidad and Tobago, See Dissenting Views of Chairman Daniel R. Pearson and Commissioner Deanna Tanner

Okun Concerning Subject Imports From Trinidad and Tobago.

 3 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7).

47

SEPARATE AND DISSENTING VIEWS OF CHAIRMAN DANIEL R. PEARSON

I. INTRODUCTION

Section 751(d)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires that the U.S.

Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) revoke a countervailing duty or an antidumping duty order or

terminate a suspended investigation in a five-year review unless Commerce determines that dumping or a

countervailable subsidy would be likely to continue or recur and the U.S. International Trade Commission

(“Commission”) determines that material injury to a U.S. industry would be likely to continue or recur

within a reasonably foreseeable time.1

 Based on the record in these five-year reviews, I concur with my

colleagues in determining that material injury is likely to continue or recur within a reasonably

foreseeable time if the countervailing duty order on subject imports of carbon and certain alloy steel wire

rod (“wire rod”) from Brazil and the antidumping duty orders on subject imports of wire rod from Brazil,

Indonesia, Moldova, and Ukraine are revoked, and that material injury is not likely to continue or recur

within a reasonably foreseeable time if the antidumping duty order on wire rod from Canada is revoked. I

write separately from my colleagues, however, because I find that material injury is not likely to continue

or recur within a reasonably foreseeable time if the antidumping duty order on subject imports of wire rod

from Mexico is revoked.2

I join the discussion of the Commission majority regarding domestic like product and domestic

industry, and the relevant conditions of competition in the U.S. market. I write separately to discuss the

legal standard governing five-year reviews, my approach to cumulation in these reviews, and my analysis

of the statutory factors regarding imports from Mexico.

II. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY IF

THE ORDERS ARE REVOKED

A. Cumulation

1. Framework

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.3

Thus, cumulation is discretionary in five-year reviews. The Commission, however, may exercise

its discretion to cumulate only if the reviews are initiated on the same day and the Commission
 4 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).

 5 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). I 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).

 6 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).

 7 See Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Belarus, China, Indonesia, Korea, Latvia, Moldova, Poland, and

Ukraine, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-873-875, 877-880, and 882 (Review), USITC Pub. 3933 (July 2007)(Separate and

Dissenting Views of Chairman Daniel R. Pearson and Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun Regarding Cumulation).

48

determines that the subject imports are likely to compete with each other and the domestic like product in

the U.S. market. In these reviews, the statutory requirement for cumulation that all reviews be initiated on

the same day is satisfied as Commerce initiated all the reviews on September 4, 2007. 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.4

 Only a “reasonable overlap” of

competition is required.5

 In five-year reviews, the relevant inquiry is whether there likely would be

competition even if none currently exists. Moreover, because of the prospective nature of five-year

reviews, I 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.6

As discussed below, I find that likely significant differences in the conditions of competition with

respect to the subject imports from Mexico versus imports from other subject sources lead me to decline

to cumulate subject imports from Mexico with imports from other subject sources. As noted in the views

of the majority, because I decline to cumulate subject imports from Mexico with other subject imports on

the basis of differences in conditions of competition, I find it unnecessary to decide the issue of no

discernible adverse impact with respect to subject imports from Mexico, nor do I find it necessary to

determine that, upon revocation, there would be a reasonable overlap of competition among subject

imports from Mexico, other subject imports, and the domestic like product.7
 8 Original Confidential Staff Report (INV-Z-162) (OCR), at table VII-5.

 9 Id.

 10 CR, PR at table IV-25.

 11 In 2006, the comparable ratios for other subject countries were *** percent for Brazil, *** percent for Canada,

22.5 percent for Indonesia (as a ratio to production), *** percent for Moldova, *** percent for Trinidad and Tobago,

and *** percent for Ukraine. CR, PR at tables IV-15, IV-20, IV-29, IV-22, IV-32, and IV-35.

 12 In 2006, the most recent year for which data are available addressing this factor, Mexico’s trade balance in

wire rod was a negative 227,939 short tons, indicating that it was a net importer of wire rod. In contrast, subject

countries Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, and Ukraine had positive trade balances, indicating that they were net exporters. 

Mexico was a net importer of wire rod in all years of the period examined except for 2004. CR, PR at table IV-11.

 13 Exports to North American destinations other than the United States (likely primarily Canada) declined from

*** short tons in 2004 to only *** short tons in 2007, while exports to South American destinations were minimal

and spotty until 2007, when they increased to *** short tons. Even in 2007, however, such shipments accounted for

only *** percent of total shipments. CR, PR at table IV-25.

49

2. In the Event the Antidumping Order on Mexico is Revoked, Imports from

Mexico Will Likely Compete in the U.S. Market under Different Conditions

of Competition from Other Subject Imports

My cumulation analysis in a five-year review encompasses more than an examination of whether

there would likely be a reasonable overlap of competition of the products in the U.S. market. In deciding

whether to exercise my discretion to cumulate under 19 U.S.C. §1675a(a)(7), I examine the current and

likely differences in the conditions of competition. I find that, with regard to imports from Mexico, there

have been changes in certain conditions of competition since the orders were imposed. Specifically,

during the period of review, the Mexican industry became far less export-oriented than it was during the

original period of investigation. Moreover, I do not find that this change in export orientation on the part

of the Mexican industry was a result of imposition of the antidumping duty order on wire rod from

Mexico. Based on this evidence, I do not exercise my discretion to cumulate subject imports from

Mexico with other subject imports.

During the original investigations, the Mexican industry shipped the majority of its production

into the Mexican home market, yet export shipments were not insignificant. Indeed, such shipments, as a

ratio to total shipments, increased from *** percent in 1999 to *** percent in 2001.8

 The bulk of these

shipments were made to the U.S. market.9

 During the period examined in these reviews, however, the

Mexican industry has reversed this trend, shipping less and less wire rod overall to export markets, and

directing increasing quantities of shipments to both the home market and internal consumption. In

particular, the share of Mexican industry shipments made to export markets declined from *** percent in

2002 to *** percent in 2004, with a further decline to *** percent in 2006.10 The most recent ratios of

exports to total shipments for Mexico contrast starkly with those of other subject countries, making

Mexico by far the least export-oriented of the countries subject to these reviews.11 In fact, Mexico is

alone among subject countries in being a net importer of the subject product during at least four years of

the period of review.12

Moreover, the record does not support a conclusion that this shift in export orientation on the part

of Mexico is linked in any way to imposition of the antidumping duty order. First, if that were the case,

one would have expected to see the export shipments that prior to the order were made to the U.S. market

be redirected to other export markets. Yet there has been no such shift, as responding Mexican producers

*** to European and Asian markets during the period of review, and their exports to alternate destinations

in North and South America generally declined overall.13 Second, one of the *** exporters to the U.S.

market during the original period of investigation, Sicartsa, decreased its exports to the U.S. market
 14 Questionnaire response of Sicartsa at question II-16(a).

 15 Cumulated subject imports increased from *** in 1999 to *** in 2001. USITC Pub. 3546 at 39-40. The

market share of subject imports of wire rod increased from *** percent in 1999 to *** percent in 2001. 

 16 CR, PR at table I-1.

 17 CR at IV-69, PR at IV-33.

 18 CR, PR at tables IV-9 & IV-25.

50

during the period of review despite reducing its dumping margins during that period to very low levels.14

Hence, the presence of the antidumping duty order does not seem to have influenced the Mexican

industry’s evident determination to increase its focus on the domestic market and on production of

downstream products made from wire rod.

Consequently, I find that, with regard to subject imports, the current and past conditions of

competition are sufficiently different between Mexico and other subject countries to override the fact that

the products from each source may essentially be fungible for discrete applications. Because during the

period of review the Mexican industry essentially abandoned not only the U.S. market, but all its export

markets, I determine that in the event of revocation, the volume of imports from Mexico into the United

States would respond differently from other subject import volumes, and would have differing impacts on

the domestic industry. In light of the consistent and marked decline during the period of review in the

share of Mexican shipments going to export markets, it is difficult to conceive of this pattern reversing

itself in the reasonably foreseeable future. Accordingly, I do not exercise my discretion to cumulate

subject imports from Mexico with other subject imports. 

B. Revocation of the Antidumping Order on Imports from Mexico Is Not Likely to

Lead to a Continuation or Recurrence of Material Injury Within a Reasonably

Foreseeable Time

1. Likely Volume of Subject Imports

In the original investigations, the Commission cumulated imports from Mexico with other subject

imports. In these reviews, I do not exercise my discretion, under 19 U.S.C. §1675a(a)(7), to cumulate

imports from Mexico with imports from other subject sources, based on likely significant differences in

the conditions of competition facing Mexico as compared with other subject sources upon revocation,

stemming from Mexico’s current lack of export orientation. As a result, in analyzing the likely volume of

imports from Mexico I have taken into account the Commission’s previous volume findings, recognizing

the difference between subject imports from Mexico and those from other subject sources.

In the original investigations, the Commission found that the volume and market share of subject

imports from cumulated countries increased significantly over the investigation period.15 The

Commission did not comment specifically on the trend in volume for Mexico. The record indicates,

however, that the volume of subject imports from Mexico increased from *** short tons in 1999 to ***

short tons in 2001.16

In these five-year reviews, the Commission received data from three firms (Sicartsa (now part of

Arcelor/Mittal), Hylsa, and De Acero), accounting for *** percent of 2007 production.17 Thus, the

Commission appears to have information covering a substantial majority of current Mexican production. 

With regard to the statutory factors, capacity increased overall during the review period, but is not

expected to increase through 2010.18 Capacity utilization in 2007 was *** at *** percent, which

represents approximately *** tons of excess capacity. On the other hand, as noted above, the Mexican

industry is not at all export-oriented, with *** percent of shipments sold into the home market in 2007,
 19 CR, PR at table IV-25.

 20 Id.

 21 CR at IV-74-75, PR at IV-35.

 22 CR, PR at table I-6.

 23 Questionnaire response of Sicartsa at question II-16(a).

 24 See Dissenting Views of Chairman Daniel R. Pearson and Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun Concerning

Subject Imports From Trinidad and Tobago at 7-10.

 25 CR at IV-69, PR at IV-33.

 26 Questionnaire responses of Hylsa and Sicartsa at question II-16(a); Mexican respondents’ prehearing brief at

3.

 27 OCR at V-12-V-14.

 28 OCR at tables V-11 & V-12.

51

and another *** percent internally consumed in the production of downstream products.19 Inventories

have declined since 2004, and as a ratio to shipments are fairly moderate.20 Mexico does not face any

third country barriers, but Mexican firms produce rebar in their wire rod-producing facilities, so there is a

potential for product-shifting.21

Although examination of the statutory factors, such as the existence of some excess capacity,

might at first indicate that Mexican firms have the potential to increase exports to the United States upon

revocation, I do not find it likely that they will do so primarily because of the Mexican industry’s

pronounced lack of interest in exporting to the U.S. market, or any other markets, during the period of

review. Absent extraordinary circumstances, where a country is a net importer of subject merchandise, as

Mexico was during most of the period of review, it simply is not plausible that it would abandon its focus

on its domestic market (and on supplying downstream industries) and suddenly begin shipping to export

markets such as the United States.

Two other developments during the period of review reinforce this conclusion. First, in 2005,

Mexican producer Sicartsa, which was a *** exporter of wire rod to the United States during the original

investigation, reduced its antidumping duty exposure, as a result of an administrative review by

Commerce, from 20.11 percent to a mere 1.06 percent.22 Had Sicartsa been interested in reverting to its

shipment pattern during the original investigation, one would have expected it to have taken advantage of

this extremely low duty deposit rate to do so. Since 2005, Sicartsa, however, has ***.23 Second, in 2007

Sicartsa became part of the Arcelor Mittal group of companies. For reasons explained in my views on

subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago, I do not find it likely that, in the event of revocation, firms in

subject countries controlled by Arcelor/Mittal would increase shipments to the U.S. market either in such

volumes or at such prices as to injure the domestic wire rod industry.24 In so concluding, I am mindful

that in 2007, Sicartsa accounted for only *** percent of production in Mexico.25 However, the firm with

the *** share of 2007 production, De Acero, ***, and the *** responding producer, Hylsa (with ***

percent of reported 2007 production), shipped *** quantities during those periods.26

Hence, I conclude that, in the event the order on imports from Mexico is revoked, the likely

volume of such imports will not be significant.

2. Likely Price Effects of Subject Imports

In the original investigations, the Commission found that in 37 of 46 possible price comparisons,

products from Mexico were priced below the comparable domestic products by margins ranging from ***

percent.27 The Commission specifically noted, however, that it could not completely confirm any lost

sales allegations involving Mexico, and petitioners did not make any lost revenue allegations concerning

Mexico.28 
 29 CR, PR at tables V-2-V-7.

 30 CR, PR at table V-2.

 31 CR, PR at table V-10.

 32 USITC Pub. 3546 at 30-33 (Views of the Commission). 

52

In these reviews, I can draw only limited conclusions from the pricing data, as, for five of the six

products selected by the Commission for pricing analysis, data on Mexican prices were spotty and

generally confined to early in the period of review.29 For the one product (product 1 - C1006 grade

industrial quality wire rod) for which there was a complete series of pricing comparisons, imports from

Mexico showed a mixed pattern of underselling and overselling, with slightly more overselling toward the

end of the period 30 Given the relative paucity of data on the record concerning Mexico, I rely mainly on

information from the original investigation. In that regard, I find it significant that, during the original

investigation, not only was there no evidence of confirmed lost revenues to U.S. producers by reason of

imports from Mexico, there were not even any allegations of such lost revenues. Imports from Mexico

predominantly undersold the domestic product during the original investigation, but I note that the

weighted average underselling margin of imports from Mexico was low, at only *** percent, compared

to, for example, *** percent for Ukraine, *** percent for Brazil, and *** percent for Indonesia.31

Consequently, given the fact that a significant volume of imports from Mexico is not likely to

occur upon revocation, combined with the mixed pattern of underselling and overselling by Mexican

firms during the review period and the lack of lost revenue allegations during the original investigations, I

do not find a likelihood of significant negative price effects from subject imports from Mexico in the

event of revocation of the order. Therefore, I conclude that, if the order on wire rod from Mexico were

revoked, the volumes of subject imports from Mexico would not be likely to undersell significantly the

domestic product or gain market share, nor would such imports be likely to have significant depressing or

suppressing effects on the prices of the domestic like product. 

3. Likely Impact of Subject Imports

In the original investigations, the Commission found that most economic and financial indicators

of the condition of the U.S. industry declined, and pointed in particular to increasing operating losses and

declines in employment.32 It also noted the fact that the industry’s market share declined in the face of

rising subject imports, despite a decline in apparent consumption.

I concur with the views of the Commission majority that many of the key performance indicators

traditionally examined by the Commission have fluctuated during the period of review although, as noted

in those views, I join Commissioners Okun and Pinkert in determining that the industry is not currently

vulnerable to increased imports. In any case, in light of my finding that revocation of the antidumping

order on imports from Mexico would not be likely to lead to a significant increase in the volume of

subject imports that would undersell the domestic like product and significantly suppress or depress U.S.

prices, I find that, if the order on imports from Mexico were revoked, such imports would not be likely to

have a significant adverse impact on the production, shipments, sales, market share, and revenues of the

domestic industry. Accordingly, I conclude that, if the order on imports from Mexico were revoked,

subject imports would not be likely to have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry within a

reasonably foreseeable time.
53

C. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, I determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on wire rod

from Mexico would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic

industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.

 1

 19 U.S.C. 1675(c).

 2

 72 FR 50696, September 4, 2007. All interested parties were requested to respond to this notice by submitting

the information requested by the Commission. 

 3

 In accordance with section 751(c) of the Act, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) published a

notice of initiation of five-year reviews of the subject antidumping and countervailing duty orders concurrently with

the Commission’s notice of institution. 72 FR 50659, September 4, 2007.

 4

 72 FR 73880, December 28, 2007. The Commission found that the domestic interested party response to its

notice of institution was adequate and that the respondent interested party responses were adequate with respect to

Canada and Moldova. The Commission determined that the respondent interested party group response with respect

to Mexico was inadequate, but determined to conduct a full review in order to promote administrative efficiency. 

The Commission did not receive any responses from respondent interested parties concerning Brazil, Indonesia,

Trinidad & Tobago, and Ukraine, and determined that the respondent interested party responses with respect to these

countries were inadequate. However, the Commission determined to conduct full reviews with respect to these

countries to promote administrative efficiency in light of its decision to conduct full reviews with respect to the

orders in the other reviews.

 5

 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. App. B

presents a list of witnesses appearing at the Commission’s hearing.

I-1

PART I: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

BACKGROUND

On September 4, 2007, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission” or “USITC”)

gave notice, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”),1

 that it had

instituted reviews to determine whether revocation of the countervailing duty order on carbon and certain

alloy steel wire rod (“wire rod”) from Brazil and the antidumping duty orders on wire rod from Brazil,

Canada, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad & Tobago, and Ukraine would likely lead to the

continuation or recurrence of material injury to a domestic industry.2 3

 On December 10, 2007, the

Commission determined that it would conduct full reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Act.4

Selected information relating to the schedule of the current five-year reviews appears in the following

tabulation:5

Effective date Action

October 22, 2002 Commerce’s countervailing duty order on wire rod from Brazil (67 FR 64871)

October 29, 2002 Commerce’s antidumping duty orders on wire rod from Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, Mexico,

Moldova, Trinidad & Tobago, and Ukraine (66 FR 65945)

September 4, 2007 Commission’s institution of five-year reviews (72 FR 50696)

September 4, 2007 Commerce’s initiation of five-year reviews (72 FR 50659)

December 10, 2007 Commission’s determinations to conduct full five-year reviews (72 FR 73880, December

28, 2007)
 6

 Commerce issued final negative countervailing duty determinations with respect to Trinidad & Tobago and

Turkey. Therefore, the Commission terminated countervailing duty investigations Nos. 701-TA-420-421 concerning

these countries.

 7 Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, Canada, Germany, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova,

Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-417-421, 731-TA-953, 954, 956-959, 961, and 962 (Final),

USITC Publication 3546 (October 2002) (“Original Determination”). In its final determination, the Commission

found that subject imports from Germany were negligible. Petitioners filed suit against the Commission with respect

to the negligibility determination. That litigation is still active, as the Court of International Trade vacated a prior

order dismissing the action pending entry of a final judgment in the Gerdau Ameristeel action discussed below.

The petition also included subject imports from Egypt, South Africa, Turkey, and Venezuela. The

investigation concerning subject imports from Turkey was terminated after Commerce reached a negative subsidy

determination. The investigations concerning subject imports from Egypt, South Africa, and Venezuela were

terminated after the Commission found in its preliminary determination that imports from these three subject

countries were negligible. Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, Canada, Egypt, Germany,

(continued...)

I-2

Effective date Action

January 8, 2008

Commerce’s final results of expedited five-year reviews of the antidumping duty orders on

wire rod from Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad & Tobago, and

Ukraine (73 FR 1321)

January 8, 2008 Commerce’s final results of expedited five-year review of the countervailing duty order on

wire rod from Brazil (73 FR 1323)

January 8, 2008 Commission’s scheduling of the reviews (73 FR 2273, January 14, 2008)

April 17, 2008 Commission’s hearing

June 3, 2008 Commission’s vote

June 17, 2008 Commission’s determinations transmitted to Commerce 

The Original Investigations

The original investigations resulted from petitions filed by counsel on behalf of Co-Steel Raritan,

Inc., Perth Amboy, NJ; GS Industries, Inc., Charlotte, NC; Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., Dallas

TX; and North Star Steel Texas, Inc., Edina, MN, on August 31, 2001, alleging that an industry in the

United States is materially injured and threatened with material injury by reason of subsidized imports of

wire rod from Brazil, Canada, Germany, Trinidad & Tobago, and Turkey6

 and less-than-fair-value

(“LTFV”) imports of wire rod from Brazil, Canada, Egypt, Germany, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, South

Africa, Trinidad & Tobago, Ukraine, and Venezuela. 

The original petitions named 12 subject countries. The Commission made affirmative final

determinations with respect to the seven subject countries that are involved in these reviews. 

Respondents from three of these subject countries (Canada, Mexico, and Trinidad & Tobago) initiated

litigation against the Commission, with the litigation involving imports from Trinidad & Tobago still

active. The investigation concerning one subject country was terminated because of a Commerce

negative subsidy determination. The investigations concerning the remaining four subject countries were

terminated because of Commission negligibility findings. Petitioners filed two suits against the

Commission challenging the negligibility findings, and both these pieces of litigation are still active. In

October 2002, the Commission determined that a domestic industry was materially injured by reason of

subsidized imports of steel wire rod from Brazil and Canada and by reason of less than fair value imports

of steel wire rod from Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad & Tobago, and Ukraine.7
 7

 (...continued)

Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, South Africa, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, and Venezuela, Inv. Nos. 701-

TA-417-421, 731-TA-953-963 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 3456 (October 2001). Petitioners filed suit against

the Commission with respect to the consequent termination of the investigations concerning subject imports from

Egypt, South Africa, and Venezuela. See Gerdau Ameristeel U.S. Inc. v. USITC, Slip Op. 07-165 (November 8,

2007). That litigation is still active, with the Commission’s third remand determination transmitted on March 10,

2008, determining that imports of wire rod from South Africa that are allegedly sold in the United States at LTVF

are negligible individually, and that subject imports from Egypt, South Africa, and Venezuela are negligible in the

aggregate, for purposes of the Commission’s threat determinations. 

 8

 67 FR 64871, October 22, 2002.

 9

 69 FR 3330, January 23, 2004.

 10 67 FR 65944-47, October 29, 2002.

 11 68 FR 47547, August 11, 2003.

 12 In re Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada, File No. USA-CDA-2002-1904-09 (Binational

Panel April 18, 2005); In re Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada, File No. USA-CDA-2002-

1904-09 (Binational Panel August 12, 2004).

 13 Original Determination, USITC Publication 3546, pp. 36-38.

 14 Caribbean Ispat, Ltd. v. United States, 366 F. Supp.2d 1300 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2005).

 15 Caribbean Ispat, Ltd. v. United States, 450 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

 16 Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago, Inv. No. 731-TA-961 (Final) (Remand),

USITC Publication 3903 (January 2007).

 17 Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States, 495 F. Supp.2d 1374 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2007). Mittal Steel Point

Lisas is the current name of the Trinidadian producer of steel wire rod.

I-3

The U.S. Department of Commerce published countervailing duty orders on subject imports from Brazil

and Canada on October 22, 2002.8

 Commerce subsequently revoked the countervailing duty order on

subject imports from Canada.9

 Commerce published antidumping duty orders on subject imports from

Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad & Tobago, and Ukraine on October 29, 2002.10

As previously stated, respondents from Canada, Mexico, and Trinidad & Tobago filed actions

challenging affirmative Commission determinations. Mexican producer Sicartsa filed a request for a

NAFTA Binational Panel review, but did not pursue the litigation, which was terminated at the parties’

consent.11 Canadian producer Ivaco did pursue its request for Binational Panel review. The panel

affirmed the Commission’s affirmative determination after one remand.12 

There is active litigation concerning the affirmative determination on subject imports from

Trinidad & Tobago. In contrast to the other affirmative determinations, in which the Commission

cumulated all subject imports, the Commission made its affirmative determination on subject imports

from Trinidad & Tobago on a non-cumulated basis.13 The Trinidadian producer, then named Caribbean

Ispat, filed suit against the Commission. The Court of International Trade sustained the Commission.14

The Federal Circuit then reversed on appeal.15 On remand, a divided Commission made a negative

determination, with the Commission plurality indicating that the negative determination was due solely to

application of the legal standard concerning causation that the Federal Circuit compelled the Commission

to use.16 The CIT sustained the negative determination on remand.17 Petitioners appealed to the Federal

Circuit, where oral argument took place on June 3, 2008.
 18 Because of the pending negative determination on remand regarding Trinidad & Tobago, throughout this

report, data concerning Trinidad & Tobago are presented as subject merchandise but appear separately from the

subtotals of data concerning the other six subject countries. 

 19 See Metal Bulletin, July 27, 2007; October 23, 2007; and December 27, 2007.

 20 Email from ***; questionnaire response of ***.

 21 Trip report of ***.

I-4

Summary Data

Table I-1 presents a summary of data from the original investigations and the current full fiveyear reviews.18 The quantity of apparent U.S. consumption has decreased irregularly since the period

examined in the original investigations, while U.S. producers’ share of consumption has fluctuated,

falling to its lowest level in 2004 and reaching its highest level in 2007. Since the original investigations,

the share of subject imports declined overall, while the share of nonsubject imports generally increased

through 2006, led by China. In 2007, however, the share of nonsubject imports decreased sharply, led by

China, which reduced exports, purportedly as a result of higher export taxes (of 15 percent) on wire rod,19

to levels consistent with those of 2002-05, and Turkey. At the same time, U.S. producers, and, to a lesser

extent, subject imports, gained market share.

In 2007, just as in 2001, the three leading sources of subject imports were, in descending order of

magnitude, Canada, Trinidad & Tobago, and Mexico. U.S. imports of wire rod from Brazil, Ukraine, and

Moldova largely ceased following the imposition of countervailing and/or antidumping duties in 2002,

while U.S. imports of wire rod from Indonesia, the smallest supplier during the period examined in the

original investigations, were sporadic after 2002.

Official statistics for wire rod imports contained mis-classifications in 2005 involving imports

from Indonesia and Ukraine that were out-of-scope products (pre-stressed concrete strand and bright

bars). There were no imports of subject merchandise from those countries in 2005.20

Since 2001, the final calendar year examined in the original investigations, the capacity of the

U.S. industry has declined, and production fluctuated but in most years exceeded the 2001 level, while 

the capacity utilization has fluctuated, ending at a level similar to that at the beginning of the period

examined in the original investigations. The quantity of U.S. shipments, like U.S. production, has

fluctuated around a level of 4 million short tons. The average unit value of U.S. shipments increased

between 2003 and 2004, consistent with increases in apparent U.S. consumption and rising costs (notably

scrap and energy), while at the same time the U.S. industry experienced some prolonged shutdowns. 

Employment remained relatively flat from the end of the original investigations through 2007, while

average wages increased during 2005-07. Productivity fluctuated from 2001 to 2007, ending at its

highest level in 2007. The unit cost of goods sold increased sharply in 2004-07, reflecting higher scrap

prices and energy costs. Despite the mostly positive operating income ratios since the original

investigations, the U.S. industry was unable to increase its profitability when it reached its peak market

share in 2007, a year characterized by high scrap prices, high energy costs, and the inability to pass on the

entirety of those costs to downstream consuming industries that were themselves under heavy pressure

from import competition.21
I-5

Table I-1

Wire rod: Summary data from the original investigations and the current full five-year reviews, 1999-2007

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit financial data are per short ton)

Item 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount *** *** *** 7,753,874 6,590,919 8,135,080 6,505,628 7,109,045 5,858,981

 Producers’ share1 *** *** *** 51.4 62.8 50.3 57.4 53.7 69.6

 Importer's share:

 Brazil1 2 *** *** *** *** 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Canada1

 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Indonesia1 *** *** *** 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Mexico1 *** *** *** 1.6 0.3 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.1

 Moldova1 *** *** *** 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Ukraine1 *** *** *** 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Subtotal1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Trinidad & Tobago1 *** *** *** 5.0 2.2 3.2 1.6 1.9 1.6

 Subject subtotal1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Stelco1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Grade 1080 tire cord/tire bead1 2 (

2

) (2) (2) *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Other countries1 2 *** *** *** 29.2 22.8 35.2 30.7 35.9 16.9

 Total imports1 *** *** *** 48.6 37.2 49.7 42.6 46.3 30.4

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount *** *** *** 2,411,891 2,138,988 4,109,959 3,592,264 3,838,199 3,403,602

 Producers’ share1 *** *** *** 53.5 63.3 53.1 58.1 56.0 68.8

Importer's share:

 Brazil1 2 *** *** *** *** 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Canada1 2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Indonesia1 *** *** *** 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Mexico1 *** *** *** 1.4 0.3 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.1

 Moldova1 *** *** *** 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Ukraine1 *** *** *** 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Subtotal1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Trinidad & Tobago1 *** *** *** 4.5 1.8 3.0 1.4 1.7 1.4

 Subject subtotal1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Stelco1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Grade 1080 tire cord/tire bead1 2 (

2

) (2) (2) *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Other countries1 2 *** *** *** 25.8 21.6 31.8 28.5 32.4 16.9

 Total imports1 *** *** *** 46.5 36.7 46.9 41.9 44.0 31.2

Table continued on following page.
I-6

Table I-1--Continued

Wire rod: Summary data from the original investigations and the current full five-year reviews, 1999-2007

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit financial data are per short ton)

Item 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

U.S. imports from--

 Brazil: 

 Quantity *** *** *** *** 00000

 Value *** *** *** *** 0 0 0 0 0

 Unit value $*** $*** $*** $*** -- -- -- -- --

 Canada:

 Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

 Indonesia:

 Quantity 69,805 86,940 60,065 40,863 0 29,937 333 0 0

 Value 14,884 19,669 13,116 10,494 0 17,247 262 0 0

 Unit value $213 $226 $216 $257 -- $576 $785 -- --

 Mexico:

 Quantity 122,038 159,818 266,925 123,380 19,986 68,498 11,480 4,256 8,244

 Value 29,449 39,337 64,309 34,548 6,296 33,332 6,283 2,032 4,263

 Unit value $241 $246 $241 $280 $315 $487 $547 $477 $517

 Moldova:

 Quantity 190,239 191,074 187,370 18,82600000

 Value 38,888 41,667 39,439 3,708 0 0 0 0 0

 Unit value $204 $216 $210 $197 -- -- -- -- --

 Ukraine:

 Quantity 193,003 367,712 258,526 11,159 0 0 738 0 0

 Value 35,568 75,568 49,770 2,446 0 0 501 0 0

 Unit value $184 $206 $193 $219 -- -- $680 -- --

 Subtotal:

 Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

 Trinidad & Tobago:

 Quantity 341,815 287,507 355,089 386,419 146,783 260,618 104,804 133,326 95,325

 Value 87,289 75,511 91,335 107,445 39,267 124,194 50,039 64,253 46,228

 Unit value $255 $263 $257 $278 $268 $477 $477 $482 $485

 Subject subtotal:

 Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

Table continued on following page.
I-7

Table I-1--Continued

Wire rod: Summary data from the original investigations and the current full five-year reviews, 1999-2007

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit financial data are per short ton)

Item 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

U.S. imports from–

 Stelco:

 Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

 Grade 1080 tire cord/tire bead: 

 Quantity (2

) (2) (2) *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value (2

) (2) (2) *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value (2

) (2) (2) $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

 All other countries:2 

 Quantity *** *** *** 2,262,306 1,505,183 2,859,490 1,997,826 2,554,966 992,163

 Value *** *** *** 622,360 462,923 1,308,240 1,024,997 1,244,511 574,316

 Unit value $*** $*** $*** $275 $308 $458 $513 $487 $579

 All countries:

 Quantity 2,787,291 2,987,084 3,066,218 3,765,047 2,453,575 4,039,783 2,773,119 3,294,798 1,782,699

 Value 807,586 899,451 875,963 1,121,780 784,088 1,927,796 1,505,063 1,690,689 1,063,201

 Unit value $290 $301 $286 $298 $320 $477 $543 $513 $596

U.S. producers’--

Capacity quantity *** *** *** 4,771,377 5,040,727 4,920,229 5,392,176 5,371,016 5,429,678

Production quantity *** *** *** 4,035,005 4,052,215 4,089,091 3,741,120 3,877,367 4,067,549

Capacity utilization *** *** *** 84.6 80.4 83.1 69.4 72.2 74.9

U.S. shipments:

 Quantity *** *** *** 3,988,827 4,137,344 4,095,297 3,732,509 3,814,247 4,076,282

 Value *** *** *** 1,290,111 1,354,900 2,182,163 2,087,201 2,147,510 2,340,401

 Unit value $*** $*** $*** $323 $327 $533 $559 $563 $574

Export shipments:

 Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

Table continued on following page.
I-8

Table I-1--Continued

Wire rod: Summary data from the original investigations and the current full five-year reviews, 1999-2007

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit financial data are per short ton)

Item 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

U.S. producers’--

 Ending inventory quantity *** *** *** 250,935 136,816 140,019 164,647 174,288 152,512

 Inventories/total shipments1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production workers *** *** *** 2,461 2,513 2,543 2,407 2,395 2,397

 Hours worked (1,000 hours) *** *** *** 5,545 5,378 5,474 4,919 5,296 5,174

 Wages paid (1,000 dollars) *** *** *** 140,328 139,194 145,620 143,664 161,223 161,821

 Hourly wages $*** $*** $*** $25.31 $25.88 $26.60 $29.21 $30.45 $31.28

 Productivity (tons/1,000 hours) *** *** *** 728 754 747 761 732 786

 Unit labor costs $*** $*** $*** $34.78 $34.35 $35.61 $38.40 $41.58 $39.78

 Net sales:

 Quantity *** *** *** 3,996,011 4,151,601 4,103,563 3,749,761 3,844,808 4,087,541

 Value *** *** *** 1,291,920 1,358,707 2,182,872 2,100,194 2,165,513 2,347,208

 Unit value $*** $*** $*** $323 $327 $532 $560 $563 $574

 Cost of goods sold (“COGS”) *** *** *** 1,188,586 1,361,436 1,819,855 1,887,745 2,024,653 2,219,518

 Gross profit or (loss) *** *** *** 103,334 (2,729) 363,017 212,449 140,860 127,690

 Operating income or (loss) *** *** *** 59,982 (45,952) 305,241 158,656 85,506 74,869

U.S. producers’--

 Unit COGS $*** $*** $*** $296 $328 $443 $503 $527 $543

 Unit operating income or (loss) $*** $*** $*** $16 ($11) $74 $42 $22 $18

 COGS/sales1 *** *** *** 92.0 100.2 83.4 89.9 93.5 94.6

 Operating income or (loss)/sales1 *** *** *** 4.6 (3.4) 14.0 7.6 3.9 3.2

 Capital expenditures *** *** *** 30,524 44,338 49,807 83,826 68,513 49,632

 1 In percent.

 2 Imports of Grade 1080 wire rod have been subtracted from U.S. imports of wire rod ***. Grade 1080 is included in imports from “all other sources.” See data files in the

original investigations. 

Note.--Because of the pending negative determination on remand regarding Trinidad & Tobago, throughout this report, data concerning Trinidad & Tobago are presented as

subject merchandise but appear separately from the subtotals of data concerning the other six subject countries. 

Source: INV-Z-162, table C-2a, for 1999-2001. Data for 2002-07 were compiled in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics.
I-9

PREVIOUS AND RELATED TITLE VII AND SAFEGUARD INVESTIGATIONS

The Commission has conducted a number of previous import relief investigations on wire rod

products or similar merchandise (e.g. hut-rolled lead and bismuth carbon steel bars and rods). Table I-2

presents data on previous and related Title VII investigations. 

Table I-2

Wire rod: Previous and related Title VII investigations, 1982-2007

Original Investigation First Review Current Status

Date1 Number Country Outcome Date1 Outcome

1982 731-TA-88 Venezuela Negative - - -

1982 731-TA-113 Brazil Affirmative - - ITA revoked 9/20/85

1982 731-TA-114 Trinidad & Tobago Affirmative - - ITA revoked 12/14/87

1982 701-TA-148 Brazil Affirmative2 - - Investigation terminated 8/21/85

1982 701-TA-149 Belgium Affirmative2 - - Petition withdrawn 11/9/82

1982 701-TA-150 France Affirmative2 - - Petition withdrawn 11/9/82

1983 701-TA-209 Spain Affirmative - - ITA revoked 9/11/85

1983 731-TA-157 Argentina Affirmative 1998 Negative -

1983 731-TA-158 Mexico Negative2 -- -

1983 731-TA-159 Poland Negative - - -

1983 731-TA-160 Spain Affirmative - - ITA revoked 9/16/85

1984 731-TA-205 East Germany Affirmative2 - - Petition withdrawn 8/1/85

1985 701-TA-243 Portugal Negative2 -- -

1985 701-TA-244 Venezuela Affirmative2 - - Petition withdrawn 7/24/85

1985 731-TA-256 Poland Affirmative2 - - Petition withdrawn 9/10/85

1985 731-TA-257 Portugal Affirmative2 - - Petition withdrawn 11/20/85

1985 731-TA-258 Venezuela Affirmative2 - - Petition withdrawn 8/30/85

1992 701-TA-314 Brazil Affirmative 1999 - ITA revoked 11/15/99

1992 701-TA-315 France Affirmative 1999 - ITA revoked 11/15/99

1992 701-TA-316 Germany Affirmative 1999 - ITA revoked 11/15/99

1992 701-TA-317 United Kingdom Affirmative 1999 - ITA revoked 11/15/99

1992 731-TA-552 Brazil Affirmative 1999 - ITA revoked 11/15/99

1992 731-TA-553 France Affirmative 1999 - ITA revoked 11/15/99

1992 731-TA-554 Germany Affirmative 1999 - ITA revoked 11/15/99

1992 731-TA-555 United Kingdom Affirmative 1999 - ITA revoked 11/15/99

1992 731-TA-572 Brazil Negative - - -

1993 731-TA-646 Brazil Negative - - -

Table continued on following page. 
I-10

Table I-2–Continued

Wire rod: Previous and related Title VII investigations, 1982-2007

Original Investigation First Review Current Status

Date1 Number Country Outcome Date1 Outcome

1993 731-TA-647 Canada Affirmative2 - - Petition withdrawn 4/18/94

1993 731-TA-648 Japan Negative - - -

1993 731-TA-649 Trinidad & Tobago Negative2 -- -

1994 701-TA-359 Germany Negative2 -- -

1994 731-TA-686 Belgium Affirmative2 - - Petition withdrawn 7/7/94

1994 731-TA-687 Germany Negative2 -- -

1997 701-TA-368 Canada Negative - - -

1997 701-TA-369 Germany Negligible3 -- -

1997 701-TA-370 Trinidad & Tobago Negative - - -

1997 701-TA-371 Venezuela Negative - - -

1997 731-TA-763 Canada Negative - - -

1997 731-TA-764 Germany Negative - - -

1997 731-TA-765 Trinidad & Tobago Negative - - -

1997 731-TA-766 Venezuela Negative - - -

2001 701-TA-417 Brazil Affirmative 2007 - Under review

2001 701-TA-418 Canada Affirmative - - ITA revoked 1/23/04

2001 701-TA-419 Germany Negligible - - -

2001 701-TA-420 Trinidad & Tobago Negative4 -- -

2001 701-TA-421 Turkey Negative4 -- -

2001 731-TA-953 Brazil Affirmative 2007 - Under review

2001 731-TA-954 Canada Affirmative 2007 - Under review

2001 731-TA-955 Egypt Negligible3 -- -

2001 731-TA-956 Germany Negligible3 -- -

2001 731-TA-957 Indonesia Affirmative 2007 - Under review

2001 731-TA-958 Mexico Affirmative 2007 - Under review

2001 731-TA-959 Moldova Affirmative 2007 - Under review

2001 731-TA-960 South Africa Negligible3 -- -

2001 731-TA-961 Trinidad & Tobago Affirmative5 2007 - Under review

2001 731-TA-962 Ukraine Affirmative 2007 - Under review

2001 731-TA-963 Venezuela Negligible3 -- -

 1

 “Date” refers to the year in which the investigation or review was instituted by the Commission. 2

 Preliminary determination. 3

 The Commission found subject imports to be negligible, and its investigation was thereby terminated. 4

 The Department of Commerce made a negative determination. 5

 The Commission made a negative determination on remand that is subject to ongoing litigation.

Source: Various Commission publications.
 22 Chairman Lynn M. Bragg, Vice Chairman Marcia E. Miller, and Commissioner Stephen Koplan made an

affirmative determination. Commissioners Carol T. Crawford, Jennifer A. Hillman, and Thelma J. Askey made a

negative determination. Commissioners Crawford, Hillman, and Askey did not believe any import relief was

appropriate in this investigation.

 23 19 U.S.C. § 3371(a).

 24 Chairman Bragg dissented with respect to Canada. 

 25 The President adopted the definition of steel wire rod as specified in the original section 201 investigation but

added exclusions for wire rod of tire cord quality, valve spring quality, class III pipe wrap quality, aircraft cold

heading quality, aluminum cable steel reinforced (ACSR) quality, piano wire string quality, grade 1085 annealed

bearing quality, and grade 1080 tire bead wire quality. 

 26 Investigation No. TA-204-6.

 27 Following receipt of a request filed on July 24, 2001, on behalf of Co-Steel, GS, Keystone, and North Star, the

Commission instituted investigation No. NAFTA-312-1 under section 312(c)(2) of the North American Free Trade

Agreement Implementation Act (19 U.S.C. § 3372(c)(2)) to determine whether a surge in U.S. imports of wire rod

from Canada and/or Mexico undermines the effectiveness of the import relief on wire rod provided for in

Presidential Proclamation 7273 of February 16, 2000 (65 FR 8624, February 18, 2000). In August 2001, the

Commission determined that a surge in imports of wire rod from Canada and Mexico, respectively, undermined the

effectiveness of the import relief on wire rod provided for in the Presidential Proclamation (66 FR 45692, August 29,

2001). The President declined to extend import relief to imports from Canada and Mexico (The Year in Trade 2001: 

Operation of the Trade Agreements Program, 53rd Report, USITC Publication 3510, May 2002, p. 5-3). 

 28 Certain Steel Wire Rod: Evaluation of Effectiveness of Import Relief, Inv. No. TA-204-11, USITC Publication

3629, August 2003.

I-11

Safeguard Investigations

On January 12, 1999, counsel for Atlantic Steel Industries, Inc. (Atlantic), Birmingham Steel

Corp. (Birmingham), Connecticut Steel Corp. (Connecticut), Co-Steel Raritan (Co-Steel), GS Industries

(GS), Keystone Steel & Wire Co. (Keystone), North Star Steel (North Star), North Star Texas, 

Northwestern Steel & Wire Co. (Northwestern), the Independent Steel Workers Alliance, and the United

Steelworkers of America AFL-CIO filed a petition with the Commission under section 202 of the Trade

Act of 1974 requesting that the Commission institute an investigation to determine whether steel wire rod

was being imported into the United States in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of

serious injury, or the threat thereof, to the domestic industry producing an article like or directly

competitive with the imported article. Following an investigation, the Commission was equally divided in

its injury determination, and on July 13, 1999, transmitted to the President its report containing the

determinations of both groups of Commissioners and remedy recommendations of the three

Commissioners who made affirmative determinations.22 Pursuant to section 311(a) of the North American

Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Implementation Act,23 the Commission made negative findings with

respect to imports of wire rod from Canada and Mexico.24 Following receipt of the Commission’s report,

the President announced that he considered the determination of the Commissioners voting in the

affirmative as the determination of the Commission and, on February 16, 2000, issued Proclamation 7273

imposing relief in the form of a Tariff Rate Quota (TRQ) on imports of steel wire rod for a period of three

years and one day, effective March 1, 2000.25 On August 23, 2001, the Commission submitted to the

President and the Congress a midterm report, required under section 204(a) of the Act, that provided the

results of the Commission’s monitoring of developments with respect to the wire rod industry since the

imposition of the TRQ.26 27 On August 28, 2003, the Commission submitted to the President and the

Congress an end-of-relief review, likewise required by statute.28

On November 21, 2001, the President issued Proclamation 7505 modifying the TRQ, by

providing that the in-quota quantity of the TRQ should be allocated among four supplier country

groupings noted in the tabulation below, with allocations effective November 24, 2001. 
I-12

Supplier country groups Countries

European Community

(EC)

Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy,

Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom

Commonwealth of

Independent States (CIS)

Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia,

Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan

Trinidad & Tobago Trinidad & Tobago

All other countries All countries not listed above with the exception of Canada and Mexico

Safeguard TRQ

Under Presidential Proclamation 7273, which added U.S. note 9 and subheadings

9903.72.01 through 9903.72.15 to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the HTS, import quantities up to 1.58

million short tons entered during March 1, 2000 through February 28, 2001 from the countries subject to

the TRQ were dutiable at the normal trading relations rates set forth above. The in-quota quantity was

increased by an additional 2 percent in both the second and the third years of the relief period (March 1,

2001 through February 28, 2002 and March 1, 2002 through March 1, 2003 respectively). During the

first three quarters of each quota year, there was a quarterly TRQ trigger quantity set at one-third of the

total quota amount for the year. Any quantity of subject product that was entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse for consumption, in excess of the amount equal to one-third of the aggregate TRQ quota level

for that quota year was subject to the over-quota rate of duty then in effect. For the fourth quarter of a

quota year, the aggregate quantity of wire rod entered at the in-quota rate during the first three quarters of

the quota year was subtracted from the total annual within-quota quantity to calculate the remaining

available in-quota quantity (if any) for that quota year. As shown in the following tabulation, imports of

subject products in excess of the quarterly or the annual quota amounts were assessed duties in addition to

the column-1 general rates of duty in the amounts of 10 percent ad valorem in the first year of relief; 7.5

percent ad valorem in the second year of relief; and 5 percent ad valorem in the third year of relief.

Item Unit

Quota year

123

In-quota quantities Short tons 1,580,000 1,611,600 1,643,832

Additional duties Percent 10.0 7.5 5.0

Quota year 1 was March 1, 2000 through February 28, 2001; quota year 2 was March 1, 2001 through February

28, 2002; and quota year 3 was March 1, 2002 through March 1, 2003.

As previously noted, Presidential Proclamation 7505 allocated the in-quota quantity of

the TRQ, calculated on a quarterly basis, to the four supplier country groups effective November 24,

2001. During November 24, 2001 through February 28, 2002, the in-quota quantity was the amount, if

any, (1) remaining after all entries from March 1, 2001 through November 23, 2001 were subtracted from

1,611,600 short tons and (2) not exceeding the allocation assigned to the supplier country. The

allocations were: EC - 28.161 percent, Trinidad & Tobago - 16.554 percent, CIS - 12.616 percent, and all

other countries - 42.669 percent. For all subsequent quarterly periods, the in-quota allocation was as 

follows: EC–115,729 short tons; Trinidad & Tobago–68,031 short tons; CIS–51,847 short tons; and all

other countries–175,351 short tons.
I-13

STATUTORY CRITERIA AND ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

Statutory Criteria

Section 751(c) of the Act requires 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--
 29 According to *** data, the three responding producers accounted for *** percent of wire rod capacity in

Mexico in 2007. ***.

I-14

(A) there is likely to be significant price underselling by imports

of the subject merchandise as compared to domestic like products, and 

(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.”

Organization of the Report

Information obtained during the course of the reviews that relates to the statutory criteria is

presented throughout this report. A summary of trade and financial data for wire rod as collected in the

reviews is presented in appendix C. U.S. industry data are based on the questionnaire responses of 10

U.S. producers of wire rod that are believed to have accounted for all domestic production of wire rod in

2007. U.S. import data and related information are based on Commerce’s official import statistics and the

questionnaire responses of 26 U.S. importers of wire rod that are believed to have accounted for 90

percent of the total subject U.S. imports during 2007 and for 73 percent of the total U.S. imports of wire

rod from other sources. Foreign industry data and related information are based on the questionnaire

responses of 11 wire rod producers: three producers in Brazil accounting for *** percent of total

production; two producers in Canada accounting for 100 percent of subject Canadian operations on wire

rod; three producers in Mexico reportedly accounting for an estimated *** percent of total production;29

one producer in Moldova accounting for all known production; one producer in Trinidad & Tobago

accounting for all known production; and one producer in Ukraine accounting for the vast majority of

production. No foreign producers in Indonesia responded to the Commission’s questionnaires in these

reviews; therefore, foreign industry information presented in this report with respect to Indonesia is based
 30 One scope ruling was completed, which determined that the phrase “having no inclusions greater than 20

microns” means no inclusions greater than 20 microns in any direction. 70 FR 55110, September 20, 2005.

 31 No duty absorption findings were made for any of the subject countries.

 32 For previously reviewed or investigated companies not included in an administrative review, the cash deposit

rate continues to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period.

I-15

on responses to the Commission’s notice of institution and cited published sources. Responses by U.S.

producers, importers, purchasers, and foreign producers of wire rod to a series of questions concerning

the significance of the existing antidumping and countervailing duty orders and the likely effects of

revocation are presented in appendix D. Finally, appendix E contains company-specific data regarding

U.S. and foreign producers’ wire rod shipments.

COMMERCE’S REVIEWS30

Administrative Reviews of Wire Rod31

Commerce has completed one or more administrative reviews of the outstanding antidumping

duty orders on wire rod from Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, Mexico, and Trinidad & Tobago. Commerce has

completed no administrative reviews of the outstanding antidumping duty orders on wire rod from

Moldova and Ukraine, nor of the countervailing duty order on wire rod from Brazil.32

Brazil

Commerce completed one antidumping duty administrative review with regard to subject imports

of wire rod from Brazil. The results of the administrative review are shown in table I-3. 

Table I-3

Wire rod: Administrative review of the antidumping duty order for Brazil

Date results published Period of review Producer or exporter Margin (percent)

May 17, 2005 (70 FR 28271) 4/10/2002 - 9/30/2003

Belgo 98.69

All others 74.35

Source: Cited Federal Register notice.

Canada

Commerce completed three antidumping duty administrative reviews with regard to subject

imports of wire rod from Canada and has published the preliminary results of a fourth. The results of the

administrative reviews are shown in table I-4. 
I-16

Table I-4

Wire rod: Administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order for Canada

Date results published Period of review Producer or exporter Margin (percent)

November 24, 2004 

(69 FR 68309) 4/10/2002 - 9/30/2003

Ivaco 4.16

All others 8.11

January 24, 2006 (71 FR 3822) 10/1/2003 - 9/30/2004

Ivaco 3.08

Ispat/Mittal1 6.13

All others 8.11

May 10, 2007 (72 FR 26593) 10/1/2004 - 9/30/2005

Ivaco 2.06

All others 8.11

May 12, 2008 (73 FR 26958) 10/1/2005 - 9/30/2006 Ivaco 2.98

 1 Mittal is successor-in-interest to Ispat. 70 FR 39484, July 8, 2005.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

Commerce completed no countervailing duty order administrative reviews with regard to subject

imports of wire rod from Canada. 

Indonesia

Commerce completed one antidumping duty administrative review with regard to subject imports

of wire rod from Indonesia. The results of the administrative review are shown in table I-5. 

Table I-5

Wire rod: Administrative review of the antidumping duty order for Indonesia

Date results published Period of review Producer or exporter Margin (percent)

October 19, 2005 

(70 FR 60787) 10/1/2003 - 9/30/2004

P.T. Ispat Indo 0.381

All others 4.06

 1 De minimis margin (i.e., margin is less than 0.5 percent), therefore no cash deposit was required to be paid to Customs.

Source: Cited Federal Register notice.

Mexico

Commerce completed three antidumping duty administrative reviews with regard to subject

imports of wire rod from Mexico. The results of the administrative reviews are shown in table I-6. 

Table I-6

Wire rod: Administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order for Mexico

Date results published Period of review Producer or exporter Margin (percent)

May 16, 2005 (70 FR 25809) 4/10/2002 - 9/30/2003

Hylsa 5.45

SICARTSA 1.06

All others 20.11

May 15, 2006 (71 FR 27989) 10/1/2003 - 9/30/2004

Hylsa 1.81

SICARTSA 1.26

All others 20.11

March 13, 2008 (73 FR 13532) 10/1/2005 - 9/30/2006 Hylsa 17.94

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.
 33 Department of Commerce Decision Memorandum of December 31, 2007.

I-17

Trinidad & Tobago

Commerce completed four antidumping duty administrative reviews with regard to subject

imports of wire rod from Trinidad & Tobago. The results of the administrative reviews are shown in

table I-7. 

Table I-7

Wire rod: Administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order for Trinidad & Tobago

Date results published Period of review Producer or exporter Margin (percent)

March 15, 2005

(70 FR 12648) 4/10/2002 - 9/30/2003

CIL 3.61

All others 11.40

November 16, 2005

(70 FR 69512) 10/1/2003 - 9/30/2004

CIL 4.13

All others 11.40

March 6, 2007 

(72 FR 9922) 10/1/2004 - 9/30/2005

Mittal Steel Point Lisas 0.061

All others 11.40

November 7, 2007

(72 FR 62824) 10/1/2005 - 9/30/2006

Mittal Steel Point Lisas 0.401

All others 11.40

 1 De minimis margin (i.e., margin is less than 0.5 percent), therefore no cash deposit was required to be paid to Customs.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

Results of Expedited Five-Year Reviews

Commerce has issued the final results of its expedited reviews with respect to all subject

countries. Table I-8 presents the dumping margins calculated by Commerce in its original investigations

and first reviews. Table I-9 presents similar information with respect to countervailable subsidies.

The following seven programs were found to confer countervailable subsidies to the Brazilian

wire rod industry in the original investigation and in the expedited sunset review:

1. Financing for the acquisition or lease of machinery and equipment through the Special Agency

for Industrial Financing;

2. Programa de Financiamento as Exportacoes;

3. Tax incentives provided by the Amazon Region Development Authority (SUDAM) and the

Northeast Region Development Authority (SUDENE);

4. Debt forgiveness/equity infusions provided to Usina Siderurgica da Bahia S.A. (previously 1988

equity infusions/debt forgiveness provided to Usina Siderurgica da Bahia S.A. (specific to

Gerdau)); 

5. National Bank for Economic and Social Development Financing for the Acquisition of Dedini

Siderurgica de Piracicaba (specific to Belgo Mineira);

6. National Bank for Economic and Social Development Financing for the acquisition of Mendes

Junior Siderurgica SA (specific to Belgo Mineira); and 

7. “Presumed” Tax Credit for the Program of Social Integration and the Social Contributions of

Billings on Inputs Used in Exports.33
I-18

Table I-8

Wire rod: Commerce’s original and first five-year antidumping duty margins for producers/exporters, by

subject country

Producer/exporter

Original margin

(percent)

First five-year review margin

(percent)

Brazil1

Belgo 94.73 94.73

All others 74.35 74.45

Canada2

Ispat/Mittal3 3.86 3.86

Ivaco 9.90 9.90

Stelco (4

) (4)

All others 8.11 8.11

Indonesia5

P.T. Ispat Indo 4.06 4.06

All others 4.06 4.06

Mexico6

SICARTSA 20.11 20.11

All others 20.11 20.11

Moldova7

Moldova-wide rate 369.10 369.10

Trinidad & Tobago8

CIL/Mittal9 11.40 11.40

All others 11.40 11.40

Ukraine10

Krivorozhstal 116.37 116.37

All others 116.37 116.37

 1 Antidumping duty order, 67 FR 34899, May 16, 2002; final results of expedited sunset review, 73 FR 1321, January 8, 2008.

 2 Antidumping duty order, as amended, 67 FR 65944, October 29, 2002; final results of expedited sunset review, 73 FR 1321,

January 8, 2008.

 3 Mittal became successor-in-interest to Ispat. 70 FR 39484, July 8, 2005.

 4 Stelco received a di minimis rate of 1.18 percent and is therefore excluded from the order. 67 FR 65944, October 29, 2002. 

Only merchandise produced and exported by Stelco is excluded. 69 FR 25560, May 7, 2004.

 5 Antidumping duty order, 67 FR 34899, May 16, 2002; final results of expedited sunset review, 73 FR 1321, January 8, 2008.

 6 Antidumping duty order, 67 FR 34899, May 16, 2002; final results of expedited sunset review, 73 FR 1321, January 8, 2008.

 7 Antidumping duty order, 67 FR 34899, May 16, 2002; final results of expedited sunset review, 73 FR 1321, January 8, 2008.

 8 Antidumping duty order, 67 FR 34899, May 16, 2002; final results of expedited sunset review, 73 FR 1321, January 8, 2008.

 9 Mittal became successor-in-interest to CIL. 70 FR 38871, July 6,2005.

 10 Antidumping duty order, 67 FR 34899, May 16, 2002; final results of expedited sunset review, 73 FR 1321, January 8, 2008.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.
 34 Section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)).

 35 19 CFR 159.64 (g).

I-19

Table I-9

Wire rod: Commerce's original and first five-year countervailing duty margins for producers/exporters from

Brazil and Canada

Producer/exporter

Original margin

(percent)

First five-year review margin

(percent)

Brazil1

Belgo Mineira 6.74 6.74

Gerdau S.A. 2.76 2.76

All others 5.64 5.64

Canada2

Ispat Sidbec 6.61 (3)

Stelco (4

) --

Ivaco (4

) --

All others 6.61 (3

)

 1 Countervailing duty order, 67 FR 64871, October 22, 2002; final results of first expedited sunset review, 73 FR 1323,

January 8, 2008.

 2

 Countervailing duty order, 67 FR 64871, October 22, 2002.

 3

 Order revoked, January 23, 2004, 69 FR 3330.

 4

 Received zero margin, and therefore excluded from order, 67 FR 64871, October 22, 2002.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

DISTRIBUTION OF CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT FUNDS

The Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (“CDSOA”) (also known as the Byrd

Amendment) provides that assessed duties received pursuant to antidumping or countervailing duty

orders must be distributed to affected domestic producers for certain qualifying expenditures that these

producers incur after the issuance of such orders.34 During the review period, qualified U.S. producers of

wire rod were eligible to receive disbursements from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(“Customs”) under CDSOA relating to one countervailing duty and seven antidumping duty orders on the

subject product beginning in Federal fiscal year 2003.35 Tables I-10 and I-11 present CDSOA

disbursements and claims for Federal fiscal years (October 1-September 30) 2003-07 by source and by

firm, respectively.
I-20

Table I-10

Wire rod: CDSOA disbursements, by source, Federal fiscal years 2003-07

Item

Federal fiscal year

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Disbursements (dollars)

Brazil (AD) 0 0 0 0 0

Brazil (CVD) 0 0 0 0 0

Canada (AD) 349 3,386,534 2,163,877 0 0

Canada (CVD) 1,561 853 (279) 0 0

Indonesia 0 0000

Mexico 5,532 14,254 241,854 0 0

Moldova 0 0 0 0 0

Trinidad & Tobago 100,769 0 2,076,701 3,577,198 (3,545,688)

Ukraine 0 0 0 5,094 714

 Total 108,211 3,401,640 4,482,153 3,582,293 (3,544,974)

Note.--Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Note.--Negative disbursement amounts are the result of refunds to importers as a result of liquidations or court cases. 

Source: U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s CDSOA Annual Reports. Retrieved from www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import/add_cvd.

Table I-11

Wire rod: CDSOA disbursements, by firm, and total claims, Federal fiscal years 2003-07

Item

Federal fiscal year

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Disbursements (dollars)

CFI Steel 0 0 0 0 63 

Charter Manufacturing 0 0 976,457 909,543 (900,085)

Connecticut Steel 8,123 284,642 301,612 0 0 

Gerdau USA 0 627,141 1,619,811 1,439,438 (1,426,515)

ISG Georgetown 39,861 711,254 766,052 2,050 0 

Keystone Consolidated

Industries 24,145 841,113 818,221 758,742 (750,851)

North Star Steel Texas 36,083 937,491 0 0 0 

Nucor 0 0 0 214,763 (212,510)

Nucor Steel Connecticut 0 0 0 257,757 (255,077)

 Total 108,211 3,401,640 4,482,153 3,582,293 (3,544,974)

Claims (1,000 dollars)

 Total 2,869,528 3,787,589 25,337,471 24,091,708 35,561,953

Note.--Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Note.--Negative disbursement amounts are the result of refunds to importers as a result of liquidations or court cases. 

Source: U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s CDSOA Annual Reports. Retrieved from www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import/add_cvd.
 36 67 FR 64871 and 65945, October 22, 2002. In addition, there was a scope clarification for the orders on wire

rod from Brazil: for grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead the phrase “having no inclusions greater than 20 microns”

means no inclusions greater than 20 microns in any direction. 70 FR 55110, September 20, 2005.

I-21

THE SUBJECT MERCHANDISE

Commerce’s Scope

The imported product subject to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders under review, as

defined by Commerce in its original orders, is as follows.

The merchandise subject to these orders is certain hot-rolled products of carbon steel and

alloy steel, in coils, of approximately round cross section, 5.00 mm or more, but less than

19.00 mm, in solid cross-sectional diameter. Specifically excluded are steel products

possessing the above-noted physical characteristics and meeting the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions for (a) stainless steel; (b) tool steel;

(c) high nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; and (e) concrete reinforcing bars and rods. 

Also excluded are (f) free machining steel products (i.e., products that contain by weight

one or more of the following elements: 0.03 percent or more of lead, 0.05 percent or

more of bismuth, 0.08 percent or more of sulfur, more than 0.04 percent of phosphorus,

more than 0.05 percent of selenium, or more than 0.01 percent of tellurium). Also

excluded from the scope are 1080 grade tire cord quality wire rod and 1080 grade tire

bead quality wire rod. This grade 1080 tire cord quality rod is defined as: (i) grade 1080

tire cord quality wire rod measuring 5.0 mm or more but not more than 6.0 mm in crosssectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial decarburization of no more than 70

microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) having no inclusions greater

than 20 microns; (iv) having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using

European Method NFA 04–114; (v) having a surface quality with no surface defects of a

length greater than 0.15 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.30 mm or

less with 3 or fewer breaks per ton, and (vii) containing by weight the following elements

in the proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 0.01 percent of

aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.006

percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of

copper, nickel and chromium. This grade 1080 tire bead quality rod is defined as: (i)

grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod measuring 5.5 mm or more but not more than 7.0

mm in cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial decarburization of no more

than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) having no inclusions

greater than 20 microns; (iv) having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better

using European Method NFA 04–114; (v) having a surface quality with no surface

defects of a length greater than 0.2 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.78

mm or larger with 0.5 or fewer breaks per ton; and (vii) containing by weight the

following elements in the proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less

than 0.01 percent of soluble aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of

phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.008 percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) either not more than

0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium (if chromium is not

specified), or not more than 0.10 percent in the aggregate of copper and nickel and a

chromium content of 0.24 to 0.30 percent (if chromium is specified). The designation of

the products as ‘‘tire cord quality’’ or ‘‘tire bead quality’’ indicates the acceptability of

the product for use in the production of tire cord, tire bead, or wire for use in other rubber

reinforcement applications such as hose wire. These quality designations are presumed to

indicate that these products are being used in tire cord, tire bead, and other rubber

reinforcement applications, and such merchandise intended for the tire cord, tire bead, or

other rubber reinforcement applications is not included in the scope.36
 37 There have been several changes to the HTS classifications for reporting U.S. imports of wire rod. The

following are the relevant statistical reporting numbers for subject wire rod during previous periods:

2002: 7213.91.3010, 7213.91.3090, 7213.91.4510, 7213.91.4590, 7213.91.6010, 7213.91.6090,

7213.99.0031, 7213.99.0038, 7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0010, 7227.20.0020, 7227.20.0095, 7227.90.6051,

7227.90.6053, and 7227.90.6059.

2003: 7213.91.3010, 7213.91.3090, 7213.91.4510, 7213.91.4590, 7213.91.6010, 7213.91.6090,

7213.99.0031, 7213.99.0038, 7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0010, 7227.20.0020, 7227.20.0095, 7227.90.6051,

7227.90.6053, and 7227.90.6059.

2004: 7213.91.3011, 7213.91.3091, 7213.91.4500, 7213.91.6000, 7213.99.0030, 7213.99.0090,

7227.20.0000, and 7227.90.6050.

2005: 7213.91.3011, 7213.91.3015, 7213.91.3092, 7213.91.4500, 7213.91.6000, 7213.99.0030,

7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0000, and 72227.90.6050.

2006-08: 7213.91.3011, 7213.91.3015, 7213.91.3092, 7213.91.4500, 7213.91.6000, 7213.99.0030,

7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0000, 7227.90.6010, and 7227.90.6080.

 38 Wire drawers (also referred to as redrawers) manufacture wire and wire products and may be independent of

the wire rod manufacturers or may be affiliated parties. 

 39 Steel ductility, hardness, and tensile strength are positively correlated with carbon content. Alloying elements

can be added during the melt stage of the steelmaking process to convey various characteristics to the wire rod.

 40 Iron and Steel Society, Steel Products Manual: Carbon Steel Wire and Rods, August 1993, p. 36.

I-22

Tariff Treatment

Wire rod is imported under the following statistical reporting numbers of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (“HTS”): 7213.91.3011, 7213.91.3015, 7213.91.3092, 7213.91.4500,

7213.91.6000, 7213.99.0030, 7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0000, 7227.90.6010, and 7227.90.6080.37 At the

time of the original investigations general U.S. tariffs on wire rod, applicable to U.S. imports that are

products of the subject countries and classified under these headings, ranged from 0.8 to 0.9 percent ad

valorem for nonalloy steel and were 1.8 percent ad valorem for alloy steel. By January 1, 2004, these

tariffs had been eliminated, resulting in a general duty rate of “Free.”

THE DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT

Description and Uses

Wire rod is a hot-rolled intermediate steel product of circular or approximately circular cross

section that typically is produced in nominal fractional diameters from 7/32 inch (5.6 mm) to 47/64 inch 

(18.7 mm) and sold in irregularly wound coils, primarily for subsequent drawing and finishing by wire

drawers.38 Wire rod sold in the United States is categorized by “quality” according to end use. End-use

categories are broad descriptions with overlapping metallurgical qualities, chemistries, and physical

characteristics.39

Table I-12 presents quality and commodity descriptions for 11 major types of wire rod, as

indicated by the Iron and Steel Society. Industrial quality wire rod currently accounts for the majority of

wire rod consumed in the United States. It is primarily intended for drawing into industrial (or standard)

quality wire that, in turn, is used to manufacture such products as nails, reinforcing wire mesh and chain

link fence. Most of the industrial quality wire rod is produced and sold in the smallest cross-sectional

diameter that is hot rolled in substantial commercial quantities (7/32 inch or 5.6 mm). Industrial quality

wire rod generally is manufactured from low- or medium-low-carbon steel.40 
I-23

Table I-12

Wire rod: Quality, end uses, and important characteristics

Quality End uses Important characteristics

Chain quality Electric welded chain Butt-welding properties and uniform

internal soundness

Cold-finishing quality Cold-drawn bars Surface quality

Cold-heading quality Cold-heading, cold-forging, coldextrusion products Internal soundness, good surface

quality, may require thermal

treatments

Concrete reinforcement Nondeformed rods for reinforcing

concrete (plain round or smooth surface

rounds)

Chemical composition important

only insofar as it affects mechanical

property

Fine wire Insect screen, weaving wire, florist wire Rods must be suitable for drawing

into wire sizes as small as 0.035

inch (0.889 mm) without

intermediate annealing; internal

quality important

High carbon and medium-high

carbon

Strand and rope, tire bead, upholstery

spring, mechanical spring, screens,

aluminum conductors steel reinforced

core, prestressed concrete strand; pipe

wrap wire is a subset

Requires thermal treatment prior to

drawing; however, it is not intended

to be used for music wire or valve

spring wire

Industrial (standard) quality Nails, coat hangers, mesh for concrete

reinforcement, fencing

Can only be drawn a limited number

of times before requiring thermal

treatment

Music spring wire Springs subject to high stress; valve

springs are a subset

Restrictive requirements for

chemistry, cleanliness, segregation,

decarburization, surface

imperfections

Scrapless nut Fasteners produced by cold heading,

cold expanding, cold punching, thread

tapping

Internal soundness, good surface

quality

Tire cord Tread reinforcement in pneumatic tires Restrictive requirements for

cleanliness, segregation,

decarburization, chemistry, surface

imperfections

Welding quality Wire for gas welding, electric arc

welding, submerged arc welding, metal

inert gas welding

Restrictive requirements for uniform

chemistry

Source: Iron and Steel Society, Steel Products Manual: Carbon Steel Wire and Rods, August 1993, pp. 35-37.
 41 The end uses of very high quality wire rod are those where manufacturing process involve large amounts of

cold deformation of the steel such as in recessed quality cold heading; those that are safety critical, such as

automotive wheel bolts and tire reinforcing wire; those that have very demanding consistency requirements or

unusual steel chemistry requirements, such as certain welding grades; and other applications that put unusual and

demanding requirements on the steel. Posthearing brief of Ivaco, Answers to Commissioners’ Questions p. 15.

 42 ASTM F2282 establishes quality assurance requirements for the physical, mechanical, and metallurgical

requirements for carbon and alloy steel wire, rods, and bars in coils intended for the manufacture of mechanical

fasteners (bolts, nuts, rivets, screws, washers, and special parts manufactured cold). The steel industry uses the term

“quality” to designate material having characteristics particularly well suited to a specific fabrication and/or

application and does not imply “quality” in the usual sense. While wire rod meeting ASTM F2282 generally is

termed cold-heading quality, other rod, not meeting the standard, also may be classified as cold-heading quality. 

ASTM F2282, however, is the standard identified in the HTS for classifying imports of cold-heading quality wire

rod.

 43 The Stelmor deck allows for the controlled cooling of wire rod. This cooling speed imparts certain physical

characteristics, enabling producers to produce a wider range of wire rod qualities. Most, if not all, U.S. wire rod

producers have installed controlled cooling capacities.

 44 Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from China, Germany, and Turkey, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-1099-1101

(Preliminary), USITC Publication 3832, January 2006, p. I-8.

 45 ***’s producer questionnaire, II-6.

I-24

Other relatively large-volume qualities of wire rod consumed in the United States include highand medium-high carbon and cold-heading quality. High- and medium-high carbon wire rod are intended

for drawing into wire for such products as strand, upholstery spring, mechanical spring, rope, screens, and

pre-stressed concrete wire.41 Cold-heading quality wire rod meeting ASTM F2282, a quality standard,

generally is used in the production of industrial fasteners and other products that must be cold headed,

cold forged, or cold-extruded.42

 Manufacturing Process

The manufacturing process for wire rod consists of several stages: (1) steelmaking, where the

steel’s chemistry is fixed; (2) casting the steel into a semifinished shape (billet); (3) hot-rolling the billet

into rod on a multistand, high-speed rolling mill; and (4) coiling and controlled cooling of the wire rod as

it passes along a Stelmor deck (a specialized conveyor unique to the wire rod industry).43

U.S. and foreign wire rod manufacturers have made capital investments in their production

facilities to improve processing efficiencies and product quality. Standards of product quality (e.g.,

tighter dimensional tolerances, control over residuals, and coil weight) have become higher across the

entire range of wire rod products largely in response to customer demands for improved performance on

the customer's equipment. These improvements have tended to blur the distinctions among quality terms

over time.44

Most U.S. wire rod producers use minimill technology to melt scrap in an electric arc furnace. 

The exceptions to this are (1) Republic Technologies (formerly USS/Kobe), which employs the integrated

route to steelmaking (i.e., a basic oxygen furnace using pig iron, which is produced from iron ore), and

(2) those rod producers who are not steelmakers and, therefore, purchase billets. Both *** purchase

billets for their specialty products.45
 46 ***. Email from ***, March 19, 2008.

 47 *** questionnaire responses. Virgin here refers to billets from iron ore that is mined and refined. Steel

producers may choose to use higher portions of virgin ore, commonly in the form of pig iron, direct reduced iron, or

taconite pellets, in their production mix to limit residual elements found in recycled scrap.

 48 ***’s questionnaire, II-1.

 49 The advantage of using DRI or pig iron (BOF steel) is the low levels of residual elements (copper, chromium,

nickel, molybdenum, and tin) and reduced gaseous content (particularly nitrogen) that they impart to the steel. 

Compared to BOF steel, EAF scrap-based steel contains higher levels of certain residuals, which adversely affect

yields and drawing efficiencies, and limit such scrap-based steel use in certain critical applications.

 50 Liquid steel absorbs gasses from the atmosphere and from the materials used in the steelmaking process. These

gasses, chiefly oxygen and hydrogen, cause embrittlement, voids, and nonmetallic inclusions. Low pressures, such

as in a vacuum, aid the release of oxygen in gas form without the need for additions of "deoxidizers" such as silicon,

aluminum, or titanium, which form nonmetallic inclusions. Additionally, carbon content may be reduced more

easily at low pressure (because it combines with oxygen to form carbon monoxide and is released in gas form),

resulting in a more ductile steel. Moreover, hydrogen gas causes embrittlement, low ductility, and blow holes in

steel; vacuum treatment more easily removes hydrogen from the steel. Hence the use of deoxidizing processes

results in more efficient process and cleaner steel.

I-25

Wire rod producers that purchase billets, such as ***,46 may purchase virgin steel billets for their

higher quality production.47 Wire rod manufacturers, such as Republic, that have steelmaking

capabilities, can produce their own billets for the desired end product by using more virgin iron ore to

limit residues or by using more scrap for more industrial grade products. One non-U.S. producer further

claims the use of virgin iron ore enables it to produce its highest quality wire rod.48

Minimills use scrap as their primary raw material and may add direct reduced iron (DRI) or hotbriquetted iron and/or pig iron to the mix, depending on the specifications for the end product and the

relative costs of the raw materials. Minimills that produce high quality rod products, such as high carbon,

cold heading quality, tire cord quality, and/or other special quality wire rod may use less scrap and more

DRI than other steelmakers, however the production process in general does not change.

Melt Stage

There are two primary process routes by which steel for rod is made in the United States and the

seven subject countries: the integrated process, which employs blast furnaces and basic oxygen furnaces

(BOFs), and the nonintegrated production processes which utilizes an electric arc furnace (EAF) to

produce raw steel. In both processes, pig iron, steel scrap, and/or DRI49 is charged into BOFs or EAFs. 

Most of the steel produced in the United States for rod production is melted from scrap in an EAF,

although pig iron may be used as part of the EAF charge. Alloy agents are added to the liquid steel to

impart specific properties to finished steel products. The molten steel is poured or tapped from the

furnace to a ladle, which is an open-topped, refractory-lined vessel that has an off-center opening in its

bottom and is equipped with a nozzle. Meanwhile, the primary steelmaking vessel (EAF or BOF) may be

charged with new materials to begin another refining cycle.

Molten steel typically is treated in a ladle metallurgy station, where its chemistry is refined to

give the steel those properties required for specific applications. At the ladle metallurgy, or secondary

steel making, station the chemical content (particularly that of carbon and sulfur) is adjusted, and alloying

agents may be added. The steel may be degassed (eliminating oxygen and hydrogen) at low pressures.50

Ladle metallurgy stations are equipped with electric arc power to adjust the temperature of the molten

steel for optimum casting and to allow it to serve as a holding reservoir for the tundish.
 51 The purpose of these surface treatments is to make the steel billet softer and more ductile (annealing); in the

case of surface grinding, seam and folds are removed.

 52 The rolling process, however, can be optimized for various quality levels. The rolling process for higher

quality steel, such as for cold heading quality and other surface sensitive products, must be designed to maximize

surface integrity. This is managed by the number of rolling stands used to get to a specific end diameter, the design

of the reductions taken at each step, and the design of the guiding equipment used to keep the steel moving on the

proper path through the mill. Posthearing brief of Ivaco, Answers to Commissioners’ Questions, p. 17.

 53 The Stelmor deck may be optimized for specific end products. ***. Posthearing brief of Ivaco, Answers to

Commissioners’ Questions, p. 17.

I-26

Casting Stage

Once molten steel with the requisite properties has been produced, it is cast into a form that can

enter the rolling process. Continuous (strand) casting is the method primarily used in the United States. 

In strand casting, the ladle containing molten steel is transferred from the ladle metallurgy station to the

caster and the molten steel is poured at a controlled rate into a tundish, which in turn controls the rate of

flow of the molten steel in to the caster's molds. The tundish may have a special design or employ

electromagnetic stirring to ensure homogeneity of the steel. The strand caster is designed to produce

billets in the desired cross-sectional dimensions, based on the dimensions of the rod and the design of the

rolling mill. Billets may be charged directly into the rolling mill (“hot-charged”) or, depending upon the

rolling mill's schedule, sent to a storage yard. While in storage, they may be inspected and subjected to

one or more conditioning operations (grinding, or turning for example) to ready them for hot rolling. 

This preparation is more common with cold-heading quality rods intended to be made into fasteners.51

Rolling Stage

The wire rod rolling process determines the rod’s size (diameter) and dimensional precision, 

depth of decarburization, surface defects and seams, amount of mill scale, structural grain size, and within

limits set by the chemistry, tensile strength and other physical properties. There is little or no difference

among the wire rod rolling mills in the United States, or between U.S. mills and their foreign

competitors.52 A larger billet will produce a heavier coil. Also, usable coil size may be limited by the

capabilities of the wire drawer's equipment and machinery.

Modern rod rolling mills consist of five parts: a roughing mill, an intermediate mill, a

pre-finishing mill, a no-twist finishing mill, and a coiler combined with a conveyor cooling bed along

which the coiled rod travels prior to being collected, tied, compacted, and readied for shipment. Wire rod

mills typically consist of 22 to 29 rolling stands and the specialized Stelmor conveyor deck;53 the need for

uniform metallurgical properties requires close temperature control accomplished by accelerating or

retarding the rod’s cooling as it is rolled and conveyed along the Stelmor deck. This is accomplished by

water quench, forced air drafts, or by lowering removable hoods overtop the deck. Metallurgical quality,

temperature, and dimensional tolerance usually are inspected in-line.

Exiting the reheat furnace, the billet is initially reduced on the roughing mill (which usually

consists of approximately five stands). It then is passed through and successively reduced in size on

several more stands, termed intermediate rolling. After the last intermediate rolling stand, the rolling mill

usually splits into dual lines and the product is passed along to a pre-finishing mill which reduces it

further in diameter. Rod mills often employ a “twist” mill for primary and intermediate rolling, but the

final rolling is nearly always on a no-twist Morgan vee mill (the rolls in each of approximately five stands

are set a 90-degree angles to allow the rod to be rolled without twisting). This produces a nearly uniform

non-oriented grain structure in the steel. After exiting the last finishing stand, the rod is coiled into

concentric loops and placed on a conveyor which moves the hot wire rod along while it cools.
I-27

During rolling, the rod is water-cooled as it travels along the Stelmor deck; cooling practices are

varied depending on the designated end use of the rod and the customer's preferences. The speed at

which the rod is cooled affects the consistency and formation of its metallurgical structure (grain structure

and physical properties such as tensile strength). It also affects scale buildup, which determines yield

losses at the wire drawer. The cooling rate may be varied through the use of removable covers (insulating

hoods which may be independently raised or lowered) over the deck or blown-air cooling, or a

combination of the two, or through varying the speed of the roller table. The end user often specifies the

cooling practice of the rod purchased.

At the end of the cooling deck, workers crop the ends of each rod to remove the part of the rod

which may be of lower quality due to uneven temperature control; the cropped ends are also used for

testing and inspection. The rod is then collected onto a carrier, transferred to a "c" hook, compacted, tied,

and readied for shipment, or for further finishing or in-house fabrication. Figure I-1 illustrates the reheat

through cooling stages of the wire rod production process.

Figure I-1

Wire rod: Reheat and rolling process

Domestic producers manufacture various types of wire rod on essentially the same equipment, in

the same facilities, and with the same production personnel. While changes to production processes are

limited, changes in chemical composition, alloying elements and other raw materials, stand fittings, and

cooling speed determine the quality of the wire rod produced. The basic equipment, machinery,

facilities, and production personnel, however, remain, the same for the production of industrial quality,

tire cord quality, welding quality, and cold heading quality wire rod. Company-specific information

compiled in response to Commission questionnaires concerning several types of wire rod products

produced in the United States are presented in section III.

 Source: POSCO Web site, http://www.steel-n.com/esales/general/us/catalog/wire_rod/, accessed March 10, 2008
 54 Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Brazil, Canada, Germany, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova,

Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, and Ukraine: Investigations Nos. 701-TA-417-421 (Final) and Investigations Nos.

731-TA-953, 954, 956-959, 961, and 905 (Final), USITC Publication 3546, October 2002, p. 7.

 55 72 FR 50696, September 4, 2007.

 56 Response of Arcelor Mittal USA, Gerdau, Keystone, and Rocky Mountain, October 24, 2007, p. 28; Response

of JSCC Moldova Steel Works, October 24, 2007, p. 8; Response of Hylsa, SA de CV, October 24, 2007; Response

of Ivaco Rolling Mills and Sivaco Ontario, October 24, 2007, p. 13.

 57 Prehearing brief of Arcelor Mittal USA, Gerdau, Keystone, and Rocky Mountain, p. 2.

 58 The 12 U.S. producers that supplied the Commission with usable questionnaire information during the original

investigations ***.

 59 Arcelor Mittal, Cascade, Gerdau, Keystone, Nucor, Republic, and Rocky Mountain.

 60 ***.

I-28

DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT ISSUES

In its original determinations, the Commission defined the domestic like product as all wire rod

products, which included grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod excluded from Commerce’s

scope, and it defined the domestic industry as all domestic producers of wire rod.54 In its notice of

institution in these current five-year reviews, the Commission solicited comments from interested parties

regarding the appropriate domestic like product and domestic industry.55 Three interested parties

commented on the Commission’s definitions of domestic like product and domestic industry: two agreed

with the Commission’s definitions (Arcelor Mittal USA, Gerdau, Keystone, and Rocky Mountain and

JSCC Moldova Steel Works (MSW)) and one took no position (Ivaco Rolling Mills (Ivaco)).56 No party

requested that the Commission collect data concerning other possible domestic like products in their

comments on the Commission’s draft questionnaires. In its prehearing brief, counsel for Arcelor Mittal,

Gerdau, Keystone, and Rocky Mountain agreed with the definition of the domestic like product set forth

in the original investigations.57 No other interested party provided further comment on the domestic like

product.

U.S. MARKET PARTICIPANTS

U.S. Producers

During the original investigations, 12 firms supplied the Commission with information on their

U.S. operations with respect to wire rod. These 12 firms accounted for over *** percent of U.S.

production of wire rod products during 2001.58 In these current reviews, Arcelor Mittal USA, Gerdau,

Keystone, and Rocky Mountain identified the following 10 U.S. producers of wire rod in their response to

the Commission’s notice of institution: Arcelor Mittal Steel USA, Inc. (“Arcelor Mittal”); Cascade Steel

Rolling Mills, Inc. (“Cascade”); Charter Steel, Division of Charter Manufacturing (“Charter”); Gerdau

Ameristeel US, Inc. (“Gerdau”); Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc. (“Keystone”); Nucor Corp.

(“Nucor”); Oklahoma Steel and Wire, which is the wire products related firm of Mid American Steel and

Wire Co. (“Mid American”); Republic Engineered Products (“Republic”); Rocky Mountain Steel Mills

(“Rocky Mountain”), and Sterling Steel Co., LLC (“Sterling/Leggett & Platt”). The Commission issued

questionnaires to these mills, all of which provided the Commission with information on their wire rod

operations. Seven firms, representing *** percent of reported 2007 production, have filed notices of

appearance in these reviews.59 ***, representing *** percent of reported 2007 production, ***; and ***

firms, representing *** percent of reported 2007 production, take no position on the orders.60 
 61 ***.

 62 Prehearing brief of Ivaco, p. 15. Ivaco also reported that ***. All of these activities occurred during the strike

at Ivaco in 2005-06. Ibid.

 63 ***.

 64 Six additional firms responded but their data were not aggregated with data from the other 27 responses

because such aggregation would result in double-counting of the imported material. Staff Report, September 19,

2002 (INV-Z-156), p. IV-1, fn. 1.

I-29

U.S. production of wire rod is concentrated in the Midwest with mills in Illinois, Indiana, Ohio,

Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Wisconsin. Three mills are located in the South: one in Florida, one in South

Carolina, and one in Texas. Two mills are located in the Northeast: one in Connecticut and one in New

Jersey. Finally, two mills are located in the West: one mill in Colorado and one mill in Oregon. No

domestic producer reported production of wire rod in a foreign trade zone. Four domestic producers

(***) reported that since January 1, 2002, they have been involved in toll agreements regarding the

production of wire rod.61 Only *** reported toll agreements with Ivaco; however, Ivaco reported toll

agreements with four U.S. producers: ***.62 Five mills have related downstream purchasers of wire

products.63 

Details regarding each firm’s production location(s), share of 2007 mill production, parent

company, and position on the orders are presented in table I-13. The domestic wire rod industry has

restructured since the original investigations. Bankruptcies, consolidations, and reorganizations have

changed the composition of domestic production. Several domestic wire rod producers filed for

bankruptcy. Some closed their operations permanently, while others were acquired out of bankruptcy and

are operating today. One firm began operations. Figure I-2 illustrates the changes in company ownership

that have occurred since the original investigations. 

Several domestic producers were identified as related parties in these reviews. ***. Domestic

producer Arcelor Mittal is related to firms in Brazil, Canada, Mexico, Trinidad & Tobago, and Ukraine,

while Gerdau is related to a wire rod producer in Brazil, the country in which its corporate parent resides. 

Whereas the largest U.S. producer in 2001 was ***, *** now stands as the largest single producer, and

*** ranks ***. 

U.S. Importers

In the original investigations, 27 U.S. importing firms supplied the Commission with usable

information on their operations involving the importation of wire rod, accounting for *** percent of U.S.

imports of wire rod during 2001.64 Of the responding U.S. importers, one was a domestic producer: 

Charter ***. 

In response to Commission importers’ questionnaires issued in these reviews, 26 firms supplied

usable import data, accounting for approximately 73 percent of total U.S. imports of wire rod in 2007, and

90 percent of subject imports in that year. Reporting U.S. importers of wire rod import primarily from the

subject countries of Brazil, Canada, Mexico, Trinidad & Tobago, and nonsubject Germany; and are

concentrated in several geographic areas across the United States: New York, New Jersey, Illinois,

Minnesota, South Carolina, Texas, and California. Table I-14 presents a summary of information

regarding U.S. importers of wire rod.
I-30

Table I-13

Wire rod: U.S. producers, positions on orders, plant locations, and shares of U.S. production in

2007

Firm name Position on orders Plant locations Parent company

Share of

reported U.S.

production

(percent)

Arcelor Mittal1 Support

East Chicago, IN

Georgetown, SC

***% Arcelor Mittal

SA, Luxembourg ***

Cascade *** McMinnville, OR

***% Schnitzer Steel,

Inc., Portland, OR ***

Charter2 ***

Cleveland, OH

Saukville, WI None ***

Gerdau3 Support

Beaumont, TX; Perth

Amboy, NJ; and

Jacksonville, FL

***% Gerdau

Ameristeel Corp.,

Toronto, Canada ***

Keystone Support Peoria, IL

***% Contran Corp.,

Dallas, TX ***

Mid American *** Madrill, OK None ***

Nucor Support

Norfolk, NE

Wallingford, CT None ***

Republic *** Akron, OH

***% Grupo Simec,

Mexico and

***% Industrias CH,

Mexico ***

Rocky Mountain4 Support Pueblo, CO

***% Oregon Steel,

Portland, OR ***

Sterling/Leggett &

Platt *** Sterling, IL

***% Leggett & Platt,

Carthage, MO ***

 1 Related to Arcelor Mittal Brazil; Arcelor Mittal Canada; Arcelor Mittal Point Lisas (Trinidad & Tobago); Arcelor Mittal Kryviy

Rih (Ukraine); and Siderurgica Lazaro Cardenas Las Truchas SA de CV (Sicartsa) (Mexico).

 2 ***.

 3 Related to Gerdau SA, Brazil.

 4 Related to Evraz Group, SA, Luxembourg (owner of Oregon Steel Mills).

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commissioner questionnaires.
 65 The importers were, in order of quantities imported, ***.

I-31

Figure I-2

Wire rod: Openings, closings, and consolidations of U.S. mills, 2001 and 2007

U.S. mills in 2001 U.S. mills in 2007

GS Industries (Georgetown, SC) Arcelor Mittal Ispat Inland (East Chicago, IN)

Cascade (McMinnville, OR) Cascade

Birmingham (Cleveland, OH)

Charter (Saukville, WI; Milwaukee, Charter

WI–2 locations)

AmeriSteel (Jacksonville, FL)

North Star (Beaumont, TX) Gerdau

Co-Steel (Perth Amboy, NJ)

Keystone (Peoria, IL) Keystone

Northwestern (Sterling, IL) Sterling/Leggett & Platt

Mid American (began in 2004)

Connecticut Steel (Wallingford, CT)

North Star (Kingman, AZ–closed) Nucor

Nucor (Norfolk, NE)

Republic (Akron, OH) Republic

Rocky Mountain (Pueblo, CO) Rocky Mountain

Source: Compiled from information submitted in response to Commission questionnaires; Staff Report, September 19, 2002

(INV-Z-156), p. III-3; and Staff Report, December 19, 2005 (INV-CC-214), p. III-2 .

Reported imports were concentrated in a few firms. The top three importers accounted for ***

percent of total reported imports during 2007 (with ***), and the next largest four importers accounted for

*** percent of reported imports in that year, yielding a total of *** percent of total imports in 2007

handled by seven importers.65 Three importers reported importing from Brazil; five from Canada (subject

merchandise); three from Indonesia; four from Mexico; one from Moldova; three from Trinidad &

Tobago; and two from Ukraine. Eleven importers reported importing from all other sources. 

There are several business affiliations between U.S. importers and foreign companies producing

wire rod in the countries subject to review. Arcelor Mittal’s firms in Brazil, Canada, Mexico, and

Trinidad & Tobago act as the importers of record for imports into the United States, and are related to

Arcelor Mittal USA. 
I-32

Table I-14

Wire rod: Reporting U.S. importers, parent companies, sources of imports, locations, and shares of reported

U.S. imports, 2007

Firm Parent Source(s) Location

Share of

reported

2007 total

U.S.

imports

(percent)

Arcelor Mittal Brazil1

Arcelor Mittal SA,

Luxembourg ***

Juiz de Fora and

Joao Monlevade,

Brazil ***

Arcelor Mittal Canada1

Mittal Steel Canada

Holdings Arcelor

Mittal SA,

Luxembourg ***

Contreceour,

Quebec, Canada ***

Arcelor Mittal Pine

Bluff1 2

Arcelor Mittal SA,

Luxembourg *** Pine Bluff, AR ***

Arcelor Mittal Point

Lisas1

Arcelor Mittal SA,

Luxembourg ***

Point Lisas, Couva,

Trinidad & Tobago ***

Bekaert Corp.

N.V. Bekaert SA,

Belgium *** Marietta, GA ***

Cargill None *** Minnetonka, MN ***

Coutinho & Ferrostaal

(legal successor to

CCC Steel)

*** percent CCC

International,

Germany; ***

percent Rosularia,

Germany ***

Hamburg,

Germany ***

Charter3 None *** Milwaukee, WI ***

Commercial Metals None *** Irving, TX ***

Corus International

Trading

TATA Steel,

Mumbai, India *** Schaumburg, IL ***

Empire Resources2 None *** Fort Lee, NJ ***

Hylsa SA

*** percent Ternium,

SA (Luxembourg) ***

San Nicolas de los

Garza, Nuevo

Leon, Mexico ***

Ivaco

The Heico

Companies, LLC,

Chicago, IL ***

L’Orignal, Ontario,

and Ingersoll,

Ontario, Canada ***

Jade Sterling Steel None *** Twinsburg, OH ***

Table continued on following page.
I-33

Table I-14–Continued

Wire rod: Reporting U.S. importers, parent companies, sources of imports, locations, and shares of reported

U.S. imports, 2007

Firm Parent Source(s) Location

Share of

reported

2007 total

U.S.

imports

(percent)

Kiswire

Kiswire, Ltd., Seoul,

South Korea *** Newbury, SC ***

Macsteel International

Macsteel International

Holdings BV,

Netherlands *** White Plains, NY ***

Man Ferrostaal 

*** percent Man

Capital Corp., New

York, NY *** Houston, TX ***

Marian Shipping2 None *** Long Beach, CA ***

Metal One America

*** percent Metal One

Corp., Tokyo, Japan;

*** percent Mitsubishi

International, New

York, NY *** Rosemont, IL ***

Michelin North

America

Michelin Corp.,

Greenville, SC *** Greenville, SC ***

Sicartsa1

Arcelor Mittal Mexico;

parent Arcelor Mittal

SA, Luxembourg ***

Lazaro Cardenas,

Michoacan, Mexico ***

U.S. Steel Canada

(Stelco) U.S. Steel Corp. ***

Hamilton, Ontario,

Canada ***

Sumiden

*** percent Sumitomo

Electric Industries,

Japan; *** percent

Sumitomo Electric

Industries USA, New

York, NY ***

Stockton, CA

Dickson, TN ***

Stemcor USA

Stemcor Holdings,

London, UK *** New York, NY ***

TATA2

TATA Steel Ltd,

Mumbai, India *** New York, NY ***

Tree Island Wire

Tree Island Industries,

Ltd., Richmond, BC,

Canada *** Fontana, CA ***

 1 Related to Arcelor Mittal USA; Arcelor Mittal Brazil; Arcelor Mittal Canada; Arcelor Mittal Point Lisas (Trinidad & Tobago);

Arcelor Mittal Kryviy Rih (Ukraine); and Siderurgica Lazaro Cardenas Las Truchas SA de CV (Sicartsa) (Mexico).

 2 ***.

 3 ***.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 66 Hearing transcript, p. 191 (Moffitt) and p. 240 (Waltz).

 67 Prehearing brief of Ivaco, pp. 19 and 24, and hearing transcript, p. 175 (Robertson).

 68 Hearing transcript, p. 118 (Kerkvliet).

I-34

U.S. Purchasers

Forty purchasers, three of which were related to U.S. wire rod producers, provided purchaser

questionnaires. All the responding purchasers reported that they were end users, although one also

reported that it was a distributor. As explained in part II, producers and importers reported that end users

account for an overwhelming proportion of sales. End users produced wire, spring wire, wire rope, wire

fabric, fence products, weld products, fasteners, garment hangers, auto parts, tire cord, tire bead wire, PC

strand, and other wire products. Seventeen of the 29 purchasers responding to the question reported that

they competed for sales to their customers with manufacturers or importers of wire rod. Four purchasers

reported that they, or related firms, imported subject wire rod into the United States, while eight reported

that they were related to a U.S. or foreign producer of wire rod. Purchasers were most concentrated in the

Midwest and Pennsylvania, with six in Ohio and four each from Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, and

Pennsylvania. Southeastern states were also well represented by purchasers, with two each from Florida

South Carolina, and Alabama, and one each from Georgia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, and

Mississippi. In addition three purchasers were from California and one each from Arkansas, Indiana,

Texas, and Arizona.

APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION AND MARKET SHARES

Table I-15 presents U.S. shipments, imports, and apparent U.S. consumption of wire rod for

2002-07. Table I-16 presents U.S. consumption and market shares for the same period. 

The quantity of apparent U.S. consumption fluctuated during 2002-07, with relatively higher

volumes in 2002, 2004, and 2006, and relatively lower volumes in 2003, 2005, and especially 2007. 

According to U.S. purchasers, the decrease in consumption is partly attributable to a decline in the

residential housing market and declining automobile production.66 The U.S. producers’ share of apparent

U.S. consumption reached a low in 2004, as they experienced plant shutdowns and other supply

problems; the share of subject imports was at its second highest in that same year (after the peak in 2002,

the year in which the order was imposed). After experiencing lows in 2005 and 2006, subject imports

increased their market share in 2007, a year in which the U.S. producers also increased their share of

apparent U.S. consumption, while the share of nonsubject imports declined markedly, led by a sharp

decrease in imports from China (from peak levels in 2006) and from Turkey. Counsel for Ivaco and U.S.

purchasers attributes the decline in imports to three factors: high freight costs, the weak U.S. dollar, and

strong markets elsewhere, in addition to a change in China’s export policy by imposing an export tax of

15 percent in May 2007, and eliminating the VAT rebate on finished steel exports in April 2007.67 The

domestic industry also attributes the trend to shortages in raw materials in pig iron, coal and coking coal.68
I-35

Table I-15

Wire rod: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. imports, by sources, and apparent U.S. consumption,

2002-07

Item 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Quantity (short tons)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 3,988,827 4,137,344 4,095,297 3,732,509 3,814,247 4,076,282

U.S. imports from--

 Brazil *** 0 0 0 0 0

 Canada *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Indonesia 40,863 0 29,937 333 0 0

 Mexico 123,380 19,986 68,498 11,480 4,256 8,244

 Moldova 18,826 0 0 0 0 0

 Ukraine 11,159 0 0 738 0 0

 Subtotal *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Trinidad & Tobago 386,419 146,783 260,618 104,804 133,326 95,325

 Subtotal subject sources *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Stelco *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Grade 1080 tire bead/tire cord

from subject sources *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Other sources 2,262,306 1,505,183 2,859,490 1,997,826 2,554,966 992,163

 Total imports 3,765,048 2,453,574 4,039,783 2,773,118 3,294,798 1,782,699

Total U.S. consumption 7,753,874 6,590,919 8,135,080 6,505,628 7,109,045 5,858,981

Table continued on following page.
I-36

Table I-15--Continued

Wire rod: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. imports, by sources, and apparent U.S. consumption,

2002-07

Item 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Value ($1,000)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 1,290,111 1,354,900 2,182,163 2,087,201 2,147,510 2,340,401

U.S. imports from--

 Brazil *** 0 0 0 0 0

 Canada *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Indonesia 10,494 0 17,247 262 0 0

 Mexico 34,548 6,296 33,332 6,283 2,032 4,263

 Moldova 3,708 0 0 0 0 0

 Ukraine 2,446 0 0 501 0 0

 Subtotal *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Trinidad & Tobago 107,445 39,267 124,194 50,039 64,253 46,228

 Subtotal subject sources *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Stelco *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Grade 1080 tire bead/tire cord

from subject sources *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Other sources 622,360 462,923 1,308,240 1,024,997 1,244,511 574,316

 Total imports 1,121,780 784,088 1,927,796 1,505,064 1,690,689 1,063,201

Total U.S. consumption 2,411,891 2,138,988 4,109,959 3,592,264 3,838,199 3,403,602

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics.
I-37

Table I-16

Wire rod: Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares, 2002-07

Item 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Quantity (short tons)

Apparent U.S. consumption 7,753,874 6,590,919 8,135,080 6,505,628 7,109,045 5,858,981

Value (1,000 dollars)

Apparent U.S. consumption 2,411,891 2,138,988 4,109,959 3,592,264 3,838,199 3,403,602

Share of quantity (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 51.4 62.8 50.3 57.4 53.7 69.6

U.S. imports from–

 Brazil *** 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Canada *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Indonesia 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Mexico 1.6 0.3 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.1

 Moldova 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Ukraine 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Subtotal *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Trinidad & Tobago 5.0 2.2 3.2 1.6 1.9 1.6

 Subtotal subject sources *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Stelco *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Grade 1080 tire bead/tire cord from

subject sources *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Other sources 29.2 22.8 35.2 30.7 35.9 16.9

 Total imports 48.6 37.2 49.7 42.6 46.3 30.4

Table continued on following page.
I-38

Table I-16–Continued

Wire rod: Total U.S. consumption and market shares, 2002-07

Item 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Share of value (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 53.5 63.3 53.1 58.1 56.0 68.8

U.S. imports from–

 Brazil *** 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Canada *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Indonesia 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Mexico 1.4 0.3 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.1

 Moldova 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Ukraine 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Subtotal *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Trinidad & Tobago 4.5 1.8 3.0 1.4 1.7 1.4

 Subtotal subject sources *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Stelco *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Grade 1080 tire bead/tire cord from

subject sources *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Other sources 25.8 21.6 31.8 28.5 32.4 16.9

 Total imports 46.5 36.7 46.9 41.9 44.0 31.2

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics.
 1

 Six U.S. producers reported that between 2 and 20 percent of their shipments were within 100 miles, and five

reported that 1 to 10 percent of shipments were over 1,000 miles. 

 2

 During the original investigations, Caribbean Ispat sold ***. See questionnaire response of Caribbean Ispat.

 3

 Emails from ***.

II-1

PART II: CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION IN THE U.S. MARKET

MARKET CHARACTERISTICS

U.S. producers and importers sell wire rod to wire drawing firms and/or produce and sell wire or

wire products. U.S. production that was consumed internally or transferred to related firms rose from ***

percent of shipments in 2002 to *** percent in 2007. 

Imports from the subject countries comprised *** percent of the total U.S. market in 2007,

domestic production comprised 69.6 percent of the market, and imports from nonsubject sources

(including grade 1080 tire bead and tire cord wire rod) comprised *** percent. Overall apparent U.S.

consumption fluctuated from year to year, rising from 7.8 million short tons in 2002 to its highest level of

8.1 million short tons in 2004, before falling to its lowest level, 5.9 million short tons, in 2007. 

Five of the 10 responding producers and 7 of the 15 responding importers reported selling

nationwide. The other five U.S. producers and eight importers reported serving specific geographic

regions, primarily the Midwest (four producers and seven importers). Eight of the nine responding U.S.

producers reported that the majority of their shipments, ranging from 80 percent to 99 percent, were

between 101 miles and 1,000 miles of their production facilities. The ninth responding producer reported

that the majority (70 percent) of its sales were within 100 miles of its plant.1

 Importers were more likely

than producers to ship most of their product within relatively short distances. Four of the 11 responding

importers reported that most of their shipments were within 100 miles of their facility, 6 reported that

most of their shipments were between 101 to 1,000 miles, and 2 reported all their shipments were

distances over 1,000 miles.

U.S. CHANNELS OF DISTRIBUTION

The majority of wire rod sold in the United States is shipped to end users. U.S. shipments of wire

rod to end users accounted for more than 95 percent of U.S. wire rod shipments (table II-1). U.S.

importers shipped more than 75 percent of imported wire rod to end users during 2002-07.

Since the period examined in the original investigations, Point Lisas ***.2

 In 2007 the Arcelor

Mittal Group acquired Sicartsa. In 2002, ***.3
II-2

Table II-1

Wire rod: Channels of distribution for domestic product and U.S. imports sold in the U.S. market (as a share

of total shipments), 2002-07

Item 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Share of quantity (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments to--

 Distributors 3.7 4.6 4.5 4.3 4.2 3.4

 End users 96.3 95.4 95.5 95.7 95.8 96.6

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Importers’ U.S. shipments of imports from Brazil to--

 Distributors *** *** -- -- -- –

 End users *** *** -- -- -- --

 Total 100.0 100.0 -- -- -- --

Importers’ U.S. shipments of imports from Canada (except

Stelco) to–

 Distributors *** *** *** *** *** ***

 End users *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Importers’ U.S. shipments of imports from Indonesia to--

 Distributors *** -- -- -- -- --

 End users *** -- -- -- -- --

 Total 100.0 -- -- -- -- --

Importers’ U.S. shipments of imports from Mexico to--

 Distributors *** *** *** *** *** ***

 End users *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Importers’ U.S. shipments of imports from Moldova to--

 Distributors *** -- -- -- -- --

 End users *** -- -- -- -- --

 Total 100.0 -- -- -- -- --

Importers’ U.S. shipments of imports from Ukraine to--

 Distributors *** -- -- -- -- --

 End users *** -- -- -- -- --

 Total 100.0 -- -- -- -- --

Table continued on following page.
II-3

Table II-1--Continued

Wire rod: Channels of distribution for domestic product and U.S. imports sold in the U.S. market (as a share

of total shipments), 2002-07

Item 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Share of quantity (percent)

 Subtotal: Importers’ U.S. shipments of imports from above

sources to--

 Distributors *** *** *** *** *** ***

 End users *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Importers’ U.S. shipments of imports from Trinidad & Tobago

to--

 Distributors *** *** *** *** *** ***

 End users *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 Subtotal: Importers’ U.S. shipments of subject imports to--

 Distributors *** *** *** *** *** ***

 End users *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Importers’ U.S. shipments of imports from Stelco to–

 Distributors *** *** *** *** *** ***

 End users *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Importers’ U.S. shipments of imports from all other sources

to--

 Distributors *** *** *** *** *** ***

 End users *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Total U.S. shipments of imports to--

 Distributors 23.3 18.4 24.6 18.5 16.8 13.9

 End users 76.7 81.6 75.4 81.5 83.2 86.1

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 4

 Hearing transcript, pp. 188, 191 (McCall, Moffitt).

 5 Hearing transcript, pp. 23, 248 (Kerkvliet, McCall). The U.S. producers report that they have not been able to

increase the price of wire rod as rapidly as their costs have increased. Posthearing brief of Arcelor Mittal USA,

Gerdau, Keystone, and Rocky Mountain, exh. 1, pp. 20-21. 

 6

 The U.S. producers report that increases in transportation cost has somewhat abated recently. Hearing

transcript, p.192 (Moffitt). Respondents report that this abatement is small and may be temporary. Ivaco’s

posthearing brief, answers to questions, pp. 25-26.

 7

 Hearing transcript, pp. 144-145 (Cheek, Simon, Nystrom).

 8

 Posthearing brief of Arcelor Mittal USA, Gerdau, Keystone, and Rocky Mountain, p. 5 and exh. 3.

 9

 Hearing transcript, pp. 22-25, 116 (Kerkvliet).

 10 Rocky Mountain reported that it could also shift production from rebar production to wire rod. It reports that

under normal conditions it would prefer producing wire rod because wire rod is a higher value added product, but

currently rebar is higher priced. Hearing transcript, pp. 34-35, 116, 134, 140 (Simon).

 11 Hearing transcript, pp. 22-25, 116, 34-35, 116, 134, 140 (Simon, Kerkvliet).

 12 Hearing transcript, pp, 25, 35 (Kerkvliet, Rosenthal).

 13 Posthearing brief of Arcelor Mittal USA, Gerdau, Keystone, and Rocky Mountain, p. 1. Chinese exports

appear to reflect changes in Chinese government policy. Hearing transcript, p. 68 (Kerwin).

 14 Posthearing brief of Arcelor Mittal USA, Gerdau, Keystone, and Rocky Mountain, p. 4.

 15 Hearing transcript, p. 118 (Kerkvliet).

II-4

SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS

U.S. Supply

Based on available information, staff believes that U.S. producers have the ability to respond to

changes in demand with small changes in shipments of U.S.-produced wire rod to the U.S. market. 

Factors restricting supply responsiveness are discussed below.

There is general consensus among domestic and respondent interested parties regarding general

market conditions. Currently inventories are low;4

 imports are relatively low; high input costs have

contributed to rising wire rod prices;5

 and ocean freight costs have increased noticeably.6

Some U.S. producers report that they are limiting the amount of wire rod that customers may

order,7

 but producers also report that purchasers are turning down some of their offers.8 Gerdau reports

that it could increase production 550,000 tons per year by hiring an additional shift.9

 Rocky Mountain

Steel reports that to increase production, it must add staff and increase the supply of billets.10 Nucor

reported that to increase production it needs to purchase more billets, which it could do if customers were

willing to make a long term commitment; however, customers have not made such commitments. 

Gerdau, Nucor, and Rocky Mountain Steel report needing 12-18 months of high demand to make hiring

an additional shift viable.11 However, Gerdau and Rocky Mountain Steel expect market tightness to be

resolved by summer.12

 U.S. producers argue that purchasers buy wire rod mainly on price and that the rising price of

domestically produced wire rod, the more rapid increase in the price of imports, and the abrupt drop in

Chinese exports of wire rod, have caused purchasers’ inventories to decline to very low levels.13 They

report that although purchasers state that they need product to continue production, *** refused an offer

from *** based on price.14 Producers contend that global supply is only temporarily low.15 U.S.

producers believe that U.S. wire rod prices have caught up with prices of U.S. imports, in spite of the
 16 Posthearing brief of Nucor, Cascade, and Republic, exh. 1, pp. 23-24.

 17 Posthearing brief of Arcelor Mittal USA, Gerdau, Keystone, and Rocky Mountain, p. 10 and exh. 8. 

 18 Ivaco’s posthearing brief, p. 14; and Hylsa’s posthearing brief, pp. 2-3.

 19 Moldovan producer’s posthearing brief, pp.7-8 and exh. 1; and AWPA’s posthearing brief, p. 4 and exh. 3.

 20 AWPA’s posthearing brief, pp. 11-13 exh. 7.

 21 AWPA’s posthearing brief, p. 5-6 and exh. 4. Nucor, Cascade, and Republic report that all surveyed wire rod

purchasers expect to increase purchases of imports in the next 2 months and in the next 3 to 5 months. However,

purchasers expected supply shortages in the next 1 to 3 months, and report that the prices of their current import

bookings are “substantially” above those 1 to 2 months earlier. Posthearing brief of Nucor, Cascade, and Republic,

exhs. 3 and 4.

 22 Hearing transcript, p. 189 (McCall).

 23 While the U.S. producers predict that the value of the dollar will increase, the respondents predict that the value

of the dollar will remain low. Hearing transcript, pp. 42, 218-219 (Nystrom, Malashevich) and Ivaco’s posthearing

brief, answers to questions, pp. 9-13. Ivaco notes that published sources report that Nucor expects the dollar to

remain low for the next 2 to 10 years. Ivaco’s posthearing brief, answers to questions, p. 9.

 24 Ivaco posthearing brief, pp. 9, 11, and exh. 4.

 25 *** a purchaser accounting for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption, reported that ***.

II-5

declines of the value of the dollar relative to some world currencies,16 and that U.S. prices will be above

those in other countries in the future,17 leading to increased imports.

Respondents report that the tight global supply of wire rod reflects limited availability of billets,18

and import prices remain above those of U.S. producers into April 2008.19 Moreover, foreign production

of wire rod reportedly is reduced because mills find it more profitable to produce rebar than wire rod. 

Respondents report that inventories20 and imports remain low,21 although some imports are being

purchased to maintain production despite the high import prices.22 Finally, the respondents believe that

the low value of the dollar,23 the weak U.S. economy, and tight supplies in other countries24 will keep wire

rod imports low. 

Most purchasers (29 out of 39 responding) reported changes affected U.S. supply since 2002. 

Important changes included: reduced availability of, and increased cost for, inputs such as scrap, ore,

coke, alloying elements, and energy; reduced availability of U.S. imports as a result of rising

transportation costs, depreciation of the dollar, and an increase in Chinese export tariffs on wire rod;

temporary and permanent reductions in U.S.-produced supply from consolidation of wire rod producers,

reductions in overall U.S. capacity, strikes, plant closures, and bankruptcies; reductions in the quality of

wire rod available; and imports undermining U.S. supply. Twenty-eight of the 40 responding purchasers

reported that they had been refused supply of wire rod or had been put on allocation by either U.S.

producers or importers. The majority of responding purchasers reporting problems with the supply of low

carbon wire rod (18 of 29), high carbon wire rod (14 of 18), tire cord wire rod (6 of 7), welding quality

wire rod (3 of 3), CHQ wire rod (7 of 10), and other products (5 of 7). Even among the firms that

purchased low carbon wire rod and no other type of wire rod, most responding firms (8 of 13) reported

supply problems. Purchasers reported late deliveries and difficulties getting sufficient supply from U.S.

producers in 2002-03, 2004, 2005, and 2007-08. One firm reported numerous difficulties getting the

quality of product it required from U.S. producers throughout the period.25 In addition, a number of

purchasers reported that the difficulties getting supply from U.S. producers had become more pronounced

recently because of reduced availability of imports from all sources.

U.S. supply has been irregular at times during the period for which data were collected. Keystone

began to report financial problems in October 2003, and was in bankruptcy from February 26, 2004, until
 26 Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from China, Germany, and Turkey, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1099-1101

(Preliminary), USITC Publication 3832, January 2006, p. II-2.

 27 Ibid., p. II-2.

 28 Ibid., p. II-3.

 29 Ibid., p. II-3.

 30 Ibid., p. II-3.

II-6

August 31, 2005.26 Keystone continued producing, although with shutdowns and disruptions of supply.27

Georgetown emerged from bankruptcy in 2002. However, in October 2003, Georgetown declared

bankruptcy again and stopped production.28 It required eight months to find a buyer, ISG, which was

later acquired by Mittal Steel. Georgetown resumed production by the end of July 2004 and shipping in

August 2004.29 These closures and reductions in production occurred when apparent consumption was

particularly high. In May 2005, as a result of a labor dispute, Gerdau Ameristeel’s Beaumont, TX,

facility stopped production. Normal production resumed in February 2006.30 The company ***.

The domestic industry has also taken steps to increase supply. In October 2004, Mid American

Steel opened a new facility with a capacity of *** short tons per year. ***. In May 2006, Nucor

purchased Connecticut Steel’s assets, adding to its wire rod capacity. Nucor also reported that it has ***.

Industry Capacity

U.S. producers’ capacity increased from 4.8 million short tons in 2002 to 5.4 million short tons in

2007. Capacity utilization decreased from 84.6 percent in 2002 to 74.9 percent in 2007.

Production Alternatives

Seven of the 10 U.S. producers reported producing other products on the same equipment as used

in wire rod. Most of these produced coil rebar, but others produced stainless steel wire rod and special

bar quality (SBQ).

Wire rod, an intermediate product, is used to produce a range of downstream products (see table

I-12). Some mills that produce wire rod also have the capability to produce bar from this wire rod, which

is made by straightening and cutting the wire rod to certain lengths. Certain mills that produce wire rod

also produce wire or other downstream products in the same or related facilities. As a result, 16 of the 27

responding purchasers reported that producers of wire rod or importers did compete with them for

downstream customers.

Internal Consumption and Transfers to Related Firms

Internal consumption ranged from *** percent in 2002 to *** percent in 2007. Transfers to

related firms rose from *** percent in 2002 to *** percent in 2007. Combined, these shipments rose from

*** percent in 2002 to *** percent in 2007.

Inventory Levels and Exports

U.S. producers’ inventories of wire rod, as a ratio to total shipments, decreased irregularly from

*** percent in 2002 to *** percent in 2007. U.S. producers typically produce to order, which would

reduce inventory requirements; on the other hand, producers produce in cycles, grouping the production

of similar products, and may maintain inventories to allow shipments of individual products throughout

the cycles. Domestic producers exported *** percent of their total shipments in 2002-07. The low level
 31 On February 16, 2000, the President, pursuant to a Section 201 of Trade Act of 1974, imposed a tariff-rate

quota (TRQ) on imports of wire rod for three years and one day. This was modified on November 21, 2001, to reallocate the shares of the TRQ among four country groups. This relief ended on March 1, 2003. 

II-7

of exports indicates that domestic producers would find it difficult to shift a large volume of shipments to

the U.S. market from other markets and may find it difficult to shift shipments from the United States to

other markets.

Subject Imports31

Based on available information, wire rod producers in subject countries have the capability to

increase shipments to the U.S. market in the event of a price increase in the U.S. market. Data provided

by foreign producers suggest that wire rod producers in the subject countries are operating at moderate to

high levels of capacity utilization, with many foreign industries reporting higher capacity utilization rates

than those reported by the U.S. producers. This could constrain foreign producers’ capability to increase

shipments to the U.S. market. Since most subject foreign producers ship only a small to moderate share

of their production to the United States, they may have the flexibility to shift shipments between other

markets (including their home markets) and the U.S. market.

Generally, factors such as relatively low levels of capacity utilization, relatively high inventory

levels, and the existence of alternate markets indicate a relatively strong supply responsiveness. 

Alternate markets include export shipments, home market commercial sales, and internal consumption

(for the production of downstream products). Of these factors, the existence of exports is generally the

most important contributing factor to supply responsiveness, as it indicates the subject country’s export

orientation and experience in export marketing. The second most important contributing factor is

generally home market commercial sales, which could be diverted to export markets, especially if the

industry in the subject country is already experienced in exporting. Internal consumption is most likely

the least easily diverted of the three markets because such diversion could require scaling back or idling

of the production of downstream products. However, the ease of diverting internal consumption may

increase if the subject country has developed export markets and home market commercial sales. Factors

contributing to the supply responsiveness are discussed below and shown in table II-2. 

Table II-2

Wire rod: Capacity, capacity utilization, and shipments to various markets, by year and by subject

source, 2002-07

*******

Brazil

Available data suggest that Brazilian wire rod producers have some capacity to increase

shipments to the U.S. market. Brazilian producers have unused capacity with which they could use to

increase the production of wire rod. During the period of review, *** of Brazilian producers’ shipments

went to the home market (including *** shares that were internally consumed), with the remainder being

sold in non-U.S. export markets; thus, these producers have some capability to shift wire rod from these

markets to the U.S. market. Relatively low inventory levels, however, may constrain the Brazilian

producers’ ability to use inventories to increase shipments of wire rod to the U.S. market.
 32 Hearing transcript, p. 200 (Lachapelle).

 33 Hearing transcript, pp. 214-215, 263-264 (Guhl, Winton).

 34 Hylsa’s posthearing brief, pp. 6-9.

II-8

Canada

Available information suggests that Canadian producers have some capability to increase

shipments of wire rod to the U.S. market. Canadian capacity utilization rates were relatively high during

most of the years of the period of review (*** percent in 2007) which constrains the Canadian producers’

ability to respond to price changes with increased production. Relatively low inventory levels also

constrain Canadian producers’ supply responsiveness. Canadian producers’ shipments to their home

market accounted for *** of total shipments for most of the period of review (though the *** portion of

this product was consumed internally); this suggests that Canadian producers have some capability to

shift sales of wire rod from their home market to the U.S. market. Ivaco reports that it is currently not

able to supply the orders it is receiving, its lead times have risen to two or three months.32

Indonesia

Available information from Indonesian wire rod producers is much more limited than from other

subject countries; however, based on this limited data, Indonesian wire rod producers have the ability to

increase supply to the U.S. market. Overall, Indonesian capacity utilization is moderate and there is some

unused capacity (based on the most recent year of data which was 2006) which could be used to increase

the production of wire rod. In addition, all shipments of wire rod went to the Indonesian home market

and to non-U.S. export markets; thus, Indonesian producers have the capability to shift wire rod from

these other markets to the U.S. market.

Mexico

Available information suggests that Mexican producers have the capability to increase shipments

of wire rod to the U.S. market. Capacity utilization for Mexican producers fluctuated during the period of

review; however, data for 2007 (*** percent) indicate that there is some excess capacity with which

producers could increase the production of wire rod. Supply responsiveness for Mexican producers is

enhanced by the existence of alternate markets. Shipments by Mexican producers to the home market

(including *** shares of internal consumption) accounted for *** of total shipments; thus, these

producers have some capability to shift commercial home market sales to the U.S. market. ***

inventories (as a share of total shipments) could somewhat constrain the Mexican producers’ capability to

use inventories as a means to increase wire rod shipments to the U.S. market. The Mexican producers

report that they are increasing their focus on the market in Mexico, although the producer responsible for

most recent exports to the United States is subject to a very low duty deposit rate.33 In addition, Hylsa

asserts that Mexico’s production of wire rod is currently limited by the billets Mexico produces since the

price of imported billets would be prohibitively high.34

Moldova

Available data suggest that the Moldovan wire rod producer has the capability to increase

shipments of wire rod to the U.S. market. Capacity utilization for the Moldovan producer fluctuated

during the period of review, however, data for 2007 (*** percent) indicate that there is little excess

capacity with which it could increase production. Supply responsiveness for the Moldovan producer is

enhanced by the existence of alternate markets. Shipments by the Moldovan producer to non-U.S. export
 35 Hearing transcript, pp. 89, 179 (Rosenthal, Woltz).

 36 For example, the number of housing starts increased each year from 2002 and 2005; however, after 2005 the

number of housing starts declined and by 2007, there were fewer housing starts than there had been in 2002.

http://www.census.gov/const/www/quarterly_starts_completions.pdf. Nonetheless, American Metal Market reports

that “steel producers ... see the strong pricing environment lasting at least into the third quarter and perhaps beyond. 

Executives at all these companies have said in the past week that the weak dollar and strong demand for steel from

markets outside the United States should continue to keep imports at low levels for the foreseeable future.”

Posthearing brief of Nucor, Cascade, and Republic, exh. 3, p. 2.

II-9

markets accounted for the *** of total shipments; thus, is constrained in its ability to use product from

inventory to increase shipments to the U.S. market.

Trinidad and Tobago

Available information suggests that the single Trinidadian wire rod producer has some capability

to increase shipments to the U.S. market. While capacity utilization rates were higher in the earlier

portion of the period of review, since ***, capacity utilization rates have been *** percent. Therefore,

there is excess capacity with which the producer in Trinidad and Tobago could increase production of

wire rod. Sales to non-U.S. export markets and to the home market accounted for *** of total shipments

during the period of review; thus, the Trinidadian producer has the capability to shift sales from the home

market and alternate markets to the U.S. market. *** inventories (as a share of total shipments) also

somewhat enhance the supply responsiveness.

Ukraine

Available data suggest that the single reporting Ukrainian wire rod producer, Kryvih Rih, has the

capability to increase shipments to the U.S. market. Available capacity utilization data indicate that there

is some excess capacity with which Kryvih Rih could increase the production of wire rod. During the

period of review, this producer’s shipments went to either its home market or to non-U.S. export markets,

with *** being sold in export markets. Thus, the producer has the capability to shift shipments from

these markets to the U.S. market. Inventories, as a percent of total shipments, were ***, which constrain

Kryvih Rih’s ability to use inventories to increase shipments to the U.S. market.

U.S. Demand

Demand Characteristics

The majority of wire rod is sold to wire drawers; these firms draw wire rod into wire that is used

in a large variety of products. Demand for wire rod depends on the demand for these many different

products. Both producers and respondents agree that the most important factor in the level of demand for

wire rod is demand in the construction industry.35

Short term demand for wire rod tends to be cyclical and follows trends in construction.36 In

addition, the level of imports of downstream product will influence demand for wire rod. Purchasers

report that the contraction in wire rod demand caused by the downturns in home building and automobile
 37 Ivaco estimates that from *** percent of wire rod in the U.S. and Canada combined are ultimately used in

automobiles. Ivaco’s posthearing brief, answers to questions, p. 14. Arcelor Mittal USA, Gerdau, Keystone, and

Rocky Mountain, by contrast, estimate that automotive demand is *** percent of wire rod consumption. Posthearing

brief of Arcelor Mittal USA, Gerdau, Keystone, and Rocky Mountain, p. 8.

 38 Hearing transcript, pp. 234-235 (Deshane).

 39 Ivaco posthearing brief, pp. 8-9.

 40 The one importer who reported increased demand reported that this was because of supply shortages. 

 41 One importer, ***, reported that it did not know world demand overall but reported that the auto industry ***

was facing serious problems. 

II-10

manufacturing37 have been somewhat offset by increased demand in areas such as energy,38 and by

reduced imports of downstream products. Purchasers believe that U.S. producers cannot produce enough

wire rod to satisfy purchasers even with the relatively low demand.39

Declining U.S. demand since 2002 was reported by eight of the nine responding U.S. producers,

10 of 16 responding importers, and 23 of the 35 responding purchasers. One U.S. producer reported that

demand had fluctuated since 2002, while two importers reported that demand had increased, two reported

that it remained unchanged, and two reported that it fluctuated since 2002. Seven purchasers reported

that demand had increased since 2002, three reported demand was unchanged, and two reported that

demand had fluctuated. The most common reason that firms reported for declining demand was increased

imports of finished downstream products into the United States. Other reasons reported include: declines

in the auto, housing, and/or related markets; overall declines in manufacturing; closure of steel mills or

increasing prices of wire rod which cause downstream users to go overseas; high cost of rod and

unavailability of some grades make U.S. wire rod consumers uncompetitive; and wire rod purchasers’

downstream customers have moved overseas. Reasons purchasers offered for increasing demand

included: the lower value of the dollar had reduced imports; increased cost of ocean freight had reduced

imports; and economic growth.40 Fluctuations were reported to be caused by prices, decreased general

demand for white goods, decreased international competition, and increased international competition.

Five of six producers, 16 of 18 importers, and 28 of 40 purchasers reported that demand outside

the United States had increased since 2002. One producer, two importers, and one purchaser reported

demand outside the United States was unchanged41 and one purchaser reported that demand outside the

United States had declined. The most common reason reported for increased demand was economic

growth, particularly growth in China, India, and the Middle East. Economic growth was also reported in

Asia generally, the Caribbean, Central America, Central Europe, Russia/the CIS, and “developing

countries.” In addition, a number of firms reported that the movement of production out of the United

States had increased demand for wire rod in the rest of the world.

Purchasers were also asked if demand for their product had increased, decreased, or remained

unchanged and how this had affected their demand for wire rod. Twenty of the 39 responding purchasers

reported that demand for their product had declined, 14 reported demand had increased, 4 reported

demand was unchanged, and 1 reported demand had increased through the first half of 2006 but declined

since then. All 20 purchasers reporting decreased demand for their end products also stated that this had

reduced their demand for wire rod. Eleven of the 14 purchasers reporting that demand for their product

had increased also reported that this had increased their demand for wire rod, 2 reported that it had not,

and 1 did not respond to the question. One of the four purchasers reporting that demand for their product

was unchanged stated that its demand for wire rod was softening, while the other three did not elaborate.

Foreign producers were asked if demand had increased, decreased, or stayed the same in their

home market, the U.S. market, and in other markets. Nine of the 11 responding foreign producers

reported that demand in their home market had increased, 1 reported that demand in *** was unchanged,

and 1 reported that demand in *** had declined for the same reasons that *** demand had declined. 

Seven of the eight responding foreign producers reported that U.S. demand was declining, the other
II-11

reported that, in 2007, imports had fallen more rapidly than demand, creating supply problems for

consumers. All nine responding foreign producers reported that demand in markets outside of their home

market and the United States had grown.

Most producers (6 of 9), importers (10 of 17), purchasers (26 of 35), and foreign producers (9 of

11) anticipate future changes in demand in the United States and/or in other markets. Many firms

expected that U.S. demand would continue to decline as imports of downstream products continue to

increase, as the United States continues to lose its manufacturing base, and as the U.S. economy declines. 

Some firms, however, expected strong demand for U.S.-produced wire rod because high demand in the

rest of the world had caused imports to fall; demand for other steel products was crowding out wire rod

production; and the falling value of the dollar reduced imports. Most firms anticipated that demand will

increase in the rest of the world with economic growth and development projects leading to anticipated

future growth in China, India, South America (including specifically Brazil), Mexico, CIS (including

specifically Russia), Eastern Europe, and developing countries in general.

Based on available information, the overall demand for wire rod is likely to change moderately in

response to changes in price. The main factors increasing price sensitivity are the high cost of wire rod in

downstream products combined with the ease of importing downstream products to replace U.S. wire rod

consumption. Price sensitivity is reduced, however, by the very limited range of substitute products.

Substitute Products

No U.S. producer, only 1 importer, 12 purchasers, and 1 foreign producer reported substitutes for

wire rod. The substitutes included plastic, composite, powdered metals, hot rolled bars, sheet metal,

synthetic rope, downstream products, finished wire, melamine, flat steel strip, cold drawn bars, rebar,

rounds, chain, veneers, tube steel, high strength alloys, wood, and hydraulic equipment. These could be

used in numerous products from shopping carts and shelving, to gears, fasteners, weld wire, building

joists, hoists, and elevators. Four purchasers and one importer reported that the price of substitutes could

affect the price of wire rod. Most of these, however, noted that the price of wire rod and that of

substitutes such as wire or other steel products typically moved together. Only one firm reported that

higher steel prices made other types of products, such as plastic, relatively inexpensive.

Cost Share

The cost of wire rod tends to be a large share of the cost of products produced from it, although

cost shares vary widely due to the wide range of products that use wire rod. Thirty-one purchasers

reported the cost of wire rod in final products which ranged from less than 1 percent to 88 percent. Wire

rod accounted for a substantial portion of the cost of 41 of the 61 final products reported by purchasers. 

Seven producers reported cost share information; they reported that wire rod accounts for between 35 and

80 percent of the total cost of downstream products listed, with wire rod making up most of the cost of

end products in 13 of the 17 products. Five importers provided cost share information; they reported that

wire rod’s share of the cost of downstream products ranged from 30 percent to 80 percent, with wire rod

making up most the cost of end products in 9 of the 11 products.

SUBSTITUTABILITY ISSUES

Based on available information, staff believes that, where there are identical forms of wire rod,

there is usually a high degree of substitution between domestic wire rod and subject imports. In

commodity grades, product typically will be highly substitutable with other product of the same

specification even when the products may not be identical, although there may be a need for retooling of

the process to adjust to small differences. For specialty grades, however, not all sources can produce each
 42 Lincoln Electric reported that Rocky Mountain Steel can produce less than 25 percent of the EW-2512 grade

that Lincoln requires and that Lincoln shifted its purchases from Georgetown to Arcellor Mittal Canada because of

quality problems at the Georgetown facility. Hearing transcript, pp. 181-183 (DeShane).

 43 Hearing transcript, pp. 238-239 (Lynch).

 44 Seven purchasers reported that 5 percent or less of their purchases were covered by “Buy American”

provisions, four reported 5 to 10 percent, and six reported 15 to 44 percent.

 45 Two purchasers each reported 5 percent or less, 10 percent, and 15 to 35 percent.

 46 Four reported 5 percent or less, one reported for half, and four reported 90 to 100 percent. Some purchasers

reported more than one type of preference for U.S.-produced material. 

II-12

product, and even differences between product with the same specifications from different sources may

limit the degree of substitution.

The degree of substitution between domestic and imported wire rod depends upon such factors as

relative prices, quality, conditions of sale, availability of wire rod grades, and “Buy American” programs. 

Wire rod is produced to many different specifications for particular uses. Most of these specifications are

industry standards, some are proprietary. A number of purchasers expressed concern about the

availability of specialty grades of wire rod in the United States. Lincoln Electric reported that more than

half its specifications are not produced in the United States and for some of its other specifications, U.S.

capacity is not large enough to supply its total needs.42 In addition, the auto industry requires approval of

any new source of wire rod. New sources must go through a trial period of at least 3 months, slowing

substitution and increasing the cost of substitutes.43

Purchasers were asked if buying product made in the United States was an important factor in

their purchases of wire rod. Fourteen purchasers reported it was not, 19 reported that law or regulation

required “Buy American” for 1-44 percent of their wire rod purchases,44 6 reported preference for U.S.

material because of their customers for as much as 35 percent of their wire rod purchases,45 and 10

reported other reasons for preferring U.S.-produced material.46 A few of these firms reported reasons for

preferring U.S.-produced material, including inventory management/just in time delivery, Buy American

provisions, availability, and a general preference for U.S.-produced material by the firm.

Factors Affecting Purchasing Decisions

Knowledge of Country Sources

Purchasers were asked to identify the sources of wire rod of which they have actual marketing or

pricing knowledge. Thirty-six purchasers identified U.S.-produced product. The number of purchasers

identifying product from subject countries were Canada (22), Trinidad and Tobago (12), Mexico (8),

Brazil (6), Indonesia (4), Moldova (3), and Ukraine (3). Other sources of imports identified by

purchasers were: China (21), Turkey (9), Japan (7), Germany (5), Korea (3), South Africa (3), Egypt (2),

Italy (2), Spain (2), UK (2), “Europe” (2), and Argentina, Belgium, the Czech Republic, and France (1

each).

Major Factors in Purchasing

Purchasers were asked to identify the three major factors considered by their firm in deciding

from whom to purchase wire rod (table II-3). Price was reported by the largest number of purchasers as

the first, second, and third most important factors (15, 11, and 12 firms respectively). Eleven firms

reported meeting or exceeding standards or specifications was the most important factor and 10 reported

quality as the most important factor. Quality was reported as the second most important factor reported

by nine purchasers. Availability and reliability of supply were reported as the third most important factor 
II-13

by nine purchasers each. Other factors listed among the top three factors by two or more purchasers were

productivity in application, long term supplier, product range, service, credit, and product consistency.

Table II-3

Wire rod: Most important factors in selecting a supplier, as reported by purchasers

Factor1 First2 Second3 Third4

Price 15 11 12

Meet or exceed specifications/meet standards 11 1 0

Quality 10 9 8

Availability 5 8 9

Productivity/works in application/fit for use 4 1 0

Reliability of supply/delivery/delivery lead time 1 6 9

Long term/traditional supplier/prearranged contract 1 3 1

Product range 0 1 2

Service 0 1 1

Other5 0 0 2

 1 Ten firms reported additional factors such as: consistency, terms and conditions, reliability, stability of business

relationship, request by customer, vendor reputation, technical support, handling damage at ports, supplier metrics

measured monthly, minimum order size, and shipping costs.

 2 Two firms reported two factors as the first factor, one reporting price and availability and the other price and

productivity. All these factors were recorded.

 3 One firm reported delivery and service as the second most important factor. Both factors were recorded.

 4 Three firms reported two factors as the third most important factors. One of these reported price and delivery

and two reported availability and delivery. All these factors are recorded.

 5 “Other” includes credit and product consistency as the third most important factors.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Factors Determining Quality

Purchasers were asked to identify the factors that determine the quality of wire rod. Purchasers

reported numerous specific factors including: grade; meeting specifications; surface quality and

condition; factors related to formability, drawability, workability, ductility, predictable mechanical

properties, delivery hardness, and consistent tensile; factors related to chemistry, consistent carbon,

decarbonization, and steel purity; factors related to metal evenness, micro structure, lack of inclusion, lack

of segregation, and lack of seams; factors related to packaging, including tagging and coil weight/size;

and factors related to the shape, consistent dimensions, size tolerance, and roundness. More generally

purchasers sought minimal problems when manufacturing, minimal breakage, ability to use product when

operating equipment at standard production speeds, longer die life in production, test performance, wire

draws and welds as expected, and fitness for specific end use.
 47 In addition, one firm reported the time required for qualification but not the process, and one reported that each

grade required qualification.

 48 Two firms reported qualification times of 3 months or less for domestic firms but also reported that

qualification times would be longer for imports. 

 49 One of these reported that a number of suppliers were disqualified based on quality or were no longer approved

based on price. This firm did not identify either source countries or names of the mills. None of the other

purchasers who reported that firms were disqualified reported that this was because of price, although some

purchasers did not report exactly why producers were disqualified.

II-14

Certification/Qualification Issues

Qualification

Purchasers were asked if they require prequalification of their suppliers. Thirty-three of 40

responding purchasers reported that they required prequalification for all of their purchases, and 3

purchasers reported requiring prequalification for 95, 40, and 15 percent of purchases. Many factors were

considered in qualification of a supplier. Twenty firms reported that their qualification required testing of

the material in production with many of these also having other requirements. Nine firms did not report

testing the material in production but reported requiring either that the material match their specifications

or have a standard certification. Some of these firms reported additional requirements. Finally, one firm

reported qualification based on surface quality, hardness (tensile range), size, and packaging.47 Time

required for qualification was reported by 22 purchasers ranging from 10 days to 1 year, with 14

purchasers reporting qualification times of 3 months or less.48

Certification and de-certification

Purchasers were asked if, since 2002, any domestic or foreign producer failed in its attempts to

certify or qualify its wire rod with their firm or if any producer had lost its approved status. Nineteen of

38 responding purchasers reported that at least one supplier had failed qualification or had been

disqualified.49 Four purchasers reported product from subject countries had been disqualified: Mittal of

Trinidad and Tobago, for quality, failure to qualify for strand application, and surface problems caused by

poor packaging; and Hylsa and Sicartsa of Mexico for quality. Eleven purchasers reported that U.S.

producers that failed to be qualified or were disqualified included: Insteel for quality; Georgetown failed

tests, could not produce finished product, *** failed to qualify, failed to meet chemistry for ***, and ***;

Gerdau for quality in general, quality problems with its ***, could not meet chemistry specifications for

***, and lost approval; Mittal for chemistry; and Rocky Mountain for poor test results. One purchaser

complained that because relatively little wire rod was available in the United States, U.S. producers have

sold material that is out of specification to keep up with demand and the overall quality standards of the

U.S. producers have deteriorated since 2002. Nonsubject producers also failed to qualify, including

Chinese suppliers Xiangtan, Wuqung, Manshan, and Chougang, which were disqualified for quality, for

rolling defects, failing the bend test, surface quality, and not withstanding the manufacturing process; and

producers in Egypt, Germany, Italy, South Africa, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom were

disqualified because of quality, rolling defects, micro-structure, uniformity, and steel making defects.
 50 Thirteen firms reported that technical support was not important in determining a supplier, and one reported

that it technical services was only important when failure is experienced.

 51 This included four that reported increased purchases from Canada. Some of the purchasers that eliminated

purchases from certain subject countries also reported reducing purchases because of the orders from other subject

countries and/or changed purchases from other subject countries for reasons not related to the orders.

II-15

Technical services

Thirty-three of the 40 responding purchasers reported that they received technical support from

their wire rod suppliers. Twenty-five of the 40 responding purchasers reported that technical support was

an important factor in deciding their supplier.50 The technical service provided included: addressing

problems time to time as needed; monitoring process if problems arise; providing material test

certificates; testing for mechanical properties; testing for chemical properties; giving opinions; assisting in

quality and application issues; assistance in product formulation, tool life, draw efficiency, wire coating

technologies, and manufacture efficiency improvements for the purchaser; address quality concerns; new

product development; develop new grades; failure analysis; develop processes that reduce production

costs for the purchasers; adjusting producer chemistry and practices to provide physical characteristics for

the purchasers; and logistics support. Typically firms reported requiring more technical support for

higher quality products. One firm that reported not needing technical services also reported that it

purchased at the low end of the market. Another reported that, for it, technical services’ prime function

was to deny all its claims.

Importance of 15 Specified Purchase Factors

Purchasers were asked to rate the importance of 15 factors in their purchasing decisions (table II4). The factors listed as very important by the majority of firms were price (38 firms), availability (37

firms), reliability of supply (36 firms), product consistency (36 firms), quality meets industry standards

(34 firms), delivery time (30 firms), and U.S. transportation costs (28 firms). No other factor was rated as

very important by most of the responding firms.

Changes in Purchasing Patterns

Purchasers were asked a number of questions about whether their purchasing patterns for wire rod

from subject and nonsubject sources had changed since 2002. Twenty-eight of 38 responding purchasers

reported that they had purchased wire rod from subject countries before 2002. Three did not change their

purchase patterns as a result of the orders. Sixteen purchasers reported discontinuing purchases for one or

more subject countries because of the orders, including one purchaser that reported it stopped producing

basic and galvanized metal. Five purchasers reported reducing their purchases from one or more subject

countries because of the orders. Thirteen changed their purchases from one or more subject countries for

reasons other than the orders.51 Purchasers also were asked if their purchases from nonsubject countries

had changed: 11 reported no change, 3 of these did not purchase nonsubject product; 12 purchasers

reported that their purchases of nonsubject product had increased because of the order; and 16 reported

purchases of nonsubject product had changed for reasons other than the orders.

More generally, purchasers were asked to report any changes in the countries from which they

purchased wire rod since 2002. Eighteen reported changes in their purchases of U.S. product, with eight

reporting increases, eight decreases, and two fluctuations. Of the purchasers reporting increased

purchases of U.S. product, one reported that this was because product was not available from subject

countries, three reported this was because imports were not available, one reported this was because of the

poor quality of nonsubject imports, one increased its purchases after 2004 as more U.S. product became
 52 Other reasons were *** and ***.

II-16

Table II-4

Wire rod: Importance of purchase factors, as reported by purchasers

Factor

Very important Somewhat important Not important

Number of firms responding

Availability 37 4 0

Delivery terms 16 24 0

Delivery time 30 11 0

Discounts offered 8 24 8

Extension of credit 13 23 4

Minimum quantity requirement 7 23 10

Packaging 16 22 2

Price 38 3 0

Product consistency 36 4 0

Product range 8 27 5

Quality exceeds industry standards 14 16 10

Quality meets industry standards 34 5 1

Reliability of supply 36 4 0

Technical support/service 17 17 6

U.S. transportation costs 28 12 0

Note.-- Not all firms responded for all questions. Six firms listed seven other factors as very important including:

“sales support/service;” “regular supplier (versus spot);” “approved supplier;” “ethical, environmental issues;”

“commitment to rod production;” “prearranged contracts;” and “handling damage at ports.” *** rated delivery time

as both very important and somewhat important; *** rated price as both very important and somewhat important;

both responses are included in the table.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

available, and two reported other reasons.52 Of the eight reporting declining purchases of U.S. product,

four reported supply problems, two reported price, one reported quality problems, and one reported

increased purchases of Chinese product. Of the two reporting fluctuations, one reported its purchases

decreased because a mill closed, then increased because the mill reopened, then decreased because of

price; the other reported decreasing its purchases of domestic product because it had *** and it increased

its purchases because in 2007 there were no competitively priced imports. 

Duties were reported to be the reason that firms reduced purchases from Brazil by all five

responding purchasers, from Ukraine by all three responding purchasers, and from Moldova by both

responding purchasers. In contrast, of the 14 purchasers responding for Canada, eight reported decreased

purchases from Canada, and six increased purchases from Canada. Reasons reported for decreased

purchases from Canada included: duties (reported by 1); price/ declining value of the dollar (reported by 
 53 Other reasons were *** and ***.

 54 Sometimes includes one purchaser that reported “rarely.” 

 55 Sometimes includes two purchasers that reported both sometimes and never.

 56 Some purchasers compared U.S. product with that from more than one nonsubject country; each of these

comparisons was counted separately if responses differed between for each nonsubject country, otherwise the

response is included only once.

II-17

4); lack of availability (reported by 1), and dropping a product line that used the Canadian product

(reported by 1). Reasons reported for increases in purchases from Canada included: superior quality of

Canadian product (reported by 2), lack of other supply (reported by 2), and other reasons (reported by

2).53 Six of the eight responding purchasers for Trinidad and Tobago reported that their purchases had

declined; reasons included: duties (reported by 2), price (reported by 1), supply was no longer available

(reported by 2), and quality problems unrelated to the duties (reported by 1). Both purchasers reporting

increased purchases from Trinidad and Tobago reported that this was because of price. Four of the five

firms responding for Mexico reported that they had decreased their purchases from Mexico, for reasons

including: duties (reported by 1), price (reported by 1), lack of availability (reported by 1), and lack of

orders for their product (reported by 1). The purchaser increasing sourcing from Mexico reported that

this was because it had developed new sources. One purchaser reported decreases in imports from

Indonesia, replacing it with product from China because Chinese product from modern mills became

available and, with more frequent shipping from China, the company no longer had to charter vessels.

Purchases from Specific Producers and Countries

Purchasers were asked how frequently they and their customers purchase wire rod based on the

producer and country of origin. The following tabulation summarizes the responses.

Purchaser/customer decision Always Usually Sometimes Never

Purchaser makes decision based on producer 12 9 9 10

Purchaser’s customer makes decision based on producer 0 4 19(54) 3

Purchaser makes decision based on country of origin 4 1 16 19

Purchaser’s customer makes decision based on country of origin 0 1 23(55) 11

Most purchasers (21 of 40) reported that they always or usually make purchases based on the producer of

the wire rod. The purchasers that reported that they always make decisions based on the producer cited

the following reasons: quality; consistent quality; price; service; supply risk; delivery; availability; each

mill must be approved; fitness for our customers’ specific applications; quality production method and

attention to detail; importance of quality for steel cord to be drawn at high speeds for small diameter

strand. Most purchasers (19 of 26) reported that their customers sometimes make decisions based on the

producer. Country of origin was much less important for both purchasers and their customers, with 35 of

40 responding purchasers reporting that country was only sometimes or never important for their

purchases and 34 of the 35 responding purchasers reporting that it was sometimes or never important for

their customers.

Purchasers were also asked to compare domestically produced wire rod and that produced in

subject and nonsubject countries, with respect to 15 different attributes (table II-5). Nineteen purchasers

provided comparisons between U.S. product and nonsubject product.56
II-18

Table II-5

Wire rod: Comparisons of imported and U.S. product, as reported by purchasers1

Factor

U.S. vs 

Brazil

U.S. vs 

Canada

U.S. vs 

Indonesia

U.S. vs 

Mexico

U.S. vs 

Moldova

U.S. vs

Trinidad

and

Tobago

U.S. vs

Ukraine

U.S. vs

other

S C I S C I S C I S C I S C I S C I S C I S C I

Availability 5 2 0 1 15 2 1 0 0 6 2 0 2 0 0 5 5 1 1 0 0 19 13 3

Delivery terms 4 3 0 1 16 1 0 1 0 3 5 0 1 1 0 2 8 1 0 1 0 13 22 1

Delivery time 5 2 0 1 15 2 1 0 0 4 4 0 2 0 0 7 3 1 1 0 0 27 7 2

Discounts offered 2 5 0 2 16 0 0 1 0 1 6 0 0 2 0 0 9 1 0 1 0 4 31 0

Extension of credit 1 6 0 3 15 0 0 1 0 0 8 0 0 2 0 0 11 0 0 1 0 2 31 3

Lower price2 0 6 1 4 14 0 1 0 0 1 7 0 0 1 1 1 8 2 0 0 1 8 16 12

Minimum quantity

requirements 1 6 0 3 14 1 1 0 0 3 4 1 0 2 0 3 7 1 1 0 0 17 17 2

Packaging 1 4 2 1 15 2 1 0 0 2 5 1 0 2 0 2 8 1 1 0 0 10 24 2

Product consistency 0 4 3 2 14 2 1 0 0 4 2 2 0 2 0 3 8 0 0 1 0 9 17 10

Product range 0 4 3 1 13 4 1 0 0 3 4 1 0 2 0 2 8 1 1 0 0 11 21 4

Quality exceeds

industry standards 0 4 3 2 14 2 1 0 0 3 3 2 1 1 0 3 6 2 1 0 0 12 16 8

Quality meets

industry standards 0 5 2 1 15 2 1 0 0 2 5 1 1 1 0 1 8 1 0 1 0 4 29 3

Reliability of supply 2 4 1 1 14 3 1 0 0 3 4 1 2 0 0 6 5 0 1 0 0 18 16 2

Technical

support/service 1 4 2 4 10 4 1 0 0 3 4 1 0 2 0 6 5 0 1 0 0 17 16 3

U.S. transportation

costs 1 6 0 2 15 1 1 0 0 5 2 1 1 1 0 3 7 1 1 0 0 16 14 4

Table continued on following page.
II-19

Table II-5--Continued

Wire rod: Comparisons of imported and U.S. product, as reported by purchasers1

Factor

 Brazil vs 

Canada

Brazil vs 

Mexico

Brazil vs

Trinidad

and

Tobago

 Brazil

vs 

other

Canada

vs

Mexico

Canada

vs

Trinidad

and

Tobago

Canada vs

other

S C I S C I S C I S C I S C I S C I S C I

Availability 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 10 2 0

Delivery terms 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 4 8 0

Delivery time 0 1 2 1 2 0 0 1 0 1 3 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 10 2 0

Discounts offered 0 2 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 1 11 0

Extension of credit 0 2 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 1 9 2

Lower price2 0 3 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 2 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 2 2 5 5

Minimum quantity

requirements 0 2 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 10 2 0

Packaging 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 3 1 0 1 2 0 2 0 0 4 7 1

Product consistency 0 3 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 2 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 0 4 5 3

Product range 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 3 0 2 1 0 2 0 0 8 4 0

Quality exceeds industry

standards 0 3 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 1 3 0 2 1 0 2 0 0 4 5 3

Quality meets industry

standards 0 3 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 2 10 0

Reliability of supply 0 2 1 1 2 0 1 0 0 2 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 0 8 4 0

Technical support/service 0 2 1 1 2 0 1 0 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 8 3 1

U.S. transportation costs 0 2 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 6 6 0

Table continued on following page.
II-20

Table II-5--Continued

Wire rod: Comparisons of imported and U.S. product, as reported by purchasers1

Factor

Mexico vs

Trinidad and

Tobago

 Mexico vs 

other

Moldova vs

Trinidad and

Tobago

 Trinidad and

Tobago vs 

other

S C I S C I S C I S C I

Availability 1 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 1 4 1 0

Delivery terms 0 2 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 3 2 0

Delivery time 1 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 1 3 2 0

Discounts offered 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 4 0

Extension of credit 0 2 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 5 0

Lower price2 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 1 0 1 4 0

Minimum quantity requirements 0 2 0 1 3 0 0 1 0 2 3 0

Packaging 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 1 3 1

Product consistency 1 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 1 1 3 1

Product range 0 2 0 0 3 1 0 1 0 1 3 1

Quality exceeds industry standards 1 1 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 3 1

Quality meets industry standards 0 2 0 1 21010131

Reliability of supply 1 1 0 3 01001041

Technical support/service 0 2 0 1 21010311

U.S. transportation costs 0 2 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 5 0

 1 Some firms reported answers for multiple nonsubject countries. When these answers differed among the different

nonsubject countries, all answers have been reported. 

 2

 A rating of superior means that the price is generally lower. For example, if a firm reported “U.S. superior,” it meant that the

price of the U.S. product was generally lower than the price of the imported product.

Note.--S=first listed country’s product is superior; C=both countries’ products are comparable; I=first listed country’s product is

inferior. Not all companies gave responses for all factors. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

The majority of firms comparing products from the United States and Canada reported that the products

were comparable for all factors. The majority of firms reported products from the United States and

Trinidad and Tobago were comparable in all factors except availability, delivery time, reliability of

supply, and technical support. With respect to these factors at least a plurality of firms reported that the

U.S. product was superior. Half or more of the firms comparing products from the United States with

product from Mexico reported that they were comparable for all factors except availability, product

consistency, quality exceeds industry standard, and U.S. transportation costs. With respect to these

factors, at least a plurality of firms reported that the U.S. product was superior. The majority of firms

comparing U.S. product with that from Brazil reported that the products were comparable for all factors

except availability, delivery terms, and delivery time, for which most firms reported that the U.S. product

was superior. Both responding firms reported U.S. and Moldovan product were comparable in 7 factors;

both agreed that the U.S. product was superior with regard to availability, reliability of supply and

delivery time. Answers were split between superior and comparable for delivery terms, quality exceeds

industry standard, quality meets industry standards, and U.S. transportation cost. For price, the answers

were split between the U.S. product being inferior and it being comparable to that from Moldova.
II-21

Three purchasers each compared product from Brazil with that from Canada and Mexico and

product from Canada with product from Mexico; two each compared product from Trinidad and Tobago

to that from Canada and Mexico; and one each compared product from Trinidad and Tobago with product

from Brazil and product from Moldova. Comparing product from Brazil to that from Canada, the

majority of purchasers reported product was comparable for all factors except delivery time, for which

most firms reported Canada was superior. Comparing product from Brazil to that from Mexico, the

majority of firms reported that product were comparable for all factors except packaging and product

range (Brazil was superior). Comparing product from Canada to that from Mexico, the majority of

responding purchasers reported that they were comparable for all factors except product consistency,

product range, and quality exceeds industry standards, for which the majority reported Canada was

superior. Comparing product from Canada to that from Trinidad and Tobago, the majority of responding

purchasers reported that Canadian product was superior on six factors, was comparable in delivery terms,

discount offered, and extension of credit, and that product from Trinidad and Tobago was superior on

lowest price, while responses were mixed on availability, minimum quantity requirements, quality meets

industry standards, technical support/services, and U.S. transportation cost. Comparing product from

Mexico to that from Trinidad and Tobago, the majority of responding purchasers reported that product

was comparable for nine factors, and responses were mixed on availability, delivery time, lowest price,

product consistency, quality exceeds industry standards, and reliability of supply. 

Purchasers were asked how frequently product from various countries meet the firm or its

customers’ minimum quality specifications. Countries identified by over three purchasers appear below.

Country Always Usually Sometimes Rarely or never

United States 16 17 2 1

Brazil 8 6 1 1

Canada 11 15 0 1

Indonesia 2 5 2 1

Mexico 5 6 6 0

Moldova 2 5 2 1

Trinidad and Tobago 6 8 2 0

Ukraine 2 3 4 1

China 2 18 3 0

Turkey 1 5 3 0

Japan 7 0 0 0

Comparisons of Domestic Products and Subject Imports

Producers, importers, and purchasers were requested to provide information regarding the

interchangeability of domestic, subject, and nonsubject wire rod and discuss reasons for any opinions that

the products were not interchangeable (table II-6). The majority of responding producers reported that

product from each of the country pairs was always interchangeable. Importers’ responses were more

varied; typically, the most common response was either always interchangeable or sometimes

interchangeable. Purchasers’ most common response was always interchangeable for all country pairs

except for Canada/Mexico and Brazil/Mexico for which a majority of the purchasers responded

“sometimes” or “never” interchangeable.
II-22

Table II-6

Wire rod: Perceived interchangeability between wire rod produced in the United States and in

other countries, by country pairs

Country pair

 Number of U.S. 

 producers 

 reporting

Number of U.S.

importers

reporting

Number of U.S.

purchasers

reporting

AFS N AFS N AFSN

U.S. vs. Brazil 5 2 0 0 6 3 6 3 10 3 3 2

U.S. vs. Canada 10 0 0 0 8 1 4 2 18 6 2 1

U.S. vs. Indonesia 7 0 0 0 41 6 0 75 00

U.S. vs. Mexico 9 1 0 0 4 3 5 0 9 2 6 1

U.S. vs. Moldova 7 0 0 0 2 3 4 0 8 3 0 0

U.S. vs. Trinidad and Tobago 8 1 0 0 43 5 0 96 30

U.S. vs. Ukraine 7 0 0 0 2 1 5 0 7 1 2 0

U.S. vs. other 7 1 0 0 3 0 6 1 13 4 7 0

Brazil vs. Canada 7 2 0 0 53 4 1 71 22

Brazil vs. Indonesia 6 1 0 0 30 4 1 50 02

Brazil vs. Mexico 7 2 0 0 5 3 4 1 5 0 4 2

Brazil vs. Moldova 6 1 0 0 2 2 3 1 5 0 0 2

Brazil vs. Trinidad and Tobago 7 2 0 0 51 4 1 51 22

Brazil vs. Ukraine 6 1 0 0 2 1 4 1 5 0 0 2

Brazil vs. other 6 2 0 0 4 0 4 0 7 0 4 1

Canada vs. Indonesia 7 0 0 0 30 4 2 60 11

Canada vs. Mexico 8 1 0 0 43 4 2 50 52

Canada vs. Moldova 7 0 0 0 22 3 2 60 01

Canada vs. Trinidad and Tobago 8 1 0 0 41 4 2 61 21

Canada vs. Ukraine 7 0 0 0 21 4 2 50 11

Canada vs. other 7 1 0 0 30 4 1 90 21

Indonesia vs. Mexico 7 0 0 0 32 4 0 60 00

Indonesia vs. Moldova 7 0 0 0 21 4 0 60 00

Indonesia vs. Trinidad and Tobago 7 0 0 0 30 4 0 60 00

Indonesia vs. Ukraine 7 0 0 0 22 3 0 50 10

Indonesia vs. other 6 0 0 0 30 2 0 60 00

Mexico vs. Moldova 7 0 0 0 2 3 4 0 6 0 0 0

Mexico vs. Trinidad and Tobago 8 1 0 0 32 5 0 70 20

Mexico vs. Ukraine 7 0 0 0 2 2 5 0 5 0 1 0

Mexico vs. other 7 1 0 0 3 1 4 0 6 1 2 1

Moldova vs. Trinidad and Tobago 7 0 0 0 22 3 0 60 00

Moldova vs. Ukraine 7 0 0 0 2 2 3 0 6 0 0 0

Moldova vs. other 6 0 0 0 2 1 2 0 6 0 0 0

Trinidad and Tobago vs. Ukraine 7 0 0 0 22 4 0 51 10

Trinidad and Tobago vs. other 7 1 0 0 30 3 0 62 20

Ukraine vs. other 6 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 5 0 2 0

A = Always, F = Frequently, S = Sometimes, N = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 57 This refers to steel with a carbon content of 0.8 percent or higher. 

 58 Similarly, the majority of foreign producers reported no differences in the product range, product mix or

marketing of wire rod in their home market and the United States.

II-23

Reasons reported for why product was not always interchangeable included: wire rod from one

of the pair may not perform as well when wire drawing at high speed; low grades are more

interchangeable than high grade wire rod; Indonesia, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine do not

produce CHQ grade; wire rod deteriorated when it is shipped over distances; certain grades or types

(including 1080, welding, and tire bead) are not available from U.S. producers; most U.S. mills do not

provide the technical support provided by ***; “Buy American” requirements; products from Moldova

and Ukraine are marginal quality; Mexican material is for threaded rod and special but not for cold

drawing applications; and U.S.-produced wire rod is typically made from scrap, which produces a lower

quality of wire rod than that from Brazil, Mexico, China, or Germany.

Producers and importers were requested to provide information regarding the significance of

differences other than price for domestic, subject, and nonsubject wire rod (table II-7). Most U.S.

producers reported that there were never differences other than price for all country pairs except U.S. and

Brazil, where an equal number reported never and sometimes differences other than price. Importers

were more likely to report differences between domestic and imported wire rod, with the majority of

importers in each case reporting either never or sometimes. Differences included: domestic content

requirement, Mexican, and Canadian product could be delivered without ocean freight reducing lead time

and exposure to rust; differences in quality; differences in grades; Indonesia, Moldova, Trinidad and

Tobago, and Ukraine do not producer CHQ; quality of Brazil exceeds that of domestic, especially for

“80C” and higher;57 Canadian material, especially from Ivaco, is superior quality to most U.S. products in

terms of inclusions and chemical segregations; and nonsubject product from Japan and Korea have quality

advantages over product from the United States, Brazil, and Canada. 

Foreign producers were asked if the wire rod that they sold in their home market was

interchangeable with that sold in the United States. Eight of ten responding foreign producers reported

that the products were interchangeable;58 of these however, one reported that ***. Both of the other

foreign producers reported some overlap. One firm sells low and medium-low carbon wire rod both in

*** and in other markets, but only exports high and medium-high carbon wire rod. The other firm

reported that it sold a wider range of products in *** but its exports to the United States were typically

high end products. 
II-24

Table II-7

Wire rod: Perceived importance of differences in factors other than price between wire rod

produced in the United States and in other countries in purchases of wire rod in the U.S. market,

by country pairs

Country pair

 Number of U.S. producers

 reporting

Number of U.S. importers

reporting

AFSN A F S N

U.S. vs. Brazil 0 1 3 3 3 1 4 6

U.S. vs. Canada 0125 1 05 6

U.S. vs. Indonesia 0115 0 23 4

U.S. vs. Mexico 0 1 2 5 2 0 6 2

U.S. vs. Moldova 0 1 1 5 0 1 4 3

U.S. vs. Trinidad and Tobago 0125 1 15 3

U.S. vs. Ukraine 0 1 1 5 0 2 3 3

U.S. vs. other 0 0 2 5 0 0 5 3

Brazil vs. Canada 0125 1 05 4

Brazil vs. Indonesia 0115 0 22 3

Brazil vs. Mexico 0 1 2 5 2 0 5 3

Brazil vs. Moldova 0 1 1 5 0 1 3 3

Brazil vs. Trinidad and Tobago 0125 1 13 4

Brazil vs. Ukraine 0 1 1 5 0 2 2 4

Brazil vs. other 0 0 2 5 0 0 3 4

Canada vs. Indonesia 0115 1 22 3

Canada vs. Mexico 0125 3 05 2

Canada vs. Moldova 0115 1 13 3

Canada vs. Trinidad and Tobago 0125 2 13 3

Canada vs. Ukraine 0115 1 22 3

Canada vs. other 0025 1 03 3

Indonesia vs. Mexico 0115 1 14 2

Indonesia vs. Moldova 0115 0 22 3

Indonesia vs. Trinidad and Tobago 0115 0 22 3

Indonesia vs. Ukraine 0115 0 13 3

Indonesia vs. other 0015 0 02 3

Mexico vs. Moldova 0 1 1 5 1 1 4 2

Mexico vs. Trinidad and Tobago 0125 1 14 2

Mexico vs. Ukraine 0 1 1 5 1 2 3 2

Mexico vs. other 0 0 2 5 1 0 3 2

Moldova vs. Trinidad and Tobago 0115 0 13 3

Moldova vs. Ukraine 0 1 1 5 0 1 3 3

Moldova vs. other 0 0 1 5 0 0 2 3

Trinidad and Tobago vs. Ukraine 0115 0 21 3

Trinidad and Tobago vs. other 0025 0 02 3

Ukraine vs. other 0 0 2 4 0 0 2 3

A = Always, F = Frequently, S = Sometimes, N = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 59 A supply function is not defined in the case of a non-competitive market.

II-25

ELASTICITY ESTIMATES

This section discusses elasticity estimates. Parties were requested to provide comments in their

briefs, but did not address elasticities. 

U.S. Supply Elasticity59

The domestic supply elasticity for wire rod measures the sensitivity of the quantity supplied by

U.S. producers to changes in the U.S. market price of wire rod. The elasticity of domestic supply depends

on factors such as the level of excess capacity, the level of inventories, and the availability of alternate

markets for domestically produced wire rod. Analysis of these factors indicates that the U.S. industry has

some excess capacity, but relatively little inventories, and relatively small export shipments which could

be used to increase or decrease domestic shipments in response to price increases. A supply elasticity in

the range of 1 to 3 is suggested.

U.S. Demand Elasticity

The U.S. demand elasticity for wire rod measures the sensitivity of the overall quantity demanded

to a change in the U.S. market price of wire rod. This sensitivity depends on the availability and viability

of substitute products as well as on the component share of wire rod in the production of downstream

products. While there are few products that can be successfully substituted for wire rod, demand is more

sensitive to price because of imports of downstream products. Demand is estimated to be moderately

elastic and is likely to be in the -0.5 to -0.7 range.

Substitution Elasticity

The elasticity of substitution depends on the extent of product differentiation between the

domestic and imported products. Product differentiation depends on factors such as the range of products

produced, quality, availability, and reliability of supply. The elasticity of substitution for imports from

subject countries is estimated to be in the range of 3 to 5, with substitutability being at the lower end of

this range for Canada and at the higher end of this range for Moldova and Ukraine.

 1 Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, Canada, Germany, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova,

Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, and Ukraine, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-417-421 and 731-TA-953, 954, 956-959, 961, and 962

(Final), USITC Publication 3546 (October 2002), pp. II-2-3.

 2

 Mid American Steel and Wire Web site, www.midamericansteel.com, accessed March 10, 2008.

 3

 Charter Steel Web site, http://www.chartersteel.com/why/improvements.php, accessed March 10, 2008.

 4

 ***.

III-1

PART III: CONDITION OF THE U.S. INDUSTRY

OVERVIEW

The period immediately prior to that for which data were collected for these reviews was

tumultuous for the domestic wire rod industry. North Star Steel ceased production in Kingman, AZ, in

December 2000. GS Industries declared bankruptcy in February 2001 and ceased production in Kansas

City, MO. Republic Steel declared bankruptcy in April 2001. Northwestern Steel and Wire suspended

operations in May 2001. Birmingham Steel closed its American Steel and Wire (“AS&W”) plant in June

2001.1

 Since 2001, the domestic industry has undergone additional restructuring. Beginning in 2002 and

continuing through the current review period, the U.S. industry has continued to experience consolidation

as well as the acquisition of several U.S. mills by foreign companies, but has also seen new and

reconstituted wire rod operations.

A new entrant to the wire rod market, Mid American Steel, began wire rod operations in 2004.2

Under ISG, in the summer of 2004, Georgetown restarted its wire rod operations (closed the previous

year), while Charter, with its March 2002 acquisition of Birmingham Steels’ American Steel and Wire in

Cleveland and its acquisition of Birmingham Steel’s rolling mill operations, increased its total capacity.3

Leggett and Platt also acquired wire rod production assets at Northwestern Steel and Wire’s facilities and

restarted wire rod production in February 2003.

Table III-1 summarizes important industry events that have taken place in the U.S. industry since

January 2002.

Background

Information in this section is based on the questionnaire responses of 10 producers that are

believed to have accounted for all U.S. production during 2007. 

Changes Experienced in Operations

Domestic producers were asked to indicate whether their firm had experienced any plant

openings, relocations, expansions, acquisitions, consolidations, closures, or prolonged shutdowns because

of strikes or equipment failure; curtailment of production because of shortages of materials or other

reasons (including revision of labor agreements); or any other change in the character of their operations

or organization relating to the production of wire rod since 2002. All domestic producers indicated that

they had experienced such changes since 2002, and their responses are presented in table III-2. Most

notable among the changes were the prolonged shutdowns at Arcelor Mittal’s Georgetown facility,4

Gerdau, ***, and Sterling/Leggett & Platt prior to 2006. Also noteworthy were ***. In general, as

shown previously in table III-1, acquisitions and emergence from bankruptcies were prevalent.
III-2

Table III-1

Wire rod: Survey of industry events since 2002

Period Company

Description of event

(acquisition, bankruptcy, merger, shutdown)

February 2002 Charter Steel Acquisition: Charter Steel acquired the assets of AS&W in

Cleveland, OH.

March 2002 Charter Steel Acquisition: Charter Steel acquired Birmingham Steel’s Cleveland,

OH rolling mill that produces special quality bar products, wire rod, and

wire.

April 2002 Leggett and Platt Acquisition: Leggett and Platt acquired the rod-producing assets of

Northwestern Steel & Wire. Restarted operations January 2003.

July 2002 Georgetown Steel Acquisition: Georgetown Steel Co. LLC acquired the assets of

Georgetown Steel Corp.

August 2002 Republic Engineered

Products

Acquisition: Republic Engineered Products acquired most of the

assets of Republic Technologies International.

October 2002 Gerdau AmeriSteel Merger: Gerdau, a Brazilian firm with both Canadian and U.S.

minimills, merged with Co-Steel Inc., a Canadian firm also having both

Canadian and U.S. minimills. The merged firm, Gerdau Ameristeel

Corp., operates 19 minimills in the United States and Canada. 

However, not all of these mills necessarily produce wire rod.

March 2003 Nucor Shutdown: Nucor acquired the assets of the Kingman, AZ, rebar and

wire rod minimill from North Star Steel. The Kingman melt operation

has not operated since January 2000 and the rolling mill has been idle

since March 2003.

October 2003 Georgetown Steel Bankruptcy: Shut down. Chapter 11 (reorganization) filing.

Purchased by ISG in June 2004. Restarted operations July 2004. 

February 2004 Keystone

Consolidated

Bankruptcy: Normal operations continued. Chapter 11

(reorganization) filing. Emerged from bankruptcy August 2005.

Fall 2004 Mid American Steel Start up: Began production operations.

November 2004 Gerdau Ameristeel Acquisition: Gerdau Ameristeel acquired North Star Steel from

Cargill, adding four steel minimills, three wire rod processing facilities

and a grinding ball facility to the company for $266 million.

January 2005 Charter Steel Expansion: Charter begins $12 million furnace expansion.

April 2005 Mittal Steel Acquisition: Mittal acquires ISG, including its Georgetown assets.

May 2005 Gerdau AmeriSteel Shutdown: Beaumont, TX, wire rod mill idled pending new labor

agreement. Beaumont mill returned to normal operations February

2006.

July 2005 Republic Engineered

Products

Acquisition: Republic was acquired by Industries CH, S.A. de C.V.

(ICH). Republic is a subsidiary of Grupo Simec, based in Mexico, of

which ICH is a majority owner.

May 2006 Nucor Acquisition: Nucor acquired the assets of Connecticut Steel for a

cash purchase price of $43.9 million, adding annual capacity of

approximately 300,000 tons of wire rod and rebar and 85,000 tons of

wire and structural mesh fabrication to its product mix.

Source: Steel: Monitoring Developments in the Domestic Industry (Investigation No. TA-204-9), USITC Publication 3632

(September 2003), various articles in the trade press, and individual company annual reports.

Table III-2

Wire rod: Changes in the character of U.S. operations

* * * * * * *
 5

 Questionnaire supplements of Arcelor Mittal (April 1, 2008, and April 25, 2008); Cascade (April 25, 2008);

Gerdau (April 1, 2008 and April 25, 2008); Keystone (April 25, 2008); Nucor (April 16, 2008 and April 24, 2008);

Republic (April 25, 2008); Rocky Mountain (April 25, 2008); and Charter (May 9, 2008).

III-3

Anticipated Changes in Capacity

Two domestic producers have reported anticipated increases in their capacity to produce wire rod

in the United States. Information concerning these announced anticipated increases in the domestic

capacity to produce wire rod in the United States is presented in table III-3. The majority of firms did not

anticipate changes to capacity due to unfavorable market conditions.

Table III-3

Wire rod: Reported anticipated changes in capacity, 2008-10

* * * * * * *

Anticipated Changes in Operations

The Commission requested that domestic producers provide a copy of their company business

plans or other internal documents that describe, discuss, or analyze expected future market conditions for

wire rod. Most domestic producers provided some type of company business plan or other internal

documents concerning wire rod (with the exception of Mid American and Sterling/Leggett & Platt).5

The Commission also asked domestic producers to report anticipated changes in the character of

their operations relating to the production of wire rod. Five domestic producers reported that they do not

anticipate any operational changes, while five domestic producers provided a variety of responses detailing

such anticipated changes, which are presented in table III-4.

Table III-4

Wire rod: Anticipated changes in the character of U.S. operations

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCERS’ CAPACITY, PRODUCTION, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION

Data on U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization for wire rod are presented in

table III-5. Notable changes affecting production quantities were the prolonged plant shutdowns at

Arcelor Mittal’s Georgetown, SC plant (October 2003 through August 2004); Gerdau’s Beaumont, TX

plant (June 2005 through December 2005); ***; and Sterling/Leggett & Platt’s plant (2002). Thus, during

a period when apparent U.S. consumption peaked in 2004, the U.S. industry’ production was flat and

capacity utilization was 83.1 percent.

In 2005, capacity utilization fell to 69.4 percent. By 2006-07, the industry’s prolonged shutdowns

appeared to ease, and it was able to hold a greater share of apparent U.S. consumption in 2007 with

increased capacity and production, while operating at a capacity utilization rate of 74.9 percent.

Individual firms reported capacity on different bases, with most reporting based on 156-168 hours

per week, 49-52 weeks per year. However, *** reported capacity based on operating many fewer hours

per week (***). 
 6

 Hearing transcript, pp. 138-139 (Kerkvliet); p. 139 (Simon); p. 139 (Cheek); and p. 139 (Nystrom).

 7

 Ibid., p. 140 (Kerkvliet); p. 140 (Simon); and pp. 140-141 (Nystrom).

 8

 Prehearing brief of Ivaco, pp. 16-18.

 9

 Ibid., p. 47.

 10 Hearing transcript, pp. 21-23 (Kerkvliet); pp. 39-40 (Nystrom); p. 116 (Simon); p. 116 (Kerkvliet); and pp.

116-117 (Nystrom).

 11 Ibid., p. 66 (Nystrom).

III-4

Table III-5

Wire rod: U.S. capacity, production, and capacity utilization, by firms, 2002-07

Item

Calendar year

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Capacity (short tons)

* * * * * * *

 Total 4,771,377 5,040,727 4,920,229 5,392,176 5,371,016 5,429,678

Production (short tons)

* * * * * * *

 Total 4,035,005 4,052,215 4,089,091 3,741,120 3,877,367 4,067,549

Capacity utilization (percent)

* * * * * * *

 Average 84.6 80.4 83.1 69.4 72.2 74.9

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

 At the hearing, industry representatives testified concerning their operating rates: Gerdau’s Perth

Amboy plant is running two shifts, and its Beaumont facility is running 18-20 turns–not a full 24 hours. 

Rocky Mountain is running three rather than four crews, or at 75 percent of capacity. Keystone is

operating seven days a week, with an 8-12 hour repair day. Nucor added back a fourth crew to its

Nebraska facility in the fall of 2007, so it is running 24 hours with one maintenance downshift; its

Connecticut facility is running three crews, five days per week, and billet sourcing would be required to

add more tons to the facility.6

 To increase capacity utilization, Gerdau would need to add staff, Rocky

Mountain would need to add staff and supply billets, and Nucor would need to add staff to its Connecticut

facility (the extra billets needed will be available shortly from its Memphis bar mill coming on line).7

 

Counsel for Ivaco challenged the reporting of capacity in the U.S. industry when consumption

has fluctuated substantially and production has remained at around 4 million tons per year. Ivaco’s

contention is that practical capacity is defined as the usual product mix over time, or about 4 million short

tons.8

 Ivaco argues that some firms are operating only ***, leaving *** percent of the hours idle per

week.9

 At the hearing, U.S. industry witnesses testified that there is excess capacity in the domestic

industry that is underutilized due to the difficulty of selling at sustainable quantities, not just on a spot

basis, and at prices that would allow producers to cover their increased costs, and the fact that purchasers

are unwilling to enter into long-term contracts (which the domestic industry defines as 12-18 months) that

would justify adding crews or shifts.10 Also, the Nucor representative testified that its Connecticut mill has

excess capacity but lacks the billets necessary to utilize that capacity, which will be alleviated by a new

mill coming on line in the summer of 2008.11 
 12 Posthearing brief of Arcelor Mittal USA, Gerdau, Keystone, and Rocky Mountain, pp. 3-4.

 13 Ibid., exh. 5.

 14 The data anomalies of export unit values in 2004 are due to ***. Submission by ***.

 15 See American Metal Market Scrap Pricing Series, www.amm.com, retrieved January 30, 2008, and All

Business, “Steel Prices Threaten Construction,” retrieved March 6, 2008, and hearing transcript, pp. 57-58 (Kerwin).

III-5

In its posthearing brief, counsel for Arcelor Mittal USA, Gerdau, Keystone, and Rocky Mountain

countered Ivaco’s argument that the domestic industry did not have unused capacity and was only able to

produce about 4 million tons per year. Counsel noted the following points. Gerdau has added overtime

shifts at both the Beaumont and Perth Amboy mills in 2008, and is adding capacity for wire rod at its

Jacksonville mill, in order to meet current and anticipated customer demand. Gerdau is also in

negotiations with ***. Keystone has increased its throughput in 2008 above 2007 levels. Both Nucor and

Rocky Mountain are increasing their supply of billets to increase capacity in 2008.12 Finally, together,

Arcelor Mittal, Gerdau, Keystone, and Rocky Mountain have increased production during the first quarter

of 2008, *** tons over the first quarter of 2007, or *** percent, while capacity remained unchanged.13

Constraints on Capacity 

The Commission asked domestic producers to report constraints on their capacity to produce wire

rod. The firms provided the information presented in table III-6 regarding their constraints on capacity. 

Table III-6

Wire rod: U.S. producers’ constraints on capacity

* * * * * * *

Alternative Products

The Commission asked domestic producers to report production of other or downstream products

on the same equipment and machinery, and/or using the same production and related workers employed to

produce wire rod. Table III-7 presents the share of other products produced on the same production

equipment used to produce wire rod.

Table III-7

Wire rod: U.S. producers, production of other products on the same equipment used to produce wire rod,

2007

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCERS’ DOMESTIC SHIPMENTS, 

COMPANY TRANSFERS, AND EXPORT SHIPMENTS

Data on domestic producers’ shipments of wire rod are presented in table III-8. The quantity of

U.S. shipments fluctuated moderately during 2002-07, with a peak in 2003 and a trough in 2005. By

contrast, the value of U.S. shipments rose noticeably, reflecting the rising average unit values (discussed

below). As a share of total shipments, commercial shipments and internal consumption declined during

2002-04, and transfers to related firms increased, as ***. Export shipments as a share of total shipments

remained minimal.14 The average unit value of U.S. shipments increased sharply during 2003-04, a period

characterized by large increases in scrap prices, energy costs, a peak in apparent consumption, and

prolonged shutdowns by several U.S. producers.15
III-6

Table III-8

Wire rod: U.S. producers’ shipments, by types, 2002-07

Item

Calendar year

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Quantity (short tons)

Commercial shipments *** *** *** *** *** ***

Internal consumption *** *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** *** ***

 U.S. shipments 3,988,827 4,137,344 4,095,297 3,732,509 3,814,247 4,076,282

Export shipments *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value (1,000 dollars)

Commercial shipments *** *** *** *** *** ***

Internal consumption *** *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** *** ***

 U.S. shipments 1,290,111 1,354,900 2,182,163 2,087,201 2,147,510 2,340,401

Export shipments *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value (per short ton)

Commercial shipments $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

Internal consumption *** *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** *** ***

 U.S. shipments 323 327 533 559 563 574

Export shipments *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Average *** *** *** *** *** ***

Share of shipment quantity (percent)

Commercial shipments *** *** *** *** *** ***

Internal consumption *** *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** *** ***

 U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** *** ***

Export shipments *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Unit values varied among the different producers, with *** at the high end (over $*** per ton in

2007) due to their higher value products, and *** at the low end (under $*** per ton in 2007) with its

lower end products. *** produce a large amount of ***, which results in high unit values. *** produces

mostly low/medium carbon industrial quality wire rod, resulting in low unit values. *** are mainly

producing high/medium carbon industrial quality wire rod, but also produce a range of products. The
 16 ***.

 17 Email from ***.

 18 Prehearing brief of Nucor, Cascade, and Republic, pp. 3-6.

 19 Email from ***, April 7, 2008.

III-7

remaining firms produce a large amount of low/medium carbon industrial quality wire rod, but also

produce a range of products. Company-specific shipments, by product, during 2002-07, are presented in

appendix E, table E-1.

U.S. PRODUCERS’ INVENTORIES

Data collected in these reviews on domestic producers’ end-of-period inventories of wire rod are

presented in table III-9. The quantity of inventories decreased markedly between 2002 and 2003,

primarily due to ***’s large inventory draw-down.

Table III-9

Wire rod: U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories, 2002-07

Item

Calendar year

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Inventories (short

tons) 250,935 136,816 140,019 164,647 174,288 152,512

Ratio of inventories to

production (percent) 6.2 3.4 3.4 4.4 4.5 3.7

Ratio of inventories to

U.S. shipments

(percent) 6.3 3.3 3.4 4.4 4.6 3.7

Ratio of inventories to

total shipments

(percent) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. PRODUCERS’ IMPORTS AND PURCHASES

Charter Wire was the only U.S. producer that imported wire rod *** (***) during 2002-07.16

***.17 Charter Wire’s imports are presented in table III-10. Producers had minor purchases of imports

from all other sources except for ***’s purchases in 2004 (*** tons).

In its prehearing brief, counsel for Nucor asserted that Sterling/Leggett and Platt was importing

and/or purchasing wire rod from the subject countries.18 However, Sterling/Leggett and Platt neither

imports nor has any direct purchases of wire rod from subject countries. ***.19

Table III-10

Wire rod: U.S. producer’s imports, 2002-07

* * * * * * *
 20 At the hearing, a representative for the United Steelworkers testified that it represents over 1,300 workers in the

wire rod industry in the United States at Arcelor Mittal, USA, Cascade, Gerdau, Republic, Rocky Mountain, and

Sterling/Leggett & Platt. Hearing transcript, p. 43 (Hart).

 21 In its prehearing brief, counsel for Nucor reported that ***, providing an example in which workers pay ***. 

Prehearing brief of Nucor, Cascade, and Republic, p. 37.

III-8

U.S. PRODUCERS’ EMPLOYMENT, WAGES, AND PRODUCTIVITY

The U.S. producers’ aggregate employment data for wire rod are presented in table III-11. 

The number of production-related workers (“PRWs”) employed by U.S. wire rod producers declined

slightly and irregularly between 2002 and 2007 to 2,397 employees.20 The decline in the total number of

PRWs was accounted for by ***; however, declines at those firms were largely balanced by increases at

***. Over the same period, hourly wages generally increased, especially after 2003; productivity

increased irregularly; and unit labor costs increased.21

Table III-11

Wire rod: U.S. producers’ employment-related indicators, 2002-07

Item

Calendar year

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Production and related

workers (PRWs) 2,461 2,513 2,543 2,407 2,395 2,397

Hours worked by

PRWs (1,000 hours) 5,545 5,378 5,474 4,919 5,296 5,174

Wages paid to PRWs

(1,000 dollars) 140,328 139,194 145,620 143,664 161,223 161,821

Hourly wages $25.31 $25.88 $26.60 $29.21 $30.45 $31.28

Productivity (short

tons produced per

1,000 hours) 727.7 753.5 747.0 760.5 732.2 786.2

Unit labor costs 

(per short ton) $34.78 $34.35 $35.61 $38.40 $41.58 $39.78

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 22 With the exception of ***.

 23 While most companies reported a single predominant sales category, Keystone reported commercial sales and

internal consumption/transfers ***. With respect to the advantages of downstream production, Keystone observed

that “. . . fabricated wire products are less susceptible to the cyclical nature of the steel business than industrial wire

or wire rod because the commodity-priced raw material used in such product, such as ferrous scrap, represent a

lower percentage when compared to wire rod or the less value-added products.” Keystone 2002 10-K, p. 5. 

 In most cases, the company-specific shares of transfers and/or internal consumption remained about the same

throughout the period. As shown in table III-13, ***. E-mail from ***, Gerdau, March 4, 2008. Staff notes that

***. E-mail from ***, Mid American, February 15, 2008.

 24 ***. Letter from Wiley Rein on behalf of Nucor, February 27, 2008. 

 25 In contrast with ***. According to Gerdau, “{d}uring the year ended December 31, 2006, the Company

announced the shutdown of the melt shop at the Company’s Perth Amboy, New Jersey mill. The Company believes

that the semi-finished steel billets will be more efficiently supplied to the Perth Amboy wire rod mill from available,

lower marginal cost billet making capacity at other Gerdau Ameristeel melt shop operations as well as higher grade

billets to be supplied from the Company’s majority shareholder Gerdau S.A. or other sources.” Gerdau’s 2006

annual report, p. 13. 

 26 ***. E-mail from ***, Gerdau, February 21, 2008. 

 27 As shown in table IV-5 in the following section of this report, overall product mix was relatively stable

throughout the period which in turn generally enhances the utility of a variance analysis. As discussed below,

however, there were company-specific variations in product mix during the period. 

III-9

FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE OF THE U.S. PRODUCERS

Background

The financial results of ten U.S. producers of wire rod are presented in this section of the report.

The majority of these firms reported their financial results on the basis of U.S. generally accepted

accounting principles (“GAAP”) for calendar and fiscal year periods.22 In addition to commercial sales,

several firms also reported transfers and/or internal consumption with the predominance of a particular

sales category generally reflecting the presence and extent of downstream production using wire rod.23

As noted previously, most U.S. wire rod producers use mini-mill steelmaking capacity in the initial stage

of production. While the majority of companies purchase their steelmaking raw material inputs from

unrelated parties, Gerdau and Nucor also supplement their steel production with ***.24 25 Additionally,

Cascade and Arcelor Mittal purchased ***. Responding companies reported that transfer profit included

in the cost of purchased inputs was generally eliminated from wire rod cost of goods sold (“COGS”).26 

Operations on Wire Rod

Table III-12 presents the financial results of the U.S. industry’s wire rod operations with selected

company-specific financial information presented in table III-13. Table III-14 presents a variance

analysis of the U.S. producers’ financial results.27 

As shown in table III-12, despite several relatively large period-to-period changes in sales

volume, the value of total wire rod sales revenue increased throughout most of the period and reached its

highest absolute level in 2007. This pattern, in conjunction with corresponding operating results, is also

reflected in figure III-1. 
III-10

Table III-12

Wire rod: U.S. producers’ results of operations, 2002-07

Item

Calendar and fiscal year

2002 1 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Quantity (short tons)

Commercial sales *** *** *** *** *** ***

Internal consumption *** *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total net sales 3,996,011 4,151,601 4,103,563 3,749,761 3,844,808 4,087,541

Value ($1,000)

Commercial sales *** *** *** *** *** ***

Internal consumption *** *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total net sales 1,291,920 1,358,707 2,182,872 2,100,194 2,165,513 2,347,208

Raw material 523,274 649,543 1,053,211 1,108,055 1,196,375 1,424,839

Direct labor 127,234 127,542 127,935 120,146 128,377 125,141

Other factory costs 538,077 584,351 638,709 659,544 699,900 669,538

 Total cost of goods sold 1,188,586 1,361,436 1,819,855 1,887,745 2,024,653 2,219,518

Gross profit or (loss) 103,334 (2,729) 363,017 212,449 140,860 127,690

Selling expenses 10,708 13,257 14,251 14,147 13,510 14,215

General and administrative expenses 32,644 29,966 43,526 39,647 41,844 38,606

 Total SG&A expenses 43,352 43,223 57,776 53,793 55,354 52,821

Operating income or (loss) 59,982 (45,952) 305,241 158,656 85,506 74,869

Interest expense 32,571 32,408 34,081 24,535 17,546 20,937

Other expenses 6,203 10,681 7,719 5,220 8,220 7,116

CDSOA funds received 2 0 37 2,691 2,740 1,647 (2,404)

Other income items 147 4,014 3,495 1,785 1,358 1,711

Net income or (loss) 21,355 (84,990) 269,627 133,426 62,745 46,123

Depr. and amort. (incl. above) 3 50,340 43,524 42,345 43,450 70,816 46,669

Est. cash flow from operations 71,696 (41,466) 311,972 176,877 133,561 92,791

Ratio to net sales (percent)

Raw material 40.5 47.8 48.2 52.8 55.2 60.7

Direct labor 9.8 9.4 5.9 5.7 5.9 5.3

Other factory costs 41.6 43.0 29.3 31.4 32.3 28.5

 Total cost of goods sold 92.0 100.2 83.4 89.9 93.5 94.6

Gross profit or (loss) 8.0 (0.2) 16.6 10.1 6.5 5.4

 Total SG&A expenses 3.4 3.2 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.3

Operating income or (loss) 4.6 (3.4) 14.0 7.6 3.9 3.2

Net income or (loss) 1.7 (6.3) 12.4 6.4 2.9 2.0

Table continued on following page.
III-11

Table III-12--Continued

Wire rod: U.S. producers’ results of operations, 2002-07

Item

Calendar and fiscal year

2002 1 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Unit value (dollars per short ton)

Commercial sales *** *** *** *** *** ***

Internal consumption *** *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total net sales 323 327 532 560 563 574

Raw material 131 156 257 296 311 349

Direct labor 32 31 31 32 33 31

Other factory costs 134 141 156 176 182 164

 Total cost of goods sold 296 328 443 503 527 543

Gross profit or (loss) 27 (1) 88 57 37 31

SG&A expenses 11 10 14 14 14 13

Operating income or (loss) 16 (11) 74 42 22 18

Number of companies reporting

Data 9 9 10 10 10 10

Operating losses 3 7 3 1 1 4

 1 ***. 2 With respect to the negative Continuing Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (“CDSOA”) receipt value in 2007, Gerdau stated that it 

***. E-mail from ***, February 21, 2008. Other companies *** a similar statement. 3 The increase in depreciation in 2006 is ***. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Table III-13

Wire rod: U.S. producers’ results of operations, by firms, 2002-07

* * * * * * *
III-12

Table III-14

Wire rod: Variance analysis of U.S. producers’ financial results of operations, 2002-07

Calendar and fiscal year

2002-07 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07

Value ($1,000)

Total net sales:

 Price variance 1,025,696 16,484 839,887 105,525 12,084 44,981

 Volume variance 29,592 50,303 (15,722) (188,203) 53,235 136,715

 Total net sales variance 1,055,288 66,786 824,166 (82,678) 65,318 181,696

Cost of sales:

Raw material:

 Cost variance (889,579) (105,895) (411,183) (145,650) (60,234) (152,933)

 Volume variance (11,986) (20,374) 7,516 90,806 (28,086) (75,530)

 Net raw material variance (901,565) (126,269) (403,667) (54,844) (88,320) (228,464)

Direct labor:

 Cost variance 5,008 4,647 (1,869) (3,241) (5,185) 11,341

 Volume variance (2,914) (4,954) 1,476 11,030 (3,045) (8,105)

 Net direct labor variance 2,094 (307) (394) 7,789 (8,231) 3,236

Other factory costs:

 Cost variance (119,136) (25,323) (61,120) (75,903) (23,639) 74,549

 Volume variance (12,325) (20,951) 6,762 55,068 (16,718) (44,187)

 Net other factory cost (131,461) (46,274) (54,358) (20,834) (40,357) 30,362

Net cost of sales:

 Cost variance (1,003,707) (126,571) (474,172) (224,795) (89,058) (67,043)

 Volume variance (27,225) (46,279) 15,753 156,905 (47,850) (127,822)

 Total net cost of sales (1,030,932) (172,850) (458,419) (67,890) (136,908) (194,865)

Gross profit variance 24,356 (106,064) 365,747 (150,568) (71,589) (13,169)

SG&A expenses:

 Expense variance (8,476) 1,818 (15,054) (998) (197) 6,027

 Volume variance (993) (1,688) 500 4,981 (1,364) (3,495)

 Total SG&A variance (9,469) 130 (14,554) 3,983 (1,560) 2,533

Operating income 14,888 (105,934) 351,193 (146,585) (73,150) (10,637)

Summarized as:

 Price variance 1,025,696 16,484 839,887 105,525 12,084 44,981

 Net cost/expense variance (1,012,183) (124,753) (489,226) (225,793) (89,255) (61,016)

 Net volume variance 1,374 2,335 532 (26,317) 4,022 5,398

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 28 Cascade observed that “. . . domestic demand for finished steel remained sluggish in the Western United States

{Cascade’s primary market} throughout fiscal 2002. Cascade (Schnitzer) 2002 10-K, p. 29. Similarly, Gerdau

stated that “{f}iscal year 2003 started very similarly to the three previous years, with stagnant North American steel

demand, intense market competition, and escalating scrap raw material and energy costs. Steel prices and margins

throughout the North American steel industry were compressed to historical ten year lows.” Gerdau 2003 annual

report, p. 6. 

 29 For the period 2003 through 2005 the overall trend in wire rod sales volume reflected in figure III-1 was

magnified by circumstances unique to specific companies. ***. The Beaumont, TX wire rod mill, acquired as part

of Gerdau’s purchase of four North Star steel mills and downstream facilities in November 2004, resumed normal

operations in late 2005. Gerdau Ameristeel to resume normal operations at Beaumont Mill, retrieved from

www.prnewswire.com on February 25, 2008. In contrast with the 2003 through 2005 period, unique companyspecific events did not influence 2006 and 2007 wire rod sales volume to any large degree.

 30 Cascade stated that “{t}he steel manufacturing business saw significantly higher average selling prices and

slightly higher sales volume during fiscal 2004 compared with fiscal 2003. Sales prices and volumes benefitted from

strong demand for steel products on the west coast of the United States, improvements in the U.S. economy, and

lower steel imports, which is partially attributed to the weakness of the U.S. dollar and higher ocean freight rates. 

(continued...)

III-13

Figure III-1

Wire rod: Sales volume, sales value, and operating income or (loss), 2002-07

Narrative statements accompanying the public financial filings of U.S. producers describe steel

demand in general during the beginning of the review period as “sluggish” and “stagnant.”28 As shown in

table III-12, the U.S. industry generated its lowest levels of wire rod revenue in 2002 and 2003. Despite

the description of flat demand conditions for the steel industry in general in the first part of the period (see

footnote 28), total wire rod sales volume reached its highest absolute level in 2003.29

For most producers overall conditions improved notably in 2004 as reflected in the substantial

increase in total wire rod revenue.30 As shown in the net sales variance section of table III-14, higher total

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

3,700

3,800

3,900

4,000

4,100

4,200

volume -- thousand short tons

0

300

600

900

1,200

1,500

1,800

2,100

2,400

revenue, op. income or (loss) -- million dollars

Total wire rod sales volume Total wire rod sales value Total wire rod operating income or

(loss)

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 
 30(...continued)

Cascade (Schnitzer) 2004 10-K, p. 25. Similarly, according to Gerdau “{i}n terms of demand, production, pricing

and profit margins, 2004 was an exceptional year for the steel industry . . .” Gerdau 2004 annual report, p. 8.

 31 According to Cascade, “{t}he increase in selling prices {in fiscal 2004} are a combination of increased demand

and passing along rapidly rising raw materials and energy costs required in the production process.” Cascade

(Schnitzer) 2004 10-K, p. 27. Gerdau stated that “{s}elling price increases were partially offset by scrap raw

material costs that increased 68.3 percent for the year ended December 31, 2004, compared to the year ended

December 31, 2003 . . . {i}n 2004, the company and other minimill producers have increased steel selling prices in

response to higher scrap and other manufacturing costs.” Gerdau 2004 annual report, p. 18. 

 32 Cascade stated that “{a}verage net selling prices for the Company’s steel products have remained relatively

high {in fiscal 2005}, increasing by 27 percent over the prior year.” Cascade (Schnitzer) 2005 10-K, p. 30. 

According to Gerdau, “{a}s a result of the strong market demand and the continued consolidation of North American

steel producers, the environment of the Company’s steel prices {in 2005} was positive.” Gerdau 2005 annual

report, p. 12.

 33 ***. E-mail from ***, Mid American, February 15, 2008. ***. E-mail from ***, Gerdau, February 21, 2008. 

E-mail from ***, Keystone, February 27, 2008. Other companies, however, reported ***. According to Cascade,

***. Letter from Wiley Rein on behalf of Cascade, February 21, 2008. In contrast, Republic indicated that it has

***. Letter from Wiley Rein on behalf of Republic, February 21, 2008. According to Nucor, the ***. Letter from

Wiley Rein on behalf of Nucor, February 21, 2008. ***. E-mail with attachments from ***, Rocky Mountain,

February 21, 2008. Sterling/Leggett & Platt noted that ***. E-mail from ***, Sterling/Leggett & Platt, February 20,

2007. According to Arcelor Mittal, some of the relatively ***. E-mail from ***, Arcelor Mittal, February 21, 2008.

 34 ***. ***.

III-14

sales value in 2004 compared to 2003 was due entirely to a large increase in average sales price which

more than offset a corresponding decline in total sales volume. In addition to improved demand for steel

in general, U.S. producers also stated that higher average sales values in 2004 reflected the passthrough of

increased input costs – namely ferrous scrap and energy.31 

In 2005, total wire rod sales volume reached its lowest level of the period with most producers

reporting reduced sales volume. Notwithstanding the decline in overall sales volume, which was

magnified by the idling of Gerdau’s Beaumont, TX mill for most of second half of 2005, total revenue

increased compared to 2004 due to a higher average sales value. As was the case in 2004, the U.S.

industry’s higher average sales value in 2005 is consistent with strong demand for steel generally, as well

as higher input costs.32 

2006 and 2007 do not reflect notable company-specific outliers in terms of sales volume. Instead

U.S. producers were mixed in terms of increases and decreases in sales volume in 2006, while in 2007 the

majority of U.S. producers reported higher sales volume. As shown in the net sales variance section of

table III-14, higher net sales volume in both 2006 and 2007 enhanced corresponding increases in average

sales price. The result was continued revenue growth in both 2006 and 2007. 

While changes in the U.S. industry’s overall product mix during the period were not substantial

(see table IV-5 in the next section of this report), company-specific differences in product mix are

reflected in the relatively broad range of average sales values shown in table III-13.33 Table III-13 also

shows that most companies reported large increases in average sales value in 2004 with the remainder of

the period mixed in terms of company-specific increases and decreases.34 In 2006, average sales value

increased by only 0.6 percent, interrupting the sequence of larger overall increases during the second half

of the period. Average raw material cost in 2006 also increased at its lowest period-to-period rate. The

larger subsequent increase in average sales value in 2007 (2.0 percent) in turn corresponds with a

relatively sharp (12.0 percent) increase in average raw material costs in that year.

As shown in table III-12, the 4.6 percent operating income margin in 2002 and decline into an

operating loss in 2003 are generally consistent with demand conditions for the overall steel industry at

that time. In addition to underlying demand conditions, the increase in wire rod operating income in 2004
 35 For purposes of this report, “metal spread” represents the difference between average sales value and average

raw material cost. From the industry’s perspective metal spread generally refers to the matching of current sales

prices against current scrap costs and is therefore not a GAAP measurement based on actual revenue and costs. 

With respect to company-specific metal spreads shown in table III-13, direct comparability is limited by differences

such as product mix, raw material inputs, inventory valuation methods, and cost classification. 

 36 Nucor stated that “{t}otal energy costs increased approximately $7 per ton from 2004 to 2005 as natural gas

prices increased approximately 31% and electricity prices increased approximately 19%.” Nucor 2005 10-K/A, p. 8. 

In 2006, Nucor reported a $1 per ton decline in total energy costs due to lower natural gas costs. Nucor 2006 Annual

Report, p. 13. With respect to 2007, Nucor stated that “{t}otal energy costs per ton remained flat from 2006 to 2007

as decreases in natural gas prices offset increases in electricity prices.” Nucor 2007 Annual Report, p. 24. Keystone

reported a similar trend for the period. Keystone 2006 10-K, p. 25 and Keystone 2007 10-K, p. 24. 

 With respect to the importance of energy costs in general, some of the industry’s capital expenditures, in

conjunction with other objectives, reflect direct attempts to improve energy efficiency and mitigate the period’s

higher energy prices. In its 2005 10-K, Schnitzer, the parent company of Cascade, stated that “{i}n December 2004,

the Steel Manufacturing Business replaced the existing electric arc furnace with a furnace that is more energy

efficient, has reduced melting time and has exceeded overall productivity expectations.” Cascade (Schnitzer) 2005

10-K, p. 14. 

 37 According to Gerdau and with respect to its operations in general, “{s}teel manufacturing is very capital

intensive, requiring the Company to maintain a large fixed-cost base. The high levels of fixed costs of operating a

minimill encourage mill operators to maintain high levels of output, even during periods of reduced demand, which

exacerbates the pressure on selling prices and profit margins. The Company’s profitability is dependent, in part, on

the ability to spread fixed costs over an increasing amount of tons shipped.” Gerdau 2003 Annual Report, p. 16.

 The expected pattern of lower average other factory costs when capacity utilization/fixed cost absorption

increases and higher average other factory costs when capacity utilization/fixed cost absorption declines is reflected

on an overall basis for only part of the period (see table III-13). This is because, as a generalization, the expected

pattern can be offset by a number of factors such as shifts in product mix, higher costs associated with new

equipment and machinery, and changes in the level of variable other factory costs. ***. Letter from Wiley Rein on

behalf of Republic, February 21, 2008. Similarly, in 2006 ***. E-mail from ***, Gerdau, February 21, 2008. In

2007, Arcelor Mittal reported ***. E-mail from ***, Arcelor Mittal, March 11, 2008. 

 38 Rocky Mountain’s parent company reported that a furnace upgrade in the 4th quarter of 2005 reduced its

overall steel production by around 40,000 tons and reduced overall gross profit by around $5 million of pretax costs. 

The furnace upgrade was described generally as the installation of a new electric arc furnace and caster rebuild. 

Oregon 2005 10-K, p. 16. Oregon’s 3rd quarter 2006 10-Q, p. 21. Rocky Mountain noted that ***. E-mail from

***, Rocky Mountain, February 21, 2008. 

 As noted previously and while having continued operations throughout the period, Keystone emerged from

bankruptcy in August 2005. According to the company ***. E-mail from ***, Keystone, February 27, 2008. In its

(continued...)

III-15

to its highest level of the period and subsequent decline in 2005 through 2007 also reflect changes in

metal spread, conversion costs, and fixed cost absorption. 

Table III-13 shows that in 2004 the majority of companies generated higher metal spreads.35

After peaking in 2004, average metal spreads subsequently declined on an overall basis. Although still

around $33 per ton higher in 2007 compared to 2002, metal spread in 2007 was substantially lower as a

share of average sales value: *** percent in 2007 compared to *** percent in 2002. As a result and in

conjunction with increases in other components of COGS such as electricity and natural gas costs,36 as

well as fluctuations in capacity utilization and corresponding fixed cost absorption,37 the U.S. industry’s

gross profit margin was lower in 2007 compared to 2002.

In addition to the larger-scale company-specific curtailments noted previously, smaller-scale

curtailments were also reported during the period. While nominally impacting capacity utilization and

fixed cost absorption, most companies, when asked how these curtailments affected their financial results,

indicated that there was no direct impact because production curtailments generally took place during

periods when demand was already low.38
 38(...continued)

2006 10-K, Keystone noted that conversion costs increased due to operating problems related to its wire rod mill

reheat furnace. Keystone 2006 10-K, p. 21. ***. E-mail from ***, Keystone, March 7, 2008. Auditor prehearing

notes.

 In its 2007 10-K, Cascade’s parent company referenced a planned shut down in the 3rd quarter 2007 of one of

its rolling mills with associated costs of $3 million. Cascade (Schnitzer) 2007 10-K, p. 14. In late 2004, as noted

previously, Cascade also replaced its existing electric arc furnace. Cascade (Schnitzer) 2005 10-K, p. 34. According

to Cascade, ***. Letter from Wiley Rein on behalf of Cascade, February 21, 2008. 

 Republic stated that ***. Letter from Wiley Rein on behalf of Republic, February 21, 2008. 

 According to Mid American, ***, February 15, 2008. 

 Nucor and Sterling/Leggett & Platt indicated that ***. Letter from Wiley Rein on behalf of Nucor, February 21,

2008. E-mail from ***, Sterling/Leggett & Platt, February 20, 2007. Nucor also stated that ***. Letter from Wiley

Rein on behalf of Nucor, February 21, 2008. 

 39 ***. E-mail with attachments from ***, Rocky Mountain, February 21, 2008. 

 Keystone *** stated in its 2005 10-K that “{d}uring 2005, Keystone incurred $10.3 million in legal and

professional fees relative to its Chapter 11 proceedings and related reorganization activities as compared to $11.2

million during 2004.” Keystone 2005 10-K, p. 24.

 ***. E-mail from ***, Gerdau, March 4, 2008.

 As noted previously, ***. 

 40 ***. E-mail from ***, Gerdau, March 4, 2008.

 41 ***. E-mail from ***, Keystone, February 27, 2008.

 42 As shown in table III-15, the majority of companies did not report R&D expenses. ***. Letter from Wiley

Rein on behalf of Cascade, February 21, 2008. ***. Ibid.

 43 Letter from Wiley Rein on behalf of Nucor, February 21, 2008. 

 44 E-mail from ***, Charter, February 28, 2008. 

III-16

On an overall basis, selling, general and administration (“SG&A”) expenses were relatively stable

throughout the period – ranging from 2.3 percent to 3.4 percent of sales (see table III-13). 

Notwithstanding the stability of overall SG&A ratios, as well as company-specific SG&A ratios in

general, there were several periods when company-specific SG&A expenses and corresponding SG&A

ratios were notably high.39

As shown in table III-13, the majority of companies reported either lower operating income

margins or declines to operating losses in 2007 compared to 2006. The overall decline in operating

profitability from its peak in 2004 generally corresponds with reduced metal spreads and higher

conversion costs such as energy, offset after 2005 to some extent by increased overall capacity utilization. 

***.40 Similarly, ***.41 

Research and Development Expenses, Capital Expenditures, Assets, and Return on Investment

Data on company-specific research and development (“R&D”) expenses, capital expenditures, 

total assets, and return on investment (“ROI”) are presented in table III-15.42

Consistent with higher levels of overall cash flow generated in 2004 though 2007, the second half

of the period (2005 through 2007) accounted for a larger share of cumulative capital expenditures at 61.8

percent. Companies with higher levels of capital expenditures in the first half of the period (2002 through

2004), such as Mid American and Sterling/Leggett & Platt, were generally beginning or, in the case of

Sterling/Leggett & Platt, restarting their wire rod operations. Nucor, which reported operations

throughout the period ***.43

With *** 2005 and 2006 capital expenditures, Charter’s cumulative capital expenditures

represented *** percent of the industry’s total capital expenditures. According to Charter, ***.44
III-17

Table III-15

Wire rod: R&D expenses, capital expenditures, total assets, and return on investment of U.S. producers’

operations, 2002-07

* * * * * * *

 1

 Two firms did not respond to the Commission’s questionnaire: one firm *** and one firm ***. A questionnaire

addressed to one firm was returned as undeliverable because the company could not be located.

 2

 Subject import coverage from Canada, Mexico and Trinidad & Tobago is measured in 2007 but coverage of

subject imports from Brazil, Moldova, and Ukraine are measured in the only years in which they occurred, or in the

case of Indonesia, only in the year in which importers reported imports. 

IV-1

PART IV: U.S. IMPORTS AND THE FOREIGN INDUSTRIES

U.S. IMPORTS

Overview

The Commission sent questionnaires to foreign producers acting as U.S. importers in Brazil,

Canada, Mexico, and Trinidad & Tobago; related firms within the Arcelor Mittal group; and 21 additional

firms believed to have imported wire rod between 2002 and 2007. It received usable data from 26 of the

firms.1

 Based on official Commerce statistics for imports of wire rod, importers’ questionnaire data

accounted for 73 percent of total U.S. imports during 2007 and 90 percent of total subject imports in 2007

(from Canada, Mexico, and Trinidad & Tobago–the countries shipping subject merchandise during 2007). 

Firms responding to the Commission’s questionnaire accounted for the following shares of individual

subject country subject imports during the review period:2

• 100 percent of the subject imports from Brazil during 2002; 

• *** percent of the subject imports from Canada during 2007; 

• *** percent of the subject imports from Indonesia during 2002;

• 100 percent of the subject imports from Mexico during 2007;

• 100 percent of the subject imports from Moldova during 2002;

• *** percent of the subject imports from Trinidad & Tobago during 2007; and

• 100 percent of the subject imports from Ukraine 2002.

Due to less-than-complete questionnaire coverage for U.S. imports, import data in this report are

derived from official Commerce statistics for wire rod. Imports of (nonsubject) grade 1080 tire cord and

tire bead grade wire rod from subject sources (only Brazil and *** Canada) have been subtracted from

official statistics using data from importers’ questionnaire responses. Also, imports from Stelco have

been subtracted from official statistics of imports of wire rod from Canada, as Stelco is excluded from the

antidumping duty order on wire rod from Canada. Grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod

accounted for *** percent of the total quantity of imports from subject sources reported by all U.S.

importers in their questionnaire responses during 2007. 

No importers reported entering or withdrawing wire rod from foreign trade zones or bonded

warehouses. In addition, no importers reported imports of wire rod under the temporary importation

under bond program. 

Imports of wire rod from Canada continued during 2002-07, fluctuated during the period and

ended at a lower level in 2007 than in 2002, as shown in table IV-1. Imports from Mexico decreased

sharply in 2003, increased in 2004 during a period of limited U.S. supply and high U.S. demand, then fell

to lower levels for the rest of the period. There were no subject imports after 2002 from Brazil, Moldova,

or Ukraine. All imports of wire rod from Brazil reported in official statistics were grade 1080 tire cord

and tire bead wire rod. Official statistics for wire rod imports contained misclassifications in 2005

involving imports from Indonesia and Ukraine that were out-of-scope products. There were no imports of
 3

 Email from *** indicating imports of PC strand and questionnaire response of *** indicating imports of bright

bars.

 4

 ***. Email from ***, April 22, 2008.

IV-2

subject merchandise from those countries in 2005.3 There was some subject imports of wire rod from

Indonesia in 2004, exported and imported by ***. The consignee in the United States, ***, was issued an

importers’ questionnaire but did not respond.4

 Imports from Trinidad & Tobago are presented separately

due to the pending litigation of the negative determination upon remand of the original determination in

that investigation. Imports from Trinidad & Tobago fluctuated during 2002-07, with an increase in 2004

corresponding to a period of limited U.S. supply and high U.S. demand.

Table IV-1

Wire rod: U.S. imports, by sources, 2002-07

Source

Calendar year

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Quantity (short tons)

Brazil *** 0 0 0 0 0

Canada (excluding Stelco) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Indonesia 40,863 0 29,937 333 0 0

Mexico 123,380 19,986 68,498 11,480 4,256 8,244

Moldova 18,826 0 0 0 0 0

Ukraine 11,159 0 0 738 0 0

Subtotal *** *** *** *** *** ***

Trinidad & Tobago 386,419 146,783 260,618 104,804 133,326 95,325

Subtotal subject *** *** *** *** *** ***

Stelco *** *** *** *** *** ***

Grade 1080 tire cord and tire

 bead from subject sources *** *** *** *** *** ***

Other sources 2,262,306 1,505,183 2,859,490 1,997,826 2,554,966 992,163

Total 3,765,048 2,453,575 4,039,783 2,773,118 3,294,799 1,782,699

Table continued on following page.
IV-3

Table IV-1--Continued

Wire rod: U.S. imports, by sources, 2002-07

Source

Calendar year

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Value (1,000 dollars)

1

Brazil *** 0 0 0 0 0

Canada (excluding Stelco) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Indonesia 10,494 0 17,247 262 0 0

Mexico 34,548 6,296 33,332 6,283 2,032 4,263

Moldova 3,708 0 0 0 0 0

Ukraine 2,446 0 0 501 0 0

Subtotal *** *** *** *** *** ***

Trinidad & Tobago 107,445 39,267 124,194 50,039 64,253 46,228

Subtotal subject *** *** *** *** *** ***

Stelco *** *** *** *** *** ***

Grade 1080 tire cord and tire

 bead from subject sources *** *** *** *** *** ***

Other sources 622,360 462,923 1,308,240 1,024,997 1,244,511 574,316

Total 1,121,781 784,088 1,927,796 1,505,064 1,690,689 1,063,201

Unit value (per short ton)

Brazil $*** -- -- -- -- --

Canada (excluding Stelco) *** $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

Indonesia 257 -- 576 785 -- --

Mexico 280 315 487 547 477 517

Moldova 197 -- -- -- -- --

Ukraine 219 -- -- 680 -- --

Average *** *** *** *** *** ***

Trinidad & Tobago 278 268 477 477 482 485

Average subject *** *** *** *** *** ***

Stelco *** *** *** *** *** ***

Grade 1080 tire cord and tire

 bead from subject sources *** *** *** *** *** ***

Other sources 275 308 458 513 487 579

Average 298 320 477 543 513 596

Table continued on following page.
IV-4

Table IV-1--Continued

Wire rod: U.S. imports, by sources, 2002–07

Source

Calendar year

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Share of quantity (percent)

Brazil *** 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Canada (excluding Stelco) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Indonesia 1.1 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0

Mexico 3.3 0.8 1.7 0.4 0.1 0.5

Moldova 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Ukraine 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Subtotal *** *** *** *** *** ***

Trinidad & Tobago 10.3 6.0 6.5 3.8 4.0 5.3

Subtotal subject *** *** *** *** *** ***

Stelco *** *** *** *** *** ***

Grade 1080 tire cord and tire

 bead from subject sources *** *** *** *** *** ***

Other sources 60.1 61.3 70.8 72.0 77.5 55.7

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of value (percent)

Brazil *** 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Canada (excluding Stelco) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Indonesia 0.9 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0

Mexico 3.1 0.8 1.7 0.4 0.1 0.4

Moldova 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Ukraine 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Subtotal *** *** *** *** *** ***

Trinidad & Tobago 9.6 5.0 6.4 3.3 3.8 4.3

Subtotal subject *** *** *** *** *** ***

Stelco *** *** *** *** *** ***

Grade 1080 tire cord and tire

 bead from subject sources *** *** *** *** *** ***

Other sources 55.5 59.0 67.9 68.1 73.6 54.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table continued on following page.
 5

 Hearing transcript, p. 103 (Simon) and pp. 103-104 (Cheek).

IV-5

Table IV-1--Continued

Wire rod: U.S. imports, by sources, 2002-07

Source

Calendar year

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Ratio of import quantity to U.S. production (percent)

Brazil *** 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Canada (excluding Stelco) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Indonesia 1.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0

Mexico 3.1 0.5 1.7 0.3 0.1 0.2

Moldova 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Ukraine 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Subtotal *** *** *** *** *** ***

Trinidad & Tobago 9.6 3.6 6.4 2.8 3.4 2.3

Subtotal subject *** *** *** *** *** ***

Stelco *** *** *** *** *** ***

Grade 1080 tire cord and tire

 bead from subject sources *** *** *** *** *** ***

Other sources 56.1 37.1 69.9 53.4 65.9 24.4

Total 93.3 60.5 98.8 74.1 85.0 43.8

 1 Landed, duty-paid.

Note.–Imports from Indonesia and Ukraine in 2005 are misclassified out-of-scope products and should not be considered imports

of wire rod.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics under

HTS statistical reporting numbers 7213.91.3011, 7213.91.3015, 7213.91.3092, 7213.91.4500, 7213.91.6000, 7213.99.0030,

7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0000, 7227.90.6010, and 7227.90.6080 for 2007; for statistical reporting numbers in previous years,

please consult Part I, “Tariff Treatment.”

Between 2002 and 2006, the share of total U.S. imports held by subject imports fell from a near

high of *** percent in 2002 to a low of *** percent in 2006. In 2007, subject imports increased their

share to a peak level of *** percent, largely as a result of increasing imports from Canada and decreasing

imports from nonsubject countries in 2007, as China and Turkey receded from the market. 

Representatives of the domestic industry believe that part of the reason for the decline in nonsubject

imports is the growing attractiveness of prices in certain other markets relative to prices in the United

States, and purchasers drew down inventories.5
 6

 Ibid., pp. 57-58 (Kerwin).

 7

 According to official statistics, imports of wire rod during the first quarter of 2008 from Trinidad and Tobago

were 12,790 short tons, imports from Mexico *** were 55 short tons, and there were no imports from Indonesia or

Ukraine. Imports of wire rod from Canada and Brazil reported in official statistics are not useful in determining the

wire rod subject to the orders in those countries, as imports of wire rod produced by Stelco in Canada and grade

1080 tire cord and tire bead wire rod from Brazil are included in official statistics.

IV-6

The unit values of imported wire rod from all sources increased from $298 per short ton in 2002

to $596 per short ton in 2007, coincident with increases in scrap prices and energy prices, and the peak in

apparent U.S. consumption in 2004.6

 The unit values of subject imports followed a similar trend.

The ratio of subject U.S. imports of wire rod from the seven subject countries to U.S. production

of wire rod was *** percent in 2002, and did not exceed *** percent after 2002. 

U.S. importers’ orders of subject imports are presented in table IV-2. Importers reported

arrangements for the importation of wire rod from two of the seven subject countries for delivery after

December 31, 2007.7

Table IV-2

Wire rod: U.S. importers’ orders, by subject sources, by quarters, 2008

* * * * * * *

Leading Nonsubject Sources of Imports

During the period for which data were collected, imports of wire rod entered the United States

from a variety of sources other than the seven countries subject to these reviews. The leading nonsubject

suppliers are shown in table IV-3. The leading source of nonsubject wire rod imports in 2007 was China,

followed by Japan and Germany. In 2002-04, Turkey was the largest nonsubject supplier, but it largely

withdrew from the market in 2007, contributing to the sizeable decrease in nonsubject imports in 2007. 

As previously discussed, the largest decline was a decrease in imports from China in 2007 after the

imposition of an export tax of 15 percent on wire rod.
IV-7

Table IV-3

Wire rod: U.S. imports from leading nonsubject sources, 2002-07

Source

Calendar year

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Quantity (short tons)

China 410,926 269,328 770,773 685,252 1,370,122 591,935

Japan 191,343 177,665 173,360 196,759 190,146 218,425

Germany 55,861 108,518 255,478 226,467 116,453 56,147

Malaysia 43,983 52,791 110,142 62,916 83,882 36,225

United Kingdom 103,512 32,671 47,664 56,270 46,688 21,689

Korea 84 316 1,003 4,756 7,861 19,703

Argentina 153,216 86,599 68,812 72,188 34,903 17,383

Turkey 491,010 416,370 781,648 359,349 252,866 13,941

South Africa 42,215 69,097 49,386 62,624 77,031 9,083

Spain 85,308 86,790 59,367 47,669 62,504 4,582

 Subtotal 1,577,458 1,300,145 2,317,632 1,774,250 2,242,457 989,113

All other 684,849 205,038 541,858 223,576 312,509 3,050

 Total 2,262,306 1,505,183 2,859,490 1,997,826 2,554,966 992,163

Table continued on following page.
IV-8

Table IV-3--Continued

Wire rod: U.S. imports from leading nonsubject sources, 2002-07

Source

Calendar year

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Value (1,000 dollars)

1

China 99,442 68,621 340,877 305,949 593,045 281,526

Japan 90,042 86,408 106,852 161,749 167,846 173,849

Germany 22,876 40,883 127,456 129,008 75,466 47,879

Malaysia 10,666 14,564 45,742 28,900 36,081 17,462

United Kingdom 26,062 13,068 23,485 36,516 28,319 14,423

Korea 81 347 694 3,502 4,077 10,960

Argentina 39,170 23,486 35,904 36,003 17,461 8,344

Turkey 120,857 108,270 332,694 150,999 109,653 6,939

South Africa 10,561 19,217 17,738 31,931 36,721 4,253

Spain 24,466 26,291 30,131 29,755 36,017 3,271

 Subtotal 444,222 401,156 1,061,573 914,310 1,104,687 568,907

All other 178,138 61,767 246,667 110,687 139,825 5,409

 Total 622,360 462,923 1,308,240 1,024,997 1,244,511 574,316

Table continued on following page.
IV-9

Table IV-3--Continued

Wire rod: U.S. imports from leading nonsubject sources, 2002-07

Source

Calendar year

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Unit value (per short ton)

China $242 $255 $442 $446 $433 $476

Japan 471 486 616 822 883 796

Germany 410 377 499 570 648 853

Malaysia 242 276 415 459 430 482

United Kingdom 252 400 493 649 607 665

Korea 961 1,100 692 736 519 556

Argentina 256 271 522 499 500 480

Turkey 246 260 426 420 434 498

South Africa 250 278 359 510 477 468

Spain 287 303 508 624 576 714

 Average 282 309 458 515 493 575

All other 260 301 455 495 447 1,773

 Average 275 308 458 513 487 579

 1 Landed, duty-paid.

Note.–“All other sources” include Belgium, Czech Republic, India, Italy, France, and Netherlands. 

Note.–These data do not include imports from Stelco in Canada or grade 1080 tire bead or tire cord wire rod from subject

sources.

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics under HTS statistical reporting numbers 7213.91.3011, 7213.91.3015,

7213.91.3092, 7213.91.4500, 7213.91.6000, 7213.99.0030, 7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0000, 7227.90.6010, and 7227.90.6080; for

statistical reporting numbers in previous years, please consult Part I, “Tariff Treatment.”

U.S. IMPORTERS’ INVENTORIES

Data relating to U.S. importers’ inventories of wire rod are presented in table IV-4. As the data

presented in table IV-4 illustrate, inventories of subject imports declined steadily after 2002, especially

inventories of imports from *** and *** (after 2003). 

As seen in table IV-4, importers’ inventories from all sources reached a peak in 2002, declined in

2003, increased in 2004 when consumption peaked, and declined thereafter. Inventories declined from

2006 to 2007, but were already at a much reduced level in 2006 from those held in 2005 and 2004. The

amount of importers’ inventory draw down from 2006 to 2007 was substantially less than the decline in

imports from 2006 to 2007.
 8

 Hearing transcript, pp. 77-78 (Kerwin) and p. 103 (Simon).

 9

 Hearing transcript, pp. 225-226 (Woltz).

 10 Posthearing brief of the AWPA, exh. 7.

IV-10

Table IV-4

Wire rod: U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of imports, by source, 2002-07

Item

Calendar year

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

* * * * * * *

Imports from all sources:

 Inventories 

 (short tons) 244,198 167,756 201,236 143,479 61,438 6,776

 Ratio to imports

 (percent) 9.5 9.8 7.3 7.6 2.5 0.5

 Ratio to U.S.

 shipments of

 imports (percent) 9.5 9.5 7.4 7.4 2.5 0.5

Note.–There were no inventories from ***.

Note.–There were no subject inventories of imports reported from Indonesia, Moldova, or Ukraine.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

At the hearing, purchasers and other industry witnesses testified that the purchasers’ inventory

buildup of imported wire rod in 2006 was partially responsible for the withdrawal of imports from the

market in 2007;8

 another purchaser testified that 2006 appeared to be a year in which the inventory

fluctuation situation had largely been corrected.9

 In its posthearing brief, the AWPA listed its inventory

holdings of domestically produced and imported wire rod during 2002-07. Inventories peaked in

February 2005 (at *** short tons), after a runup during the peak demand year of 2004 when the U.S. wire

rod market conditions were relatively tight. During 2006, inventories increased from *** short tons to

*** short tons. Reported purchaser inventory fell from *** short tons to *** short tons, a decrease of ***

short tons.10 

CUMULATION CONSIDERATIONS

In assessing whether subject imports are likely to compete with each other and with the domestic

like product with respect to cumulation, the Commission generally has considered the following four

factors: (1) the degree of fungibility, including specific customer requirements and other quality-related

questions; (2) presence of sales or offers to sell in the same geographic markets; (3) common channels of

distribution; and (4) simultaneous presence in the market. Channels of distribution and fungibility

(interchangeability) are discussed in Part II of this report. Additional information concerning fungibility,

geographical markets, and simultaneous presence in the market is presented below.
 11 Comments on draft questionnaires by counsel for Ivaco, December 20, 2007, pp. 6-7.

 12 Hearing transcript, p. 222 (Goldsmith).

 13 Posthearing brief of Ivaco, answers to Commissioners’ questions, p. 32.

 14 Purchasers’ comments on technical support are included in Part II.

IV-11

Fungibility

Different countries sell different ranges of grades into the United States. Table IV-5 shows U.S.

shipments by grade and source, in terms of quantity and share of total. The first two categories, low and

medium-low carbon industrial and standard quality wire rod, and high and medium-high carbon industrial

and standard quality wire rod (other than tire cord and tire bead) are typically classified as “commodity”

or “industrial” grades. The next four categories, tire cord and tire bead wire rod, welding quality wire

rod, cold heading quality wire rod (“CHQ”), and other specialty carbon and alloy quality wire rod, are

considered “specialty quality” or “specialty” grades. The remaining “all other” category includes any

other types of wire rod but it may also include mis-classified standard grades. In each of the calendar

years examined, over 70 percent of U.S. producers’ total U.S. shipments were in the standard grades; the

specialty grades were dominated by CHQ and the “all other” category. CHQ increased by *** percentage

points over the period, while the higher quality CHQ wire rod meeting ASTM specification F2282

fluctuated during 2002-07, reaching its highest share in 2005. Producers reporting production of wire rod

meeting ASTM specification F2282 included ***. 

The share of shipments of subject imports by U.S. importers in the standard grades declined,

falling from *** percent in 2002 to *** percent in 2007; the specialty grades were dominated by CHQ

and the welding quality category. The share of CHQ increased *** over the period, while the higher

quality subset product, CHQ wire rod meeting ASTM specification F2282, also increased during 2002-

07, *** in 2007. *** reported imports of wire rod meeting ASTM specification F2282 ***. Counsel for

Ivaco has made the argument that Ivaco’s products are unique in the U.S. market, and that its CHQ is of a

higher quality than its U.S. counterparts. It requested that the Commission gather information on

shipments of wire rod meeting ASTM specification F2282;11 however, even ***. 

At the hearing, Ivaco asserted that the Canadian producers’ products are of a higher quality

because both Ivaco and Arcelor Mittal have access to very high quality billets, not entirely scrap-based

billets, which is what it claims is used by most of the U.S. industry.12 In its posthearing brief, Ivaco

argued that *** percent of its wire rod shipments to the United States were of specialized products,

representing an increase from the *** percent shipped during the original investigation.13 

Pursuant to a request by counsel for Ivaco, the Commission included a question in its U.S.

producers’ questionnaire about producers’ engineering staff devoted to CHQ support.14 Charter has an

entire division of engineering devoted to CHQ support. According to Charter’s questionnaire response:

***.

Further, according to Arcelor Mittal’s questionnaire response:

***.

Finally, according to Gerdau’s questionnaire response:

***.
IV-12

Table IV-5

Wire rod: U.S. producers’ and U.S. importers’ shipments, by product type, 2002-07

Item 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Quantity (short tons)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments

Low and medium-low carbon industrial and

standard quality wire rod 2,024,778 2,117,295 2,139,487 1,806,330 1,916,369 2,184,080

High and medium-high carbon industrial and

standard quality wire rods (other than tire cord

and tire bead) 871,692 976,883 827,477 873,300 897,338 892,800

Tire cord wire rod and tire bead wire rod,

including grade 1080 197,792 166,178 113,269 136,739 69,522 106,499

Welding quality wire rod 91,958 69,317 47,980 91,978 113,556 77,519

Cold heading quality wire rod *** *** *** *** *** ***

Other specialty carbon and alloy quality wire

rod shipments *** *** *** *** *** ***

All other wire rod shipments 297,787 297,827 334,995 200,494 184,968 204,802

Total wire rod shipments 3,988,817 4,136,134 4,092,107 3,711,401 3,784,061 4,073,433

CHQ meeting standard ASTM F2282 wire rod

(subset of CHQ above) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Share (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 

Low and medium-low carbon industrial and

standard quality wire rod 50.8 51.2 52.3 48.7 50.6 53.6

High and medium-high carbon industrial and

standard quality wire rods (other than tire cord

and tire bead) 21.9 23.6 20.2 23.5 23.7 21.9

Tire cord wire rod and tire bead wire rod,

including grade 1080 5.0 4.0 2.8 3.7 1.8 2.6

Welding quality wire rod 2.3 1.7 1.2 2.5 3.0 1.9

Cold heading quality wire rod *** *** *** *** *** ***

Other specialty carbon and alloy quality wire

rod shipments *** *** *** *** *** ***

All other wire rod shipments 7.5 7.2 8.2 5.4 4.9 5.0

Total wire rod shipments 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

CHQ meeting standard ASTM F2282 wire rod

(subset of CHQ above) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Tabular presentation deleted. Table continued on following page.
IV-13

Table IV-5--Continued

Wire rod: Total U.S. importers’ shipments, by product type, 2002-07

Item 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Quantity (short tons)

Total U.S. shipments of imports

Low and medium-low carbon industrial and

standard quality wire rod 1,547,104 987,965 1,722,126 1,251,791 1,792,488 637,175

High and medium-high carbon industrial and

standard quality wire rods (other than tire cord

and tire bead) 332,733 207,299 311,188 220,926 261,020 227,348

Tire cord wire rod and tire bead wire rod,

other than grade 1080 133,525 97,540 124,849 97,286 102,134 88,036

Welding quality wire rod 165,959 171,370 241,358 107,863 91,888 82,781

Cold heading quality wire rod 385,031 268,200 294,799 239,067 214,765 244,641

Other specialty carbon and alloy quality wire

rod shipments 41,861 42,208 45,576 30,927 37,353 51,545

All other wire rod shipments 10,229 1,048 462 564 0 90

Total subject wire rod shipments 2,616,442 1,775,630 2,740,358 1,948,424 2,499,648 1,331,616

CHQ meeting standard ASTM F2282 wire rod

(subset of CHQ above) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Share (percent)

Total U.S. shipments of imports

Low and medium-low carbon industrial and

standard quality wire rod 59.1 55.6 62.8 64.2 71.7 47.8

High and medium-high carbon industrial and

standard quality wire rods (other than tire cord

and tire bead) 12.7 11.7 11.4 11.3 10.4 17.1

Tire cord wire rod and tire bead wire rod,

other than grade 1080 5.1 5.5 4.6 5.0 4.1 6.6

Welding quality wire rod 6.3 9.7 8.8 5.5 3.7 6.2

Cold heading quality wire rod 14.7 15.1 10.8 12.3 8.6 18.4

Other specialty carbon and alloy quality wire

rod shipments 1.6 2.4 1.7 1.6 1.5 3.9

All other wire rod shipments 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total subject wire rod shipments 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

CHQ meeting standard ASTM F2282 wire rod

(subset of CHQ above) *** *** *** *** *** ***

 1

 According to the one identified purchaser of wire rod from Indonesia, the product mix of imports into the United States was

low and medium-low industrial standard quality wire rod and high and medium-high industrial standard quality wire rod only.

Email from ***, April 23, 2008.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
IV-14

Geographic Markets

As noted previously, wire rod produced in the United States is shipped nationwide. Information

summarizing ports of entry of wire rod imported from the subject countries is presented in table IV-6. 

Additional information on geographic markets may be found in Part II of this report. As table IV-6

illustrates, in 2007 imports from Canada entered the United States through Detroit, MI, Ogdensburg, NY,

and Buffalo, NY; imports from Mexico were entering through Laredo, TX; and imports from Trinidad &

Tobago were entering through New Orleans, LA, Tampa, FL, and Philadelphia, PA. During 2001, the

final year of the original investigations, New Orleans, LA, and Houston-Galveston, TX served as

common ports of entry for wire rod from most of the subject countries. However, even in 2001, imports

from Canada, the leading supplier at that time, entered in different districts.

Table IV-6

Wire rod: U.S. imports from subject countries, by Customs district, 2001 and 2007

(Leading districts)

Source 2001 2007

Brazil New Orleans, LA; Mobile, AL;

Savannah, GA No subject imports

Canada Detroit, MI; Buffalo, NY; Ogdensburg,

NY

Detroit, MI; Ogdensburg, NY; Buffalo,

NY

Indonesia Los Angeles, CA; San Francisco, CA No subject imports

Mexico New Orleans, LA; Laredo, TX; Los

Angeles, CA Laredo, TX

Moldova New Orleans, LA; Houston-Galveston,

TX; Tampa, FL No subject imports

Trinidad & Tobago New Orleans, LA; Charleston, SC;

Cleveland, OH; Houston-Galveston, TX

New Orleans, LA; Tampa, FL;

Philadelphia, PA; 

Ukraine Houston-Galveston, TX; Philadelphia,

PA; New Orleans, LA; Charleston, SC No subject imports

Note.–Data include grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead wire rod from Brazil in 2001 and from Canada in 2001 and 2007, and imports

from Stelco in Canada.

Note.–Imports from Indonesia in 2004 entered through Los Angeles, CA.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of Commerce for HTS numbers 7213.91.3011, 7213.91.3015, 7213.91.3092,

7213.91.4500, 7213.91.6000, 7213.99.0030, 7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0000, 7227.90.6010, and 7227.90.6080; for statistical

reporting numbers in previous years, please consult Part I, “Tariff Treatment.”

Presence in the Market

Table IV-7 presents data on the monthly entries of U.S. imports of wire rod, by source, during 

2002-07. Wire rod produced in Canada, Mexico, and Trinidad & Tobago was generally present in most

months during 2002-07. Imports from Brazil, Indonesia, Moldova, and Ukraine were generally absent

from the market after the imposition of the orders in 2002. Imports from all other sources combined were

present throughout the period.
 15 ***.

 16 Of the three responding producers in Mexico, ***.

IV-15

Table IV-7

Wire rod: U.S. imports, monthly entries into the United States, by sources, 2002-07

Source

Calendar year

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Brazil 12 0 0 0 0 0

Canada 12 12 12 12 12 12

Indonesia 201100

Mexico 12 12 12 11 10 11

Moldova 2 0 0 0 0 0

Trinidad & Tobago 12 11 12 10 11 9

Ukraine 2 0 0 1 0 0

All others 12 12 12 12 12 12

Note.–Data include grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead from Canada and wire rod produced by Stelco in Canada.

Note.–Entries for Indonesia and Ukraine in 2005 are mis-classified out-of-scope products.

Note.–Entries from Brazil after 2002 were only grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead wire rod, and are therefore not

shown in this table.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of Commerce for HTS numbers 7213.91.3011, 7213.91.3015,

7213.91.3092, 7213.91.4500, 7213.91.6000, 7213.99.0030, 7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0000, 7227.90.6010, and

7227.90.6080; for statistical reporting numbers in previous years, please consult Part I, “Tariff Treatment.”

THE SUBJECT FOREIGN INDUSTRIES

Actual and Anticipated Changes in Capacity

The wire rod industries in Brazil, Mexico, and Ukraine added capacity during 2002-07, while

subject capacity declined in Canada during the same period, according to data submitted in response to

Commission questionnaires, as presented in table IV-8. According to ***,15 capacity additions were

forecasted only in Brazil during 2007-10, as presented in table IV-9. The data sources differ somewhat,

with estimates of higher capacity in Brazil, Canada, Mexico, Moldova, and Trinidad & Tobago by ***

and estimates of lower capacity in Ukraine by ***. The questionnaire data show a ***-percent increase

in capacity during 2002-07; the *** data forecast a ***-percent increase in capacity during 2007-10. 

Although the questionnaire data do not include Indonesia, the *** data do not forecast any capacity

expansion for that country. 

Brazil has the largest projected expansion, has the largest industry, and it is a net exporter of wire

rod. Mexico has the next largest industry, but it is a net importer of wire rod.16 The third largest industry

is located in Ukraine, which is not forecasted to expand capacity, but did report a capacity expansion in

its questionnaire response in 2005-07 (which did not appear in ***). During the original investigations,

Mexico and Ukraine had greater quantities of exports to the United States than Brazil. The contraction of

capacity in Canada has taken place at the same time that exports to the United States have fluctuated.
 17 Prehearing brief of the Embassy of Ukraine, p. 7.

 18 Official Journal of the European Union, May 8, 2008, C 113/20.

IV-16

Table IV-8

Wire rod: Subject countries’ capacity, 2002-07 (actual)

* * * * * * *

Table IV-9

Wire rod: Subject countries’ capacity, 2005-06 (actual), 2007-10 (forecasted), and 2007-10 change

* * * * * * *

Exports

As shown in table IV-10, China was the largest nonsubject country exporter during 2002-06

(2006 is the latest year available). Not only was China the largest nonsubject country exporter in 2006, it

had the largest increase, during 2002-06. Slightly more major exporting countries experienced declines in

their exports of wire rod than increases.

Net Trade Balance

Data concerning the net trade balance reported for each subject country is presented in table 

IV-11. These data show that, on an aggregate basis, the five subject countries with available data were

net exporters during 2002-06. Brazil and Ukraine were substantial net exporters during each year in the

period. Mexico was a net importer during four of the five years of the period, and the amount by which it

was a net importer increased irregularly during 2002-06. Indonesia was a net importer until 2005. 

Tariff or Non-Tariff Barriers to Trade

The Commission asked producers of wire rod in the subject countries to identify tariff or nontariff barriers to trade (for example, antidumping or countervailing duty findings or remedies, tariffs,

quotas, or regulatory barriers) concerning their exports of wire rod to countries other than the United

States. The Commission also asked the subject foreign producers to identify ongoing investigations in

countries other than the United States that could result in tariff or non-tariff barriers to trade for their

exports of wire rod. There were no reports by foreign producers of any barriers to trade except for wire

rod from Ukraine, which is subject to quotas in the EU beginning in 1995 (134,509 short tons in 2008)

and in Russia beginning in 2007 (221,610 short tons in 2008). Although the prehearing brief of the

Embassy of Ukraine asserts that these quotas will be removed upon entry of Ukraine to the EU, it did not

specify when this change is to take place or how it will be implemented.17 Since the questionnaires were

issued, however, the EU initiated an antidumping proceeding against wire rod from China, Moldova, and

Turkey (in May 2008), and is expected to institute provisional measures (if warranted) in 9 months, and to

reach a final conclusion in 15 months.18
IV-17

Table IV-10

Wire rod: Reported worldwide exports from subject countries, top 10 nonsubject countries, and all other

countries, 2002-06

Exporting country 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Quantity (short tons)

Brazil 535,432 863,124 819,546 1,323,816 1,022,819

Canada 789,374 659,108 676,103 502,669 523,300

Indonesia 225 18,924 60,849 184,594 207,128

Mexico 117,134 117,464 137,487 53,375 22,366

Ukraine 2,278,706 2,125,642 1,977,980 1,613,736 2,071,561

 Subtotal 3,720,871 3,784,262 3,671,966 3,678,190 3,847,174

China 836,971 1,152,539 2,576,726 3,425,767 5,942,683

Germany 2,216,937 2,144,196 2,597,363 2,179,520 2,456,982

Japan 1,565,666 1,436,736 1,454,907 1,153,772 1,102,441

Russia 1,251,074 1,181,503 1,118,448 1,017,021 831,903

Belgium 634,280 654,907 619,301 618,016 810,134

Czech Republic 915,091 912,750 864,485 701,671 807,317

France 725,607 714,178 699,829 707,443 663,606

Netherlands 313,232 377,712 520,374 522,739 599,186

Italy 420,834 320,774 580,241 457,569 594,845

United Kingdom 603,180 480,517 575,011 676,284 591,555

 Subtotal, top nonsubject

 countries 9,482,870 9,375,811 11,606,686 11,459,803 14,400,651

 All other countries 5,095,326 5,577,643 6,424,953 6,125,771 4,452,282

 World 18,299,067 18,737,716 21,703,604 21,263,764 22,700,106

Note.–Moldova and Trinidad & Tobago do not report trade data to the Global Trade Atlas.

Note.–Data include grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead and wire rod produced by Stelco in Canada.

Note.–Data reported by GTA for exports from Mexico to Mexico were removed because it was assumed that these data were in

error (46,002 short tons in 2002).

Note.–2006 is the latest year available for data from all countries.

Source: Compiled from Global Trade Atlas including HS codes: 7213.91, 7213.99, 7227.20, and 7227.90.
IV-18

Table IV-11

Wire rod: Subject country exports, imports, and net trade balances, 2002-061

Source

Calendar year

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Export quantity (short tons)

Brazil 535,432 863,124 819,546 1,323,816 1,022,819

Canada 789,374 659,108 676,103 502,669 523,300

Indonesia 225 18,924 60,849 184,594 207,128

Mexico 117,134 117,464 137,487 53,375 22,366

Ukraine 2,278,706 2,125,642 1,977,980 1,613,736 2,071,561

Total subject 3,720,871 3,784,262 3,671,966 3,678,190 3,847,174

Import quantity (short tons)

Brazil 14,946 14,758 39,301 42,842 77,829

Canada 450,633 351,685 532,599 514,842 483,011

Indonesia 134,517 116,937 118,564 155,899 109,418

Mexico 169,603 132,338 115,590 153,436 250,304

Ukraine 25,422 23,119 16,707 6,972 17,032

Total subject 795,120 638,837 822,761 873,991 937,594

Trade balance (short tons)

Brazil 520,486 848,367 780,245 1,280,974 944,990

Canada 338,742 307,423 143,503 (12,174) 40,288

Indonesia (134,292) (98,013) (57,715) 28,694 97,710

Mexico (52,469) (14,873) 21,898 (100,061) (227,939)

Ukraine 2,253,284 2,102,523 1,961,273 1,606,765 2,054,529

Total subject 2,925,750 3,145,425 2,849,204 2,804,198 2,909,580

 1 Positive numbers presented for “trade balance” show net exports and numbers in parentheses presented for “trade balance”

show net imports.

Note.–Data include grade 1080 tire bead and tire cord wire rod. Data also include wire rod produced by Stelco in Canada.

Note.–Moldova and Trinidad and Tobago do not report trade data to the Global Trade Atlas.

Note.–Data reported by GTA for exports from Mexico to Mexico were removed because it was assumed that these data were in

error (46,002 short tons in 2002).

Note.–Because of rounding, exports minus imports may not equal the trade balance.

 

Source: Compiled from Global Trade Atlas including HS codes: 7213.91, 7213.99, 7227.20, and 7227.90.
 19 Although counsel for Nucor, Cascade, and Republic and for the AWPA have argued that the Commission

should consider Mittal’s ownership in Ispat Indo in Indonesia together with Arcelor Mittal’s ownership in the five

other foreign subject firms (see posthearing brief of Nucor, Cascade, and Republic, pp. 2-3, and posthearing brief of

the AWPA, exh. 5), Arcelor Mittal has no ownership concern in Ispat Mittal, which was not included in the merger

between Mittal and Arcelor. According to Arcelor Mittal USA, “***.” Email from ***, April 28, 2008. 

 20 Hearing transcript, p. 49 (Cannon). Nevertheless, as discussed in Part I, Arcelor Mittal’s Trinidadian

production entity continues to pursue litigation concerning the original investigation on subject imports from

Trinidad & Tobago.

 21 Email from ***, March 6, 2008.

 22 Hearing transcript, pp. 152-153 (Rosenthal).

 23 Posthearing brief of Arcelor Mittal USA, Gerdau, Keystone, and Rocky Mountain, exh. 1, p. 4.

 24 Ibid., exh. 1, p. 6.

IV-19

ARCELOR MITTAL’S ROLE IN WIRE ROD PRODUCTION 

AND SHIPMENTS WORLDWIDE

Table IV-12 presents Arcelor Mittal’s worldwide production and exports to the United States of

wire rod during 2007. The firm has numerous wire rod production facilities around the world, as well as

facilities in Brazil, Canada, Mexico, Trinidad & Tobago, and Ukraine involved in these reviews, and in

the United States in Indiana and South Carolina.19 Arcelor Mittal USA supported the continuation of the

antidumping and countervailing duty orders in these sunset reviews on all countries involved in the

proceedings.20 Its exports to the United States accounted for approximately *** percent of total

production worldwide by Arcelor Mittal. Exports to the United States from the subject countries

accounted for approximately *** percent, however; those exports included ***. 

Table IV-12

Wire rod: Arcelor Mittal’s mills worldwide, their production and exports to the United States, 2007

* * * * * * *

When asked to explain how Arcelor Mittal makes decisions regarding domestic production vs.

importation of wire rod from its related firms, Arcelor Mittal USA provided the following response: 

***.21

At the Commission’s hearing, Counsel for Arcelor Mittal explained that: “I wouldn’t expect that

Arcelor Mittal would do anything deliberately to harm its facilities in the U.S., and therefore, they

wouldn’t sell to them first in order to avoid that harm, ...”Nevertheless, counsel observed that Arcelor

Mittal’s overall approach is to protect Areclor Mittal, not the other domestic competitors, so what they

may feel is in the Arcelor Mittal best interest may not necessarily be viewed as noninjurious to the rest of

the industry, and in this particular instance, because Arcelor Mittal is a relatively small player in the wire

rod market, they will have a different view of what’s helpful and harmful to the overall domestic industry

than they might when they were a bigger player in another product segment.22

In its posthearing brief, Arcelor Mittal gave the following explanation for how decisions are made

for wire rod sales and importation:

Arcelor Mittal’s wire rod sales in the United States, ***.23

Counsel for Arcelor Mittal notes that Arcelor Mittal USA has ***.24

Purchaser Lincoln Electric asserted at the hearing that Arcelor Mittal agreed to transfer certain of

its specifications from its Georgetown, SC mill to its mill in Canada because Lincoln Electric experienced
 25 Hearing transcript, p. 183 (Deshane).

 26 Ibid., p. 184.

 27 Ibid., pp. 282-283 (Moffitt).

 28 Posthearing brief of Arcelor Mittal USA, Gerdau, Keystone, and Rocky Mountain, exh. 1, p. 2.

 29 Hearing transcript, pp. 154-155 (Rosenthal).

 30 Posthearing brief of Arcelor Mittal USA, Gerdau, Keystone, and Rocky Mountain, exh. 1, p. 3.

IV-20

significant quality problems with the wire rod from the Georgetown facility.25 This would seem to

indicate that Arcelor Mittal is capable of shifting some of its business from its U.S. mills to its subject

country mills. However, the Lincoln Electric representative testified that “we are definitely 

convinced that any imports to the United States from any Arcelor Mittal mill around the world will go

through their wire rod organization in Chicago.”26 Likewise, a Heico Wire Group representative testified 

that he believed that all decisions about what gets offered from Arcelor Mittal’s various global locations

is done by “the folks in Chicago,” and he testified that his firm bought wire rod from their mills in

Canada, Mexico, Ukraine, and Brazil.27

When asked if Arcelor Mittal may be considering closing the Georgetown mill in favor of

importing wire rod from subject or nonsubject affiliates, Arcelor Mittal replied in its posthearing brief that

it is fully committed to its U.S. wire business, as demonstrated by its investments there, and is not

considering closing Georgetown in favor of importing from any affiliate.28

In contrasting Arcelor Mittal’s operations in the United States and the subject countries, it should

be noted that the range of products offered is somewhat different at each location, as shown in the

tabulation below representing 2007 U.S. shipments at Arcelor Mittal USA and total shipments in its

related firms in their respective countries. According to counsel for Arcelor Mittal USA, Gerdau,

Keystone, and Rocky Mountain, Arcelor Mittal might be tempted to import wire rod from its subject

country affiliates to round out its U.S. product offerings if the order was revoked, even though the firm

would state that it would not pursue such a strategy, as that is its position.29 It its posthearing brief,

counsel for Arcelor Mittal USA, Gerdau, Keystone, and Rocky Mountain reported that Arcelor Mittal has

***.30 

* * * * * * *

Arcelor Mittal’s operations in each of the subject countries vary in terms of capacity, production,

capacity utilization rates, and export concentration, as seen in the following tabulation (based on

questionnaire response data from the various foreign producers). Arcelor Mittal does not control all the

production and shipments in three of the five subject countries in which it operates: Brazil, Canada, and

Mexico each have other producers operating in those countries in addition to affiliates of Arcelor Mittal. 

In Brazil, Arcelor Mittal accounts for approximately *** percent or less of the market; in Canada

approximately *** percent of the capacity; and in Mexico approximately *** percent of the capacity.

* * * * * * *

GERDAU’S ROLE IN WIRE ROD PRODUCTION 

AND SHIPMENTS WORLDWIDE

Table IV-13 presents Gerdau’s worldwide production and exports to the United States of wire rod

during 2007. The firm has several plants in Brazil involved in these reviews, and in the United States in

Florida, New Jersey, and Texas. Gerdau Ameristeel supported the continuation of the antidumping and

countervailing duty orders in these five-year reviews on all countries involved in the proceedings. 

Gerdau did not have any exports from Brazil to the United States after the orders were imposed. 
 31 Posthearing brief of Arcelor Mittal USA, Gerdau, Keystone, and Rocky Mountain, exh. 1, p. 16.

 32 Hearing transcript, pp. 299-300 (Waite).

IV-21

Table IV-13

Wire rod: Gerdau’s mills worldwide, their production and exports to the United States, 2007

* * * * * * *

When asked for an explanation for how Gerdau makes decisions regarding domestic production

vs. importation of wire rod from its related firms in Brazil, it provided the following response: 

Within the Gerdau family of companies, the producing entity has control of the sale via

its own assigned sales force. Gerdau S.A. uses its own sales force for its Brazilian mills

and does not coordinate sales with Gerdau Ameristeel or sell through Gerdau Ameristeel. 

While Gerdau Ameristeel may find out or be told about the existence of a U.S. sale by a

Gerdau mill in Brazil, Gerdau Ameristeel US has no control over the price, volume, or

customer choices of Gerdau S.A. in the United States. The producing mill and its sales

force has the ultimate responsibility for making the decision as to who to sell and at what

quantities and prices.31

At the hearing, counsel for purchasers testified that Gerdau has been offering wire rope to firms

from both its U.S. mill and its Brazil mill, at different prices (with the Brazilian product at a higher price),

in the same solicitation letter. Counsel asserted that it is “peculiar” to be told that Gerdau Ameristeel may

not know what Gerdau Brazil is doing when in fact they are marketing their products to purchasers

directly.32 

In contrasting Gerdau’s operations in the United States and in Brazil, it should be noted that the

range of products offered is somewhat different at each location, as shown in the tabulation below

representing 2007 U.S. shipments at Gerdau USA and total shipments in its related firms in Brazil. 

* * * * * * *

In contrasting Gerdau’s different operations in Brazil, it is important to note that its capacity,

production, capacity utilization rates, and exports to shipments ratios vary by location, as seen in the

following tabulation.

* * * * * * *

THE INDUSTRY IN BRAZIL

Overview

Three firms, accounting for *** percent of Brazilian production of wire rod, provided data in

response to the Commission’s questionnaire in the original investigations: Barra Mansa, Belgo-Mineira,

and Gerdau. Barra Mansa estimated that it accounted for *** percent of Brazilian production in 2001,

and ***. Belgo accounted for *** percent of 2001 production, and Gerdau for *** percent, as estimated

by each firm.

The structure of the wire rod industry in Brazil has changed little since the imposition of the

orders, with three firms identified in the response to the institution notice by domestic interested parties: 
 33 Response of Arcelor Mittal USA, Gerdau, Keystone, and Rocky Mountain, October 24, 2007, exh. 4, p. 1. As

discussed later, however, a fourth company, CSN, is slated to begin wire rod operations in 2008.

 34 Arcelor Mittal Brazil belongs to the Arcelor Mittal Group, which includes wire rod producers in the United

States, Canada, Mexico, Trinidad & Tobago, and Ukraine, and the wire rod importer Arcelor Mittal Pine Bluff.

 35 According to its web site, Votorantim Metals’ Steel Business Unit began operations in 1937 in Barra Mansa,

RJ. The Barra Mansa plant had a reported capacity of 600,000 metric tons of structural steel. However, investments

of R$ 461 million in 2007 are expected to increase capacity by 9.2 percent. In addition, another investment of R$ 1

billion is to be used for the construction of a new plant in Resende, RJ, increasing capacity by 1 million metric tons

per year. See home page of Votorantim Metais, found at http://www.vmetais.com.br/enus/Institucional/unidadesNegocio/Pages/unidadesNegocio.aspx, and retrieved on March 17, 2008. According to ***,

Votorantim Metais Ltda has contracted Morgan Construction Co. to supply a single-strand wire rod mill in Rio de

Janeiro. The mill is due to be commissioned in the second quarter of 2009, and will roll plain rod/rebar from

5.5mm-24mm, and high-yield quenched and self tempered reinforcing bar from 6.35mm-16mm. The project design

will allow for a future capacity expansion to two strands for rod, leading to a capacity of around 1m tpy. ***.

 36 ***.

 37 Steel Statistical Yearbook, 2007, IISI Committee on Economic Studies, table 22.

 38 The data for *** was most out of reconcile, with *** reporting *** tons of capacity in 2007 and its

questionnaire response reporting *** tons. Upon inquiry with staff from ***, the firm reported that it is confident in

its capacity data and that any other conflicting source of capacity estimate is in error. Email from ***, March 3,

2007. 

IV-22

Arcelor Mittal Brazil, Gerdau Acominas, and Siderurgica Barra Mansa.33 Responses to the Commission’s

questionnaire were received from Arcelor Mittal Brazil (successor firm to Belgo) and Gerdau (Acominas

and Acos Longos), producers in Brazil,34 while Barra Mansa, part of Votorantim Metals’ Steel Business

Unit, did not respond.35 Arcelor Mittal Brazil estimated that it accounted for *** percent of Brazilian

production in 2007, and Gerdau estimated that it accounted for *** percent of production of wire rod in

Brazil during that year, totaling *** percent. According to ***36 and IISI, production in Brazil in 2006

was 3,359,000 tons.37 Reported production by Arcelor Mittal Brazil and Gerdau was *** tons, yielding a

theoretical coverage of *** percent of Brazilian production during 2006 by responding firms. However,

*** firm-by-firm capacity data did not name any additional firms (such as ***) producing wire rod in

Brazil during 2007; accordingly the differences in production quantities appear to be reporting differences

or errors in the *** data for the firms in question, or the fact that *** data include grade 1080 tire cord

and tire bead wire rod, which accounted for *** percent of the responding producers’ total shipments in

2007 (a total of *** short tons).38 Table IV-14 presents comparative information available from the

original investigations and these first reviews. Forecast capacity by *** for 2007 for Brazilian producers

was *** tons, and production was *** tons, yielding a forecast capacity utilization of *** percent.

Table IV-14

Wire rod: Comparison of select Brazilian industry data, 2001 and 2007

* * * * * * *

Wire Rod Operations

Data provided by Arcelor Mittal Brazil and Gerdau concerning their wire rod operations in Brazil

during calendar years 2002-07 are presented in table IV-15. Selected firm by firm data are presented in

appendix E. The Brazilian producers reported that neither they nor any related firm had a business plan

or any internal documents that describe, discuss, or analyze expected future market conditions for wire

rod. 
IV-23

Table IV-15

Wire rod: Brazilian capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2002-07

* * * * * * *

Production Capacity in Brazil

The combined capacity to produce wire rod in Brazil increased in 2004 when ***. According to

***, there are two mills due to come on line in Brazil in 2008-10: CSN in Volta Redonda and Votorantim

Metals in Barra Mansa, with an estimated combined capacity of *** short tons in 2008, *** short tons in

2009, and *** short tons in 2010. 

Arcelor Mittal Brazil indicated that its reported wire rod capacity is based on operating *** hours

per week, *** weeks per year. It *** produce other products using its wire rod equipment. It estimated

that wire rod accounted for *** percent of its 2007 total sales. It reported that it has *** plans to add,

expand, curtail, or shut down production capacity and/or production of wire rod in Brazil in the

foreseeable future. Changes to the character of its operations since 2002 were described as follows: 

***.

The firm reported “***” were constraints that limit capacity. 

Gerdau Acos Longos reported that it has *** plans to add, expand, curtail, or shut down

production capacity and/or production of wire rod in Brazil in the foreseeable future. It also experienced

*** changes to the character of its operations since 2002. 

It ***.

Brazilian producer Gerdau Acominas began production in 2004, and thereafter *** experience

any changes to its operations. It reported producing *** products on equipment used to produce wire rod. 

Wire rod accounted for *** percent of its total sales in the most recent fiscal year.

It reported constraints on its capacity as follows: ***. 

Shipments of Wire Rod Produced in Brazil

Total shipments of wire rod by Brazilian producers increased irregularly from 2002 to 2007. The

Brazilian producers’ internal consumption and home market accounted for the majority of the firms’ total

shipments of wire rod during the period of review, and an increasing share during the latter part of the

period (2005-07). The increasing quantity of internal consumption and home market shipments during

2005-07 is consistent with reports that demand for wire rod in the Brazilian market has increased in the

last several years. ***. 

Total Brazilian export shipments of wire rod have risen absolutely from 2002 to 2005, then

decreased from 2005 to 2007. As a share of total shipments they reached a peak in 2005 from a low point

in 2002. Since 2003, exports have ranged from *** to *** percent of total shipments. The Brazilian

producers’ data show that there were no exports of wire rod to the United States after 2002. 

Detailed information on the export destinations for Brazilian wire rod is presented in table IV-16. 

These data contain data on grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead, which is not subject to these reviews. 
IV-24

Table IV-16

Wire rod: Exports from Brazil, by destinations, in descending order of quantities shipped, 2002-07

Destination 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Quantity (short tons)

United States 192,057 138,265 134,278 162,329 166,755 145,198

Colombia 11,307 21,844 30,251 17,343 89,300 102,516

Peru 851 10,503 34,578 14,673 24,285 87,552

Italy 40,808 158,709 51,423 140,625 68,459 65,643

Korea 25,414 41,115 44,462 48,791 45,986 50,027

Dominican Republic 0 9,294 7,440 19,823 19,832 32,076

Argentina 424 3,006 29,700 38,399 50,291 29,139

Canada 108,360 83,124 97,014 59,158 34,113 28,396

Turkey 14,718 26,521 18,009 34,236 25,666 26,190

Belgium 20,394 12,982 7,043 47,988 32,909 24,509

Spain 0 33,110 48,047 128,693 32,555 23,809

 Subtotal 222,276 400,207 367,967 549,729 423,396 469,857

All other 121,099 324,652 317,300 611,758 432,669 264,103

Total 535,432 863,124 819,546 1,323,816 1,022,819 879,158

Value (1,000 dollars)

United States 45,823 37,415 47,956 92,807 90,299 80,307

Colombia 2,218 5,340 13,206 7,327 39,946 50,543

Peru 156 2,389 13,458 5,334 9,860 41,796

Italy 7,226 35,818 20,149 62,169 29,490 35,248

Korea 6,142 10,643 14,446 22,773 22,375 24,928

Dominican Republic 0 2,314 3,295 6,936 8,568 14,456

Argentina 136 896 11,393 14,926 22,057 14,437

Canada 23,348 20,943 35,012 29,346 18,486 15,933

Turkey 3,506 6,629 6,984 21,202 14,670 16,074

Belgium 3,888 3,406 2,655 19,351 13,585 12,482

Spain 0 8,224 16,192 47,136 12,003 12,402

 Subtotal 46,619 96,602 136,790 236,500 191,041 238,300

All other 23,355 74,466 113,456 231,813 184,687 125,956

Total 115,797 208,483 298,203 561,120 466,026 444,563

Table continued on following page.
 39 Staff Report, September 19, 2002 (INV-Z-156), p. VII-3.

IV-25

Table IV-16--Continued

Wire rod: Exports from Brazil, by destinations, in descending order of quantities shipped, 2002-07

Destination 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Unit value (per short ton)

United States $239 $271 $357 $572 $542 $553

Colombia 196 244 437 422 447 493

Peru 183 227 389 364 406 477

Italy 177 226 392 442 431 537

Korea 242 259 325 467 487 498

Dominican Republic -- 249 443 350 432 451

Argentina 322 298 384 389 439 495

Canada 215 252 361 496 542 561

Turkey 238 250 388 619 572 614

Belgium 191 262 377 403 413 509

Spain -- 248 337 366 369 521

 Subtotal 210 241 372 430 451 507

All other 193 229 358 379 427 477

Total 216 242 364 424 456 506

Note.–Data include grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead.

 

Source: Compiled from Global Trade Atlas including HS codes: 7213.91, 7213.99, 7227.20, and 7227.90.

Product Mix

Table IV-17 presents data on Brazilian wire rod producers’ product mix during the period for

which data were collected. Relative shares of specified products shifted from low/medium-low carbon

toward high/medium-high carbon, welding quality, CHQ, and other specialty carbon and alloy wire rod.

Table IV-17

Wire rod: Brazilian producers’ shipments, by product type, 2002-07

* * * * * * *

THE INDUSTRY IN CANADA

Overview

Three firms, accounting for all known Canadian production of wire rod, provided data in

response to the Commission’s questionnaire in the original investigations: Ispat Sidbec, Ivaco, and

Stelco. Stelco was excluded from the original antidumping duty order because its margin was de minimis,

therefore only data from Ispat Sidbec and Ivaco were included in the final phase of the investigations.39

The structure of the wire rod industry in Canada has changed little since the imposition of the

orders, with three Canadian producers: Arcelor Mittal Canada (successor firm to Ispat Sidbec), Ivaco,
 40 Arcelor Mittal Canada belongs to the Arcelor Mittal Group, which includes wire rod producers in the United

States, Brazil, Mexico, Trinidad & Tobago, and Ukraine, and the wire rod importer Arcelor Mittal Pine Bluff. 

Arcelor Mittal USA, Gerdau, Keystone, and Rocky Mountain alleged that a fourth Canadian producer exists: 

AltaSteel Ltd., a Division of Scraw Metals Group, in Edmonton, Canada. Response of Arcelor Mittal USA, Gerdau,

Keystone, and Rocky Mountain, October 24, 2007, exh. 4, p. 1. This firm did not respond to the Commission’s

questionnaire. *** does not list wire rod capacity for that firm. Consultant for Ivaco David Goldsmith testified at

the hearing that Alta Steel is a bar mill making straight products only, with no coiled steel production. Hearing

transcript, pp. 203-204 (Goldsmith).

 41 ***.

 42 According to Ivaco, the *** forecasted production number is in error because it did not include production to

affiliated downstream companies. Increasing the number to allow for those transfers would bring the published

capacity utilization rate in line with the rate reported by the Canadian respondents in their questionnaire responses. 

Prehearing brief of Ivaco, exh. 10, and hearing transcript, p. 202 (Goldsmith).

 43 Data were most out of reconcile for ***, who reported a capacity of *** tons in its questionnaire response

while *** reported a capacity of *** tons. In response to a staff inquiry, *** reported a capacity of *** short tons to

*** in 2004, which was misinterpreted as metric tons. However, this is above the figure of *** short tons reported

as capacity for 2004 in its current questionnaire response. Email from ***. In its prehearing brief, Ivaco reported

that the *** data included all wire rod, which included nonsubject wire rod products, especially out-of-scope

diameters. Ivaco produced *** tons of out-of-scope diameter wire rod products in 2004, the year in which the ***

data was reported. According to Ivaco, that leaves a discrepancy of *** tons, which is due to rounding of an

approximate capacity figure of ***. Prehearing brief of Ivaco, p. 35. According to counsel for Arcelor Mittal USA,

Gerdau, Keystone, and Rocky Mountain, the Commission should rely on the 900,000 ton figure for Ivaco’s capacity

because it is “based on Ivaco’s own reporting to *** and Ivaco’s announcements in the press. Prehearing brief of

domestic interested parties, p. 47 and exh. 7. In addition, counsel for domestic interested parties believes that the

***. Posthearing brief of Arcelor Mittal USA, Gerdau, Keystone, and Rocky Mountain, exh. 1, p. 38.

IV-26

and Stelco (nonsubject).40 Responses to the Commission’s questionnaire were received from all three

producers, although data from Stelco are not presented in this section. (Stelco’s data were used to verify

import data, presented earlier in part IV, however.) Accordingly, the data presented on Canadian

production of wire rod for the current reviews are for Arcelor Mittal Canada and Ivaco, which represent

all known production of subject wire rod in Canada. Table IV-18 presents comparative information

available from the original investigations and these first reviews. 

Table IV-18

Wire rod: Comparison of select Canadian industry data, 2001 and 2007

* * * * * * *

According to ***,41 Canadian capacity for 2007 was *** tons, and production was forecasted for that year

to be *** tons, yielding a capacity utilization rate of *** percent.42 These data ***.43

Wire Rod Operations

Data provided by Arcelor Mittal Canada and Ivaco concerning their wire rod operations in

Canada during calendar years 2002-07 are presented in table IV-19. Selected firm by firm data are

presented in appendix E. Ivaco provided its business plan for wire rod; Arcelor Mittal Canada indicated

that it did not have a business plan or any internal documents that describes, discusses, or analyzes

expected future market conditions for wire rod. 
 44 Hearing transcript, p. 204 (Goldsmith).

 45 Prehearing brief of Ivaco, p. 38 and hearing transcript, p. 201 (Lachapelle).

 46 Prehearing brief of Ivaco, pp. 2 and 14.

IV-27

Table IV-19

Wire rod: Canadian capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2002-07

* * * * * * *

 Production Capacity in Canada

The combined capacity to produce wire rod in Canada decreased from 2002 to 2007. These

decreases were mainly the result of ***. 

Arcelor Mittal indicated that its reported wire rod capacity, which is based on operating ***

hours per week, *** weeks per year, decreased slightly in 2003 and in 2006. Wire rod represented ***

percent of total sales in the most recent fiscal year. Arcelor Mittal Canada produces *** on the same

equipment used to produce wire rod, and is ***. Arcelor Mittal Canada reported that it has *** plans to

add, expand, curtail, or shut down production capacity and/or production of wire rod in Canada in the

foreseeable future. Changes to the character of its operations since 2002 were described as follows: 

***.

The firm reported ***. 

Canadian producer Ivaco reported that, during 2002-07, its wire rod capacity, which was based on

operating *** hours per week, *** weeks per year, decreased. At the hearing, consultant for Ivaco David

Goldsmith testified that Ivaco operates four crews, seven days per week.44 Its wire rod sales were ***

percent of its total sales in the most recent fiscal year. It produces nonsubject wire rod products,

especially out of scope diameters, on the same equipment used to produce wire rod, and it is ***.

Ivaco reported that it has *** plans to add, expand, curtail, or shut down production capacity

and/or production of wire rod in Canada in the foreseeable future. Changes to the character of its

operations since 2002 were described as follows: 

***.

The firm reported ***. 

Shipments of Wire Rod Produced in Canada

Total shipments of wire rod by Canadian producers peaked in 2002. The Canadian producers’

internal consumption and home market shipments accounted for the majority of the firms’ total shipments

of wire rod during 2004-07. Arcelor Mittal Canada indicated in its questionnaire response that demand

for wire rod in the Canadian market ***. Ivaco indicated that demand in the Canadian market had ***. 

Ivaco plans to shift more of its shipments to Canadian affiliates in the future, according to its prehearing

brief and hearing testimony citing portions of its business plan.45

Total Canadian export shipments of wire rod have declined *** since 2002, both absolutely and

relatively. According to Ivaco, the reason for the decrease in 2005 and 2006 was the strike at Ivaco

(which lasted from September 2005 until January 2006). By 2007, Ivaco’s exports of wire rod were at

*** percent of the level in 2003.46 However, the strike at Ivaco does not explain the entire decrease in

shipments. The Canadian producers’ data show that their exports of wire rod to the United States

declined *** during 2002-07. 

Detailed information on the export destinations for Canadian wire rod is presented in table IV-20. 

The top export destinations for Canadian wire rod during 2006-07 include the United States, India, and

Mexico. The data include exports of grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead, and the wire rod from Canadian

exporter Stelco, all of which are excluded from the antidumping duty order.
IV-28

Table IV-20

Wire rod: Exports from Canada, by destinations, in descending order of quantities shipped, 2002-07

Destination 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Quantity (short tons)

United States 788,181 656,907 671,543 487,960 470,818 547,340

India 23 0 0 5,110 7,108 20,938

Mexico 1,086 1,956 2,686 3,592 39,375 9,700

Oman 0 0 0 3 0 3,869

Pakistan 0 0 74 0 48 2,984

Italy 0 0 0 483 3,459 2,530

France 0 4 0 0 0 247

Syria 0 140 547 4,153 2,058 196

Iran 0 0 0 0 0 96

China 59 0 0 72 246 75

Argentina 0 0 0 0 53 56

 Subtotal 1,168 2,100 3,307 13,412 52,348 40,692

All other 25 101 1,253 1,296 134 273

Total 789,374 659,108 676,103 502,669 523,300 588,305

Value (1,000 dollars)

United States 305,808 238,972 385,206 307,183 302,408 347,937

India 15 0 0 2,058 2,666 7,297

Mexico 382 965 1,530 2,649 21,534 7,901

Oman 0 0 0 1 0 1,105

Pakistan 0 0 22 0 11 1,078

Italy 0 0 0 164 1,450 982

France 0 3 0 0 0 198

Syria 0 35 237 1,606 732 75

Iran 0 0 0 0 0 48

China 30 0 0 49 210 60

Argentina 0 0 0 0 30 192

 Subtotal 427 1,003 1,789 6,527 26,633 18,936

All other 50 71 214 427 292 147

Total 306,286 240,046 387,209 314,138 329,333 367,020

Table continued on following page.
 47 Prehearing brief of Ivaco, p. 6.

 48 Ibid., p. 36.

IV-29

Table IV-20--Continued

Wire rod: Exports from Canada, by destinations, in descending order of quantities shipped, 2002-07

Destination 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Unit value (per short ton)

United States $388 $364 $574 $630 $642 $636

India 667 -- -- 403 375 348

Mexico 352 494 570 737 547 815

Oman -- -- -- 418 -- 286

Pakistan -- -- 302 -- 230 361

Italy -- -- -- 340 419 388

France -- 812 441 -- -- 803

Syria -- 250 433 387 356 381

Iran -- -- -- -- -- 500

China 507 -- -- 678 854 807

Argentina -- -- -- -- 569 3,413

 Subtotal 366 478 541 487 509 465

All other 1,982 700 171 330 2,178 539

Total 388 364 573 625 629 624

Note.–Data include grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead, and exports from Stelco.

 

Source: Compiled from Global Trade Atlas including HS codes: 7213.91, 7213.99, 7227.20, and 7227.90.

Product Mix

Table IV-21 presents data on Canadian wire rod producers’ product mix during the period for

which data were collected. Relative shares of specified products have shifted, with shipments increasing

in low/medium-low carbon quality and high/medium-high carbon quality, while decreasing in CHQ,

welding quality, and all other wire rod (and in wire rod meeting ASTM specification F2282). However,

CHQ was the *** component throughout 2002-07. Ivaco asserts in its prehearing brief that the decrease

in CHQ, welding quality, and all other wire rod was offset by an increase in high and “very high” carbon

wire rod subcategory. It reported *** short tons of high and “very high” carbon quality wire rod

shipments to the United States during 2007 in its questionnaire response–a product category not requested

in the questionnaire, and for which there exists no parallel information from other firms.47 Ivaco claims

that *** percent of imports from Canada (see table IV-5) consist of specialty products, as it is counting

almost all of the high and medium high carbon industrial and standard quality wire rod in 2007 as

specialty products, given the “very high carbon” designation of its products.48

Table IV-21

Wire rod: Canadian producers’ shipments, by product type, 2002-07

* * * * * * *
 49 Staff Report, September 19, 2002 (INV-Z-156), p. VII-7.

IV-30

THE INDUSTRY IN INDONESIA

Overview

One firm, accounting for *** percent of Indonesian production of wire rod, provided data in

response to the Commission’s questionnaire in the original investigations: Ispat Indo, which indicated

that it accounted for *** percent of Indonesian exports to the United States.49 The Commission received

no responses to its questionnaire in these current reviews. The Commission sent a telegram requesting

information on the wire rod industry in Indonesia to the U.S. Embassy, but received no response. Table

IV-22 presents comparative information available from the original investigations and these first reviews.

Table IV-22

Wire rod: Comparison of select Indonesian industry data, 2001 and 2006

Item 2001 2006

Capacity (short tons) *** ***1

Production (short tons) *** 919,0002

Capacity utilization (percent) *** ***3

Exports/production (percent) *** 22.54

Inventories/shipments (percent) *** (5)

 1 ***

 2

 IISI (Steel Statistical Yearbook, 2007, table 22).

 3

 Capacity utilization was calculated using the production value from IISI (Steel Statistical Yearbook, 2007, table

22) and the capacity value from ***.

 4

 Export quantity from Table IV-23, production quantity from IISI (Steel Statistical Yearbook, 2007, table 22).

 5

 Not available.

Note.--Data for 2001 were provided by Ispat Indo.

Source: Staff Report, September 19, 2002 (INV-Z-156), table VII-4; and 2007 data compiled from cited sources.
 50 Domestic interested parties’ response to the Notice of Institution, exh. 4. PT Gunung Gahapi Bahara, PT Hanil

Jaya Metal Works, PT Industri Galvaneal Mas, PT Ispat Indo, PT Jakarta Kyoei Steel Works, PT Jakarta Prima Steel

Industries, and P.T. Krakatau Steel were the firms identified.

 51 ***

 52 Email from ***, April 28, 2008.

 53 A recent news report indicated that there has been an offer by Arcelor Mittal to acquire a stake in Krakatau. 

Wall Street Journal, April 26, 2008, p. A3. Also, domestic interested parties claim that Krakatau is operating at 57.5

percent capacity utilization. Prehearing brief of Arcelor Mittal USA, Gerdau, Keystone, and Rocky Mountain, p. 50.

 54 Domestic interested parties’ response to the Notice of Institution, p. 19, and prehearing brief, p. 18 and exh. 4.

 55 http://www.ispatindo.com/Profile.htm, retrieved February 26, 2008.

 56 The average unit value for Indonesian exports in 2002 was $870. However, as is noted in the table, the

quantity of exports in that year is *** lower than Ispat Indo reported in the original investigations for the period

1999 to 2001.

 57 Email from ***, April 23, 2008.

IV-31

Wire Rod Operations

The capacity to produce wire rod in Indonesia presented in table IV-22 appears to have increased

from 2001 to 2006, but the 2001 figure represents only Ispat Indo’s capacity, while the 2006 figure

includes the capacity of three other producers, one of which (Krakatau Steel) is currently larger than Ispat

Indo according to *** and domestic interested parties. Likewise, production increased from 2001 to

2006. Capacity utilization appears to have decreased in the time since the original investigations, as has

the ratio of exports to production; however, these indices are based on different firms reporting to

different sources. 

In their response to the Commission’s notice of institution, domestic interested parties identified

seven producers of wire rod in Indonesia.50 ***, on the other hand, identified only four Indonesian

producers with the capacity to produce wire rod in 2007: ***.51 ***.52 Domestic interested parties claim

that Krakatau is the largest steel producer in Indonesia,53 and that it is increasing its steel output to 3.4

million tons this year, with plans to reach 5 million tons of steel by 2010 (not all of which is devoted to

wire rod).54 Yet, on its website, Ispat Indo claims to be the largest wire rod producer in Indonesia with

the highest market share. Ispat Indo has a subsidiary, Ispat Wire Products, which is engaged in

downstream activities such as wire drawing, nail making, and production of straight bar, which consumes

wire rod from Ispat Indo.55

Table IV-23 presents data on exports from Indonesia by destination. Indonesian exports to the

United States ceased entirely by 2003. However, Indonesian exports to the rest of the world increased

over the period, most notably to Taiwan and Iran, which together accounted for more than half of

Indonesia’s exports of wire rod in 2006. The average unit value for Indonesian exports of wire rod

fluctuated between $340 and $397 from 2003 to 2006.56 According to the one identified purchaser of

wire rod from Indonesia, the product mix of exports to the United States was low and medium-low

industrial standard quality wire rod and high and medium-high industrial standard quality wire rod only.57
IV-32

Table IV-23

Wire rod: Exports from Indonesia, by destinations, in descending order of quantities shipped, 2002-06

Destination 20021 20031 20041 2005 2006

Quantity (short tons)

United States 23 0 0 0 0

Others:

Iran 0 0 0 29,720 56,159

Taiwan 24 0 9,718 30,545 55,770

Australia 0 (2

) 0 28,944 35,463

India 0 0 9,446 30,072 27,814

Pakistan 0 0 5,910 10,357 7,530

Philippines 45 0 1,250 3,894 7,358

Saudi Arabia 0 0 28,285 27,269 5,808

Malaysia 0 0 670 2,126 3,889

Myanmar 0 0 0 4,054 3,092

Bangladesh 0 0 522 2,680 2,378

 Subtotal 69 0 55,801 169,662 205,263

 All others 134 18,923 5,048 14,932 1,865

 Total world 225 18,924 60,849 184,594 207,128

Value (1,000 dollars)

United States $27 $0 $0 $0 $0

Others:

Iran 0 0 0 11,592 22,854

Taiwan 11 0 2,777 8,900 21,036

Australia 0 (3

) 1 8,725 13,456

India 0 0 3,183 10,833 10,886

Pakistan 0 0 2,020 3,121 3,004

Philippines 16 0 406 1,379 2,776

Saudi Arabia 0 0 9,238 8,894 2,279

Malaysia 0 0 257 1,079 1,703

Myanmar 0 0 0 1,894 2,505

Bangladesh 0 0 261 1,080 997

 Subtotal 27 0 18,142 57,497 81,495

 All others 141 6,896 5,193 5,194 739

 Total world 196 6,896 23,335 62,690 82,235

Table continued on following page.
 58 Staff Report, September 19, 2002 (INV-Z-156), p. VII-7.

 59 Response of Arcelor Mittal USA, Gerdau, Keystone, and Rocky Mountain, October 24, 2007, exh. 4, p. 1.

 60 ***.

IV-33

Table IV-23--Continued

Wire rod: Exports from Indonesia, by destinations, in descending order of quantities shipped, 2002-06

Destination 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Unit value (per short ton)

United States $1,204 (4

) (4) (4) (4)

Others:

Iran (4

) (4) (4) $390 $407

Taiwan 442 (4

) $286 291 377

Australia (4

) $591 3,024 301 379

India (4

) (4) 337 360 391

Pakistan (4

) (4) 342 301 399

Philippines 366 (4

) 325 354 377

Saudi Arabia (4

) (4) 327 326 392

Malaysia (4

) (4) 384 507 438

Myanmar (4

) (4) (4) 467 810

Bangladesh (4

) (4) 499 403 419

 Subtotal 392 591 325 339 397

 All others 1,059 $364 1,029 348 396

 Total world 870 364 383 340 397

 1 Staff notes that the export quantities for 2002, 2003, and 2004 are *** lower than those reported by Ispat Indo alone in the

original investigations for the period from 1999 to 2001.

 2

 Less than half a ton.

 3

 Less than $500.

 4

 Not applicable.

Note.–Data include grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead.

 

Source: Compiled from Global Trade Atlas including HS codes: 7213.91, 7213.99, 7227.20, and 7227.90.

THE INDUSTRY IN MEXICO

Overview

Two firms, accounting for *** percent of Mexican production of wire rod, provided data in

response to the Commission’s questionnaire in the original investigations: Hylsa and Siderurgica Lazaro

Cardenas las Truchas (Sicartsa). At the time of the original investigations, it was believed that there were

six Mexican producers of wire rod.58

The structure of the wire rod industry in Mexico has changed little since the imposition of the

orders, with Arcelor Mittal USA, Gerdau, Keystone, and Rocky Mountain naming seven producers: 

Aceros Nacionales, Aceros San Luis, AHMSA–Altos Hornos de Mexico, Atlax, De Acero, Sicartsa, and

Hylsa.59 Responses to the Commission’s questionnaire were received from producers De Acero, Hylsa,

and Sicartsa in Mexico, accounting for *** percent of production in 2007 by their estimation (***). 

According to estimates by ***,60 projected production of wire rod in Mexico for 2007 was *** tons,

which is just under the reported total by the three reporting firms. This would seem to indicate that De

Acero, Hylsa, and Sicartsa account for the majority of production of wire rod in Mexico. 
 61 Posthearing brief of Arcelor Mittal USA, Gerdau, Keystone, and Rocky Mountain, exh. 1, p. 33.

 62 Hearing transcript, p. 214 (Guhl).

 63 Posthearing brief of Arcelor Mittal USA, Gerdau, Keystone, and Rocky Mountain, exh. 1, p. 34.

 64 Posthearing brief of Hylsa, p. 7.

 65 Prehearing brief of the Mexican respondents, pp. 6-7, and posthearing brief, p. 5 and exh. 5.

 66 An inquiry to counsel for *** resulted in the following possible explanation for the discrepancy: that the ***

capacity is based on a combined capacity for rebar and wire rod production, whereas the reported capacity in its

questionnaire response is based only on its wire rod capacity. Email from ***, March 11, 2008. In addition, counsel

for De Acero notes that the *** data report capacity for a facility at Tlalnepantla which has not produced wire rod

since 1997, and may therefore be considered “outdated and unreliable.” Posthearing brief of De Acero, p. 2. 

Domestic interested parties alleged that the announced expansion of De Acero’s facilities increased the capacity of

the Celaya mill alone by 1.1 million short tons, and brought the total of that facility alone to 2.2 million short tons. 

According to De Acero’s questionnaire, the total for all facilities was *** short tons, and the increase from 2006 to

2007 was *** short tons. Prehearing brief of Arcelor Mittal USA, Gerdau, Keystone, and Rocky Mountain, pp. 51-

52. At the hearing, Terrerium’s witness Michael Guhl testified that De Acero’s expansion has already occurred, and

that the plant was operating as of last year. Hearing transcript, p. 220 (Guhl). According to the posthearing brief of

De Acero, the reference to the 2.2 million metric ton capacity of the Celaya mill is not a discrepancy but the

difference between theoretical capacity and practical capacity, which is requested in Commission questionnaires. 

Posthearing brief of De Acero, p. 3.

IV-34

However, the *** data on capacity indicate that there are three additional firms, Aceros, Camesa,

and Talleres y Aceros, with a forecast capacity in 2007 of *** short tons. According to Arcelor Mittal

USA, Gerdau, Keystone, and Rocky Mountain, AHMSA invested $30 million in 2003 to restart its wire

rod and rebar business, which had been shut in the late 1990s and early 2000s.61 According to counsel for

the Mexican producers, both Aceros and Talleres y Aceros are known primarily as producers of rebar, and

they did not have any meaningful production of wire rod until 2006, when a shortage of supply in the

Mexican market prompted them to shift some of their production to wire rod. Ternium International

USA’s representative at the hearing testified that Aceros produces wire rod mostly for its own wire and

wire mesh production, and is owned by the same group that owns Republic.62 According to domestic

interested parties, Talleres y Aceros started up a new wire rod mill in 2006 with a capacity of 300,000

metric tons per year. In addition, according to domestic interested parties, the firm Aceros San Luis or

Aceros DM, or both, do produce wire rod in addition to rebar, and Ternium is likely to bid on the firm

Aceros San Luis, creating increased competition in the Mexican market for wire rod due to the acquisition

of Aceros San Luis by another Mexican long products producer, Grupo Simec, S.A.B. de C.V., a large

exporter.63 However, according to counsel for Hylsa, the acquisition press release for Aceros DM by

Grupo Simec stated that “Corporation Aceros DM...is a long products steel mini-mill and the secondlargest corrugated rebar producer in Mexico. Grupo San’s operations are based in San Luis Potosi,

Mexico.”64 Counsel for the Mexican respondents believes that Camesa does not have any wire rod

production facilities, but instead is a producer of wire, wire strand, and wire rope products.65 

In addition, *** data show ***’s capacity as higher than reported by the firm (*** instead of ***

tons).66 According to the *** capacity data, the three responding firms would account for approximately

*** percent of 2007 capacity in Mexico to produce wire rod. Table IV-24 presents comparative

information available from the original investigations and these first reviews.

Table IV-24

Wire rod: Comparison of select Mexican industry data, 2001 and 2007

* * * * * * *
 67 In its prehearing brief, counsel for Nucor, Cascade, and Republic reported that Sicartsa announced plans to

raise production capacity at its wire rod and rebar mill from 1.7 million metric tons per year to 3 million metric tons

per year. However, it is unclear how much of that additional capacity would be devoted to wire rod and how much

would be dedicated to rebar production. Prehearing brief of Nucor, Cascade, and Republic, p. 25 and exh. 8.

IV-35

Wire Rod Operations

Data provided by the Mexican respondents concerning their wire rod operations in Mexico during

calendar years 2002-07 are presented in table IV-25. Selected firm by firm data are presented in appendix

E. Hylsa provided a partial business plan; De Acero reported that it did not have a business plan or any

internal documents that describe, discuss, or analyze expected future market conditions for wire rod.

Table IV-25

Wire rod: Mexican capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2002-07

* * * * * * *

Production Capacity in Mexico

The combined capacity to produce wire rod in Mexico increased irregularly from 2002 to 2007. 

These increases were mainly the result of ***. De Acero indicated that its reported wire rod capacity,

which is based on operating *** hours per week, *** weeks per year, increased in 2004, 2006, and in

2007. 

De Acero reported that it has *** plans to add, expand, curtail, or shut down production capacity

and/or production of wire rod in Mexico in the foreseeable future. Changes to the character of its

operations since 2002 were described as follows: 

***.

The firm reported ***. De Acero produces *** on the same production equipment as that used

for wire rod, and ***. Wire rod sales represented *** percent of its total sales in the most recent fiscal

year.

Hylsa indicated that its reported wire rod capacity, which is based on operating *** hours per

week, *** weeks per year, increased in 2004 and in 2006. Hylsa reported that it has *** plans to add,

expand, curtail, or shut down production capacity and/or production of wire rod in Mexico in the

foreseeable future. Changes to the character of its operations since 2002 were described as follows: 

***.

The firm reported ***. Hylsa produces *** on the same production equipment as that used for

wire rod, and ***. Wire rod sales represent *** percent of its total sales in fiscal year 2006.

Sitcartsa indicated that its reported wire rod capacity, which is based on operating *** hours per

week, *** weeks per year, remained steady from 2002 to 2007. Sitcartsa reported that it has *** plans to

add, expand, curtail, or shut down production capacity and/or production of wire rod in Mexico in the

foreseeable future, although it noted that ***.67 Changes to the character of its operations since 2002 were

described as follows: 

***.

The firm reported *** is its constraint on capacity. Sitcartsa produces *** on the same production

equipment as that used for wire rod, and ***. Wire rod sales represent *** percent of its total sales in the

most recent fiscal year.
 68 Hearing transcript, p. 211 (Neeley).

IV-36

Shipments of Wire Rod Produced in Mexico

Despite falling *** since 2004, total shipments of wire rod by Mexican producers increased from

2002 to 2007. The Mexican producers’ internal consumption accounted for a *** portion of the firms’

total shipments of wire rod during the period of review; the firms’ combined home market shipments and

internal consumption accounted for no less than *** percent of total shipments in any year between 2002

and 2007. At the hearing, counsel for De Acero testified that its business model was to produce wire rod

to make value-added products, such as wire mesh products, fencing, nails, etc., and to sell those products

in Mexico and overseas.68 De Acero indicated in its questionnaire response that demand for wire rod in the

Mexican market ***. Hylsa anticipated an ***. Sitcartsa also ***. 

Total Mexican export shipments of wire rod have fallen overall since 2002, both absolutely and

relatively, although exports were mainly accounted for by shipments from ***. The Mexican producers’

data show that exports of wire rod to the United States declined from 2002 to 2007. 

Detailed information on the export destinations for Mexican wire rod is presented in table IV-26.

 

Table IV-26

Wire rod: Exports from Mexico, by destinations, in descending order of quantities shipped, 2002-06

Destination 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Quantity (short tons)

United States 75,751 56,384 105,150 20,117 8,776

Canada 30,935 0 17,483 30,432 11,246

Costa Rica 67 0 0 0 1,343

El Salvador 0 0 0 0 920

Hong Kong 0 0 0 23 81

Cuba 315 492 0 0 0

Germany 10,041 60,575 14,773 2,653 0

Uruguay 0 0 0 88 0

Puerto Rico (U.S.) 0 0 0 36 0

Italy 0 0 0 14 0

Peru 0 14 11 10 0

 Subtotal 41,357 61,081 32,267 33,258 13,590

All other 26 0 70 0 0

 Total 117,134 117,464 137,487 53,375 22,366

Table continued on following page.
IV-37

Table IV-26--Continued

Wire rod: Exports from Mexico, by destinations, in descending order of quantities shipped, 2002-06

Destination 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Value (1,000 dollars)

United States 20,444 14,351 45,758 9,706 4,613

Canada 6,670 0 8,288 12,710 4,173

Costa Rica 34 0 0 0 337

El Salvador 0 0 0 0 263

Hong Kong 0 0 0 10 30

Cuba 92 166 0 0 0

Germany 2,052 14,419 4,143 1,577 0

Uruguay 0 0 0 50 0

Puerto Rico (U.S.) 0 0 0 19 0

Italy 0 0 0 8 0

Peru 0 7 10 10 0

 Subtotal 8,847 14,592 12,441 14,384 4,803

All other 13 0 30 1 0

Total 29,304 28,942 58,229 24,092 9,417

Unit value (per short ton)

United States $270 $255 $435 $483 $526

Canada 216 -- 474 418 371

Costa Rica 503 -- -- -- 251

El Salvador -- -- -- -- 286

Hong Kong -- -- -- 445 369

Cuba 291 337 -- -- 4,536

Germany 204 238 280 594 --

Uruguay -- -- -- 567 --

Puerto Rico (U.S.) -- -- -- 525 --

Italy -- -- -- 590 --

Peru -- 482 957 957 --

 Subtotal 214 239 386 433 353

All other 519 9,590 428 2,799 0

Total 250 246 424 451 421

Note.–Data reported by GTA for exports from Mexico to Mexico were removed because it was assumed that these data were in error

(46,002 short tons in 2002).

Source: Compiled from Global Trade Atlas including HS codes: 7213.91, 7213.99, 7227.20, and 7227.90.

Product Mix

Table IV-27 presents data on Mexican wire rod producers’ product mix during the period for

which data were collected. Relative shares of specified products shifted somewhat, with low carbon

commodity grade wire rod accounting for increasing amounts of total shipments during 2002-07. Hylsa
 69 Hearing transcript, pp. 257-258 (Winton); p. 258 (Guhl).

 70 The original report stated that MSW accounted for *** percent of Moldovan production. Staff Report,

September 19, 2002 (INV-Z-156), p. VII-10. This estimate was likely in error given the subsequent claim by MSW

that it accounts for all production of wire rod in Moldova in these reviews, that domestic interested parties have

named it as the only producer in Moldova, and that *** has also identified MSW as the only producer of wire rod in

Moldova. ***.

IV-38

produces a product it calls “clean steel precision bar,” which falls into the category of CHQ in table IV-27,

according to counsel for Hylsa.69

Table IV-27

Wire rod: Mexican producers’ shipments, by product type, 2002-07

* * * * * * *

THE INDUSTRY IN MOLDOVA

Overview

One firm provided data in response to the Commission’s questionnaire in the original

investigations: Moldova Steel Works.70

The structure of the wire rod industry in Moldova has changed little since the imposition of the

orders, with JSCC Moldova Steel Works (MSW) accounting for all known production in Moldova, and

submitting a response to the Commission’s foreign producer questionnaire. Accordingly, the data

presented on Moldovan production of wire rod for the current reviews represent virtually all production of

wire rod in Moldova. Table IV-28 presents comparative information available from the original

investigations and these first reviews.

Table IV-28

Wire rod: Comparison of select Moldovan industry data, 2001 and 2007

* * * * * * *

Wire Rod Operations

Data provided by MSW concerning its wire rod operations in Moldova during calendar years

2002-07 are presented in table IV-29. The Moldovan producer reported that it did not have a business plan

or any internal documents that describe, discuss, or analyze expected future market conditions for wire rod.

Table IV-29

Wire rod: Moldovan capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2002-07

* * * * * * *

Production Capacity in Moldova

The capacity to produce wire rod in Moldova remained constant during 2002-07, after an increase

from 2001 to 2002. MSW indicated that it reported its wire rod capacity on a basis of operating *** hours

per week, *** weeks per year. Capacity utilization fluctuated widely during 2002-07, with lows of ***

percent in 2002 and *** percent in 2006. MSW explained the decline in utilization in 2006 in its

questionnaire response as “***.” In its posthearing brief, MSW explained that its production in 2002 and

2003 was seriously impacted as the result of shortages of electric power and scrap supplies. However, in
 71 Posthearing brief of MSW, p. 6.

 72 Posthearing brief of MSW, p. 5.

 73 Ibid., p. 8.

IV-39

2003, MSW established strong relationships with scrap suppliers in Ukraine and has not had problems

since that time. In 2006 MSW faced additional supply difficulties when the Moldova Republic and

Ukraine initiated a political and economic blockade of Transdniestria (the region where MSW’s mill is

located), resulting in three months of no shipments for MSW.71

MSW reported that it has *** plans to add, expand, curtail, or shut down production capacity

and/or production of wire rod in Moldova in the foreseeable future. Changes to the character of its

operations since 2002 were described as follows: 

***.

The firm reported *** contribute to capacity constraints. MSW reported producing *** other

products on equipment used to produce wire rod. Wire rod sales accounted for *** percent of total sales

during the most recent fiscal year.

Shipments of Wire Rod Produced in Moldova

Total shipments of wire rod by MSW *** over the period of review. The Moldovan producer

reported *** internal consumption, and home market shipments accounted for an increasing share of total

shipments from 2002 to 2007. MSW indicated in its questionnaire response that demand for wire rod in

the Moldovan market ***. It explained further that ***. 

Total Moldovan export shipments of wire rod have increased overall since 2002 in absolute terms,

but fluctuated downward as a percent of total shipments, reaching their lowest point in 2006, and their next

lowest point in 2007, with exports in 2007 shifting from ***. In its posthearing brief, MSW explained that

it expects its output to be shipped to the markets with the most favorable market situation (with higher

prices and steady growth of demand), which include Russia, the CIS states, and Europe.72 Export

shipments accounted for *** of total shipments. MSW reported no exports of wire rod to the United States

during 2002-07. As MSW explained in its posthearing brief, MSW can realize better prices and benefit

from growing demand in Russia, other CIS States, Asia, and the Middle East. By contrast, prices and

demand in the U.S. market are “not nearly as good.”73

Product Mix

Table IV-30 presents data on Moldovan wire rod producers’ product mix during the period for

which data were collected. Relative shares of specified products have shifted, with high carbon

commodity grade wire rod accounting for a greater percentage of total shipments in 2007 than in 2002. 

Table IV-30

Wire rod: Moldovan producer’s shipments, by product type, 2002-07

* * * * * * *
 74 Staff Report, September 19, 2002 (INV-Z-156), p. VII-10.

IV-40

THE INDUSTRY IN TRINIDAD & TOBAGO

Overview

One firm, accounting for all Trinidadian production of wire rod, provided data in response to the

Commission’s questionnaire in the original investigations: Caribbean Ispat.74

The structure of the wire rod industry in Trinidad & Tobago has changed little since the imposition

of the orders, with one producer accounting for all production in the country: Arcelor Mittal Point Lisas

Limited, the successor firm to Carribean Ispat, which responded to the Commission’s questionnaire in

these sunset reviews. Accordingly, the data presented on Trinidadian production of wire rod for the

current reviews are for Point Lisas, which represents all production of wire rod in Trinidad & Tobago. 

Table IV-31 presents comparative information available from the original investigations and these first

reviews.

Table IV-31

Wire rod: Comparison of select Trinidadian industry data, 2001 and 2007

* * * * * * *

Wire Rod Operations

Data provided by Point Lisas concerning its wire rod operations in Trinidad & Tobago during

calendar years 2002-07 are presented in table IV-32. The Trinidadian producer reported that it has neither

a business plan nor any internal documents that describe, discuss, or analyze expected future market

conditions for wire rod.

Table IV-32

Wire rod: Trinidadian capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2002-07

* * * * * * *

Production Capacity in Trinidad & Tobago

The capacity to produce wire rod in Trinidad & Tobago remained constant during 2002-07, and

was *** below that reported in 2001. 

Point Lisas indicated that it reported wire rod capacity on a basis of operating *** hours per week,

*** weeks per year. 

Point Lisas reported that it has *** plans to add, expand, curtail, or shut down production capacity

and/or production of wire rod in Trinidad & Tobago in the foreseeable future. Changes to the character of

its operations since 2002 were described as follows: 

***.

The firm reported ***. Point Lisas produces *** on the same equipment used to produce wire rod,

and ***. Wire rod sales accounted for *** percent of total sales during the most recent fiscal year.

Shipments of Wire Rod Produced in Trinidad & Tobago

Total shipments of wire rod by Point Lisas decreased over the period of review. The Trinidadian

producer reported *** internal consumption; home market shipments increased during the period but were
 75 Staff Report, September 19, 2002 (INV-Z-156), p. VII-13.

 76 Response of Arcelor Mittal USA, Gerdau, Keystone, and Rocky Mountain, October 24, 2007, exh. 4, p. 1.

 77 Prehearing brief of the Embassy of Ukraine, p. 3.

 78 ***.

IV-41

still less than *** percent of total shipments by 2007. Point Lisas indicated in its questionnaire response

that demand for wire rod in the Trinidadian market ***. 

Total Trinidadian export shipments of wire rod have fallen overall since 2002, both absolutely and

relatively. The Trinidadian producer’s data show that exports of wire rod to the United States declined as

a percentage of total shipments from 2002 to 2007. 

Product Mix

Table IV-33 presents data on the Trinidadian wire rod producer’s product mix during the period

for which data were collected. Relative shares of specified products shifted, with low carbon commodity

grade wire rod increasing and welding quality wire rod decreasing during 2002-07. However, there was a

decline in the absolute volume of wire rod shipped in all three categories produced by Point Lisas.

Table IV-33

Wire rod: Trinidadian producer’s shipments, by product type, 2002-07

* * * * * * *

THE INDUSTRY IN UKRAINE

Overview

One firm, accounting for *** percent of Ukrainian production of wire rod, provided data in

response to the Commission’s questionnaire in the original investigations: Krivorozhstal, although there

were reportedly three producers of wire rod in Ukraine at the time.75

The structure of the wire rod industry in Ukraine has changed little since the imposition of the

orders, with Arcelor Mittal USA, Gerdau, Keystone, and Rocky Mountain in these reviews alleging three

producers in Ukraine: Arcelor Mittal Kryviy Rih, Makeevka Metallurgical Integrated Plant (Makiyivka

Metallurical Plant), and Yenakiievs’kyi Metalurhiynyi Zavod VAT (Yenakievo Metallurgical Plant).76

The prehearing brief from the Embassy of Ukraine did not name Yenakievo Metallurgical Plant, but did

name three additional producers: PJSC Donetskiy Steel Mill, PJSC Enakiivskiy Steel Mill, and PJSC

Dniprovskiy Steel Mill, in addition to Kryviy Rih and Makiyivka.77 Responses to the Commission’s

questionnaire were received from the largest producer in Ukraine, Arcelor Mittal Kryviy Rih (the

successor to Krivorozhstal), accounting for *** percent of 2007 production in Ukraine by its own estimate. 

According to ***,78 there is no listed capacity for wire rod for any producer in Ukraine other than Kyviy

Rih. Accordingly, the data presented on Ukrainian production of wire rod for the current reviews are for

Kyviy Rih, which represents the majority of production of wire rod in Ukraine. Table IV-34 presents

comparative information available from the original investigations and these first reviews.

Table IV-34

Wire rod: Comparison of select Ukrainian industry data, 2001 and 2007

* * * * * * *
 79 Prehearing brief of Arcelor Mittal USA, Gerdau, Keystone, and Rocky Mountain, p. 57 and exh. 10.

 80 Prehearing brief of the Embassy of Ukraine, p. 4.

IV-42

Wire Rod Operations

Data provided by Kryviy Rih concerning its wire rod operations in Ukraine during calendar years

2002-07 are presented in table IV-35. The Ukrainian producer reported that it did have a business plan

that describes, discusses, or analyzes expected future market conditions for wire rod. Its business plan for

2008 predicts that its total production would be *** short tons, of which it would ship *** tons to CIS

countries, *** tons to its home market, and *** to other export markets.

Production Capacity in Ukraine

The capacity to produce wire rod in Ukraine increased gradually during 2002-07, after jumping

from 2001 to 2002. Kryviy Rih indicated that its reported wire rod capacity is based on operating ***

hours per week, *** weeks per year. 

Table IV-35

Wire rod: Ukrainian capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2002-07

* * * * * * *

Kryviy Rih reported that it has *** plans to add, expand, curtail, or shut down production capacity

and/or production of wire rod in Ukraine in the foreseeable future. According to domestic interested

parties, Kryviy Kih began an investment in 2006 that was intended to raise its overall capacity from 7

million to 10 million metric tons, and that 450,000 tons of long product output will be upgraded to valueadded rod and bar.79 Kryviy Rih reported *** changes to the character of its operations since 2002.

The firm reported ***. Kryviy Rih produces *** on the same production equipment as wire rod,

and ***. Wire rod accounted for *** percent of total sales during the most recent fiscal year.

Shipments of Wire Rod Produced in Ukraine

Despite falling *** during 2004 and 2005, total shipments of wire rod by Kryviy Rih increased

over the period of review. The Ukrainian producer had *** internal consumption, and its home market

shipments increased from 2002 to 2007 as a share of total shipments, gaining approximately ***

percentage points. Kryviy Rih indicated in its questionnaire response that demand for wire rod in the

Ukrainian market ***. The prehearing brief of the Embassy of Ukraine cites the future Football Europe

Championship EURO 2012 that will take place in Ukraine and Poland in 2012 as a reason for demand and

prices of wire rod to increase in Ukraine.80

Total Ukrainian export shipments of wire rod have fluctuated since 2002 on an absolute basis,

while declining irregularly on a relative basis. The Ukrainian producer’s data show that there were no

exports of wire rod to the United States during 2002-07. Exports increased to the European Union and

certain other export markets. In its questionnaire response, Kryviy Rih explained that ***.

Detailed information on the export destinations for Ukrainian wire rod is presented in table IV-36. 
IV-43

Table IV-36

Wire rod: Exports from Ukraine, by destinations, in descending order of quantities shipped, 2002-06

Destination 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Quantity (short tons)

United States 0 76 0 0 0

Syria 133,397 78,795 102,249 98,346 165,068

Jordan 24,084 21,497 14,400 30,582 159,071

Romania 29,436 27,866 87,039 70,184 149,486

Algeria 92,409 157,023 233,345 207,056 119,415

Bulgaria 258,564 118,666 144,480 93,574 114,769

Yugoslavia 63,587 179,666 228,488 109,335 105,784

Senegal 44,772 41,038 69,755 85,122 101,806

India 24,374 28,629 1,685 64,093 84,748

Lebanon 50,251 56,629 42,979 38,263 72,548

Tunisia 65,914 86,932 68,887 35,111 53,167

 Subtotal 786,789 796,740 993,308 831,665 1,125,861

All other 1,491,917 1,328,825 984,672 782,071 945,700

Total 2,278,706 2,125,642 1,977,980 1,613,736 2,071,561

Value (1,000 dollars)

United States 0 16 0 0 0

Syria 21,017 15,274 29,816 31,094 58,323

Jordan 3,573 3,693 4,216 9,789 54,520

Romania 4,684 5,322 26,797 23,796 61,516

Algeria 16,541 32,874 68,787 70,507 40,487

Bulgaria 42,305 25,985 42,495 31,910 45,602

Yugoslavia 10,351 37,823 75,493 38,554 38,426

Senegal 7,998 8,795 21,348 28,516 34,642

India 4,332 6,022 470 21,155 26,783

Lebanon 7,640 10,994 13,762 12,065 25,132

Tunisia 12,292 18,813 20,528 12,290 18,340

 Subtotal 130,733 165,595 303,711 279,678 403,770

All other 251,440 274,089 290,033 259,507 334,141

Total 382,172 439,699 593,744 539,185 737,911

Table continued on following page.
 81 ***.

IV-44

Table IV-36--Continued

Wire rod: Exports from Ukraine, by destinations, in descending order of quantities shipped, 2002-06

Destination 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Unit value (per short ton)

United States -- $204 -- -- --

Syria $158 194 $292 $316 $353

Jordan 148 172 293 320 343

Romania 159 191 308 339 412

Algeria 179 209 295 341 339

Bulgaria 164 219 294 341 397

Yugoslavia 163 211 330 353 363

Senegal 179 214 306 335 340

India 178 210 279 330 316

Lebanon 152 194 320 315 346

Tunisia 186 216 298 350 345

 Subtotal 166 208 306 336 359

All other 169 206 295 332 353

Total 168 207 300 334 356

Source: Compiled from Global Trade Atlas including HS codes: 7213.91, 7213.99, 7227.20, and 7227.90.

Product Mix

Table IV-37 presents data on the responding Ukrainian wire rod producer’s product mix during the

period for which data were collected. Relative shares of specified products remained fairly constant, with

low carbon commodity grade wire rod accounting for more than *** percent of total shipments. 

Table IV-37

Wire rod: Ukrainian producer’s shipments, by product type, 2002-07

* * * * * * *

GLOBAL MARKET

Production

Global production of wire rod has grown considerably in recent years. According to one

published source,81 global production increased by *** percent between 1998 and 2001, and by ***

percent between 2002 and 2007. In terms of sheer volume, the East and Southeast Asia Region accounted

for the greatest production increases in both periods, and is forecast to lead global production in the
 82 Published sources of data for wire rod are believed to consist of carbon and alloy (other than stainless) steel

wire rods including grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead wire rod. Data may also include tool steel, high nickel steel,

ball bearing steel, and free machining steel products.

 83 See Part II of this report for the individual perspectives of U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers on demand

in the United States and in other markets. 

IV-45

coming years as well. Data compiled by *** on historical, current, and projected global production of wire

rod are presented in tables IV-38 through IV-40.82

Table IV-38

Wire rod: Global and regional production of wire rod, 1998-2001

*******

Table IV-39

Wire rod: Global and regional production of wire rod, 2002-07

*******

Table IV-40

Wire rod: Forecast of global and regional production of wire rod, 2008-11

*******

Consumption

Data compiled by *** on historical, current, and forecast global consumption of wire rod are

presented in tables IV-41 through IV-43. Worldwide consumption of wire rod increased by *** percent

between 1998 and 2001, despite reductions in consumption in North America. Worldwide consumption

increased by *** percent between 2002 and 2007, paced by a near-*** of consumption in East and

Southeast Asia. Global consumption of wire rod is forecast to continue to grow in the coming years, with

the growth evenly distributed in all major markets except East and Southeast Asia, which is projected to

continue to experience rapid growth.83

Table IV-41

Wire rod: Global and regional consumption of wire rod, 1998-2001

*******

Table IV-42

Wire rod: Global and regional consumption of wire rod, 2002-07

*******

Table IV-43

Wire rod: Forecast of global and regional consumption of wire rod, 2008-11

*******

Prices

The Commission asked producers, importers, and purchasers to compare market prices of wire rod

in U.S. and non-U.S. markets. Responding producers and importers indicated prices generally fluctuate
 84 Producer questionnaire responses to questions IV-B-16 and IV-B-25 and importer questionnaire responses to

questions III-B-16 and III-B-25.

 85 ***’s producer questionnaire response, IV-B25.

 86 ***’s producer questionnaire response, IV-B25.

 87 ***’s producer questionnaire response, IV-B-25.

 88 ***’s importer questionnaire response, III-B-25.

 89 ***’s importer questionnaire response, III-B-25.

 90 ***’s importer questionnaire response, III-B-25.

 91 ***’s importer questionnaire response, III-B-25.

 92 ***’s importer questionnaire response, III-B-25.

 93 ***’s importer questionnaire response, III-B-25.

 94 ***’s importer questionnaire response, III-B-25.

IV-46

with the price of raw materials in the market. As the price of scrap increases, the price of wire rod will

increase.84

Three producers were able to compare U.S. and non-U.S. market prices. Two producers reported

that foreign producer prices generally are lower than U.S. prices and that historical competition among

foreign supplies with excess wire rod capacity pushes U.S. prices down to the foreign producers’ price

level.85 Furthermore, “large increases in capacity in countries like China and India are coming on-line or

are currently under construction and are likely to exacerbate these historical conditions.”86 Another

producer reported that for most of 2007, U.S. and European prices for wire rod were roughly comparable. 

U.S. prices trended above those in Europe toward the end of the year, however. With respect to Asia and

particularly China, U.S. prices are considerably higher.87

Eight importers were able to provide comparisons between the United States and Canada, China,

India, Mexico, and Russia. These importers also made comparisons between the United States, and Asian,

European, and Middle Eastern markets. In a general comparison, one importer indicated that prices in the

United States are typically higher and command a premium of $15-120 per ton.88 Two importers

indicated, in price comparisons between Canada and the United States, that market prices between these

countries are very similar and that product flows across the border easily.89 In contrast, another importer

reported that “because unaffiliated purchasers in Canada tend to be smaller with less buying power, their

prices tend to be slightly higher than in the United States... {whereas} {p}rices outside North America,

such as in the Middle East and Asia, {tend} to be considerably higher than in the United States...”.90 The

prices in ***.91

In comparing prices between China and the United States another importer reported that Chinese

local rod prices are lower. It further indicated that imports of Chinese wire rod and wire rod products will

increase.92 Another importer reported that prices will be driven up by demand in Europe, China, Russia,

and India93 and that prices in nonsubject countries have risen above U.S. prices.94

Published price data are available from several reputable sources, although often such data are

available by subscription only and cannot be reproduced without consent of their publisher. These data,

however, are collected based on different product categories, timing, and commercial considerations, and

thereby may not be directly comparable with each other. Moreover, such data are distinct from the pricing

data presented in Part V of this report, which are collected directly from U.S. producers and U.S. importers

via the Commission’s questionnaires according to precise product definitions. 

As reported by MEPS, world prices for wire rod increased irregularly between September 2006

and February 2008, increasing from $473 per short ton to $623 per short ton during that time, and are
 95 Original data are published in metric tons, and were converted to short tons using the following conversion

factor: 1 metric ton = 1.1023 short tons. MEPS, World Carbon Steel Product Prices, found at

http://www.meps.co.uk, retrieved on January 30, 2008, and updated on May 2, 2008. This pricing series is available

to the public and its use is unrestricted. Prices are an arithmetic average of the low transaction values identified in

the EU, Asia, and North America, converted into U.S. dollars.

IV-47

currently at an all-time high.95 Prices have increased nearly 39 percent since January 2007. Figure IV-1

presents the average world price of wire rod between January 2000 and February 2008. Figure IV-2

presents prices of wire rod by region between September 2006 and February 2008.

Figure IV-1

Wire rod: Average world price per short ton for wire rod, January 2000-February 2008

Figure IV-2

Wire rod: Prices per short ton by region, September 2006-February 2008

($US/short ton)

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

Jan-00

Jul-00

Jan-01

Jul-01

Jan-02

Jul-02

Jan-03

Jul-03

Jan-04

Jul-04

Jan-05

Jul-05

Jan-06

Jul-06

Jan-07

Jul-07

Jan-08

Source: Compiled from MEPS, World Carbon Steel Prices, found at http://meps.co.uk

$300

$350

$400

$450

$500

$550

$600

$650

$700

Sep-06

Oct-06

Nov-06Dec-06

Jan-07

Feb-07Mar-07Apr-07

May-07

Jun-07

Jul-07

Aug-07

Sep-07

Oct-07

Nov-07Dec-07

Jan-08

Feb-08

World EU Asia North America

Source: Compiled from MEPS, World Carbon Steel Prices, found at http://meps.co.uk
 96 MEPS, International Steel Review, January 2005-April 2008.

IV-48

As presented in table IV-44, country-specific monthly transaction prices for wire rod are also

compiled by MEPS,96 and show monthly price fluctuations across major producing countries. According

to data compiled by MEPS for January 2005 through April 2008, U.S. negotiated transaction prices for

U.S.-produced wire rod generally increased throughout 2005 and 2006 before peaking in third quarter

2007. Wire rod prices decreased in fourth quarter 2007, but, remained higher than prices in 2006 and

2005. Between December 2007 and January 2008, prices regained 2007 highs. Prices continued to

increase into April 2008, surpassing 2007 highs.

Table IV-44

Wire rod: Negotiated transaction prices (ex-mill) for wire rod, by country and by month, 

January 2005-April 2008

* * * * * * *

Prices in Canada followed U.S. prices closely, with the price differential ranging between $***

below U.S. prices in January 2007 and $*** above U.S. prices in October 2007. The gap between U.S.

and Canadian prices has closed since December 2007 from approximately *** percent below U.S. prices in

December 2007 and *** percent below U.S. prices in April 2008.

In Europe, major steel market prices for wire rod generally decreased from January 2005 through

the third quarter of 2005, before recovering slightly in the fourth quarter. At the start of 2005, transaction

prices in Europe were generally higher than transaction prices in the United States, but, by the second

quarter of 2005, these trends were reversing, with U.S. prices being the highest relative to most European

prices in the first quarter of 2006. Prices in Poland followed a slightly different trend, decreasing in the

first and second quarters of 2005 before stabilizing in the third and fourth quarters of 2005. Polish wire

rod prices then regained early 2005 price levels, and returned to similar price patterns as the United States. 

Prices in Poland dropped much lower than other European prices relative to U.S. prices in the third quarter

of 2005.

More recently prices in Europe have followed the U.S. trend, increasing the first two quarters of

2007, decreasing the last two quarters, and then regaining and surpassing the 2007 price high in the first

quarter of 2008. Furthermore, European prices were higher than U.S. prices in the first half of 2007,

before falling below U.S. prices during the second half. While the average price differential between the

United States and Europe was $*** during 2007, the European prices ranged between $*** below U.S.

prices in November 2007 and $*** above U.S. prices in April 2007. Wire rod prices in Europe exceeded

U.S. prices by approximately *** percent in February 2008 and in April 2008 exceeded U.S. prices by ***

percent. Wire rod prices in Poland increased erratically through out the first three quarters of 2007, before

decreasing in the beginning of fourth quarter 2007. Prices then slowly increased through the end of the

year, converging with average U.S. and European prices by February 2008. Prices in Poland exceeded

U.S. prices in April 2008 by $*** but remained lower than the EU price by *** percent.

With regard to Asian markets, Chinese and Korean market prices were below U.S. wire rod prices

throughout 2005, 2006, 2007, and first quarter 2008. U.S. wire rod prices exceeded those in the Chinese

and Korean markets, with price differentials in the $*** range in China and with price differentials in the

$*** range in Korea. On average, Chinese wire rod market prices were $*** below the United States. 

Korean wire rod market prices were on average $*** below those in the United States. Japanese market

prices exceeded U.S. prices in three of the 40 months, fluctuating from $*** above U.S. prices to $***

below U.S. prices. On average, Japanese market prices were $*** below U.S. prices.

In addition, *** compiles country- and region-specific monthly prices for wire rod, presented in

table IV-45. According to these data, U.S. prices increased steadily through first quarter 2005, fluctuated

at lower levels through May 2005, but remaining relatively stable. Prices continued to fluctuate within a

fairly narrow range through June 2006, before increasing steadily through June 2007. 
 97 See e.g. “Wire rod hikes said sticking amid import lull; more loom” (December 7, 2007); “Keystone pumps

Feb. wire rod hike to $90/T” (January 11, 2008); Ivaco boosting wire rod $80-85/T” (January 17, 2008); “Wire

makers worry rod hikes have gone too far” (January 18, 2008); “Three mills follow ArcelorMittal with $50 March

wire rod hikes” (February 6, 2008); “Keystone boosting wire rod $50/T” (February 8, 2008); “DeAcero sets wire rod

increase” (February 22, 2008); “ArcelorMittal raising rod $40/T” (March 6, 2008); and “Ameristeel, Keystone join

rod hikes” (March 12, 2008), “Sticker shock to hike long products” (April 3, 2008), “Cascade shipment rise offset by

costs” (April 7, 2008), “Scrap hikes may upset steel pricing traditions” (April 8, 2008), “ArcelorMittal boosting wire

rod prices” (April 9, 2008), “Unprecedented price hikes keep coming” (April 10, 2008), “Steel pricing run said not

enough to spark imports” (April 10, 2008), “Wire product hikes set by 3 producers” (April 11, 2008), “Sivaco

announces $150/T increase; alleges allocation” (April 15, 2008), “Ivaco to raise wire rod prices $55/ton” (April 17,

2008), “Keystone to hike wire product prices” (April 23, 2008), “Raw material costs, tight su0pply driving long

products market” (April 28, 2008), “Charter Steel hiking bar, rod, wire” (April 30, 2008), “Ivaco declares wire rod

boost of $60 per ton” (May 5, 2008) at www.amm.com. See also ***, commenting on rising scrap prices and “an

increasingly tight market,” and suggesting that “a further increase (from February price levels) may prove successful

in the short term owing to shortages in the marketplace.”

 98 Compiled from data published in the ***.

 99 Ibid.

 100 ***. According to the same source, China alone accounts for nearly *** percent of South and Southeast Asian

wire rod capacity, or *** percent of global wire rod capacity. (***).

IV-49

Table IV-45

Wire rod: Prices for wire rod, by country or by region, and by month, January 2002-April 2008

*******

U.S. prices dipped *** in third quarter 2007 before increasing throughout fourth quarter and into

2008.97 European prices moved together throughout the period of review, increasing steadily from January

2002 through January 2004. European prices then jumped between January 2004 and April 2004, before

falling, erratically, through August 2005. Since August 2005, average European export prices have

increased erratically, closing the gap between U.S. and average European export prices from $*** in

August 2005 to $*** by February 2008. European export prices have since surpassed U.S. prices. 

Average European export prices were $*** above U.S. prices by April 2008.98

Based on ***’s published monthly prices for wire rod, U.S. prices were generally higher than nonU.S. prices. Over the 76-month period presented in table IV-45, U.S. prices were consistently and

noticeably higher than prices in Japan, and later China.99 Until recently, prices in the Far East were also

consistently and noticeably higher than lower than U.S. prices. Far East prices rose *** percent since

January 2008, nearing U.S. prices by April 2008 and are currently $*** below U.S. prices.

Additional Global Supply and Demand Factors

Worldwide, the majority of wire rod capacity resides in East and Southeast Asia - *** percent, by

***’s estimate, compared to *** percent in Western Europe and *** percent in North America. The

following tabulation presents rated regional capacities of wire rod and their respective share of global

capacity.100
 101 Import and export data for 2007 not yet available for all countries.

IV-50

Region

Wire rod capacity

Capacity (quantity, short tons) Share (percent)

North America *** ***

Latin America *** ***

Western Europe *** ***

East & Southeast Asia *** ***

Eastern Europe *** ***

Other *** ***

 Total *** ***

With respect to trade in wire rod, imports worldwide grew between 2002 and 2006. As shown in

table IV-46, between 2002 and 2006, worldwide wire rod imports increased by 23.4 percent. Exports have

similarly grown, as shown in table IV-47; between 2002 and 2006, worldwide wire rod exports increased

by 24.1 percent.101

Table IV-46

Wire rod: Global imports, 2002-06

Reporting country 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Quantity (short tons)

United States 3,902,056 2,467,429 4,083,302 2,832,540 3,367,236

Top import markets:

 Italy 1,145,051 1,317,574 1,358,760 1,284,505 1,594,466

 Korea 1,121,772 1,102,785 1,266,227 1,322,142 1,484,877

 Germany 1,105,670 1,072,715 1,218,410 1,290,100 1,449,618

 Spain 446,299 637,907 704,564 925,709 1,421,527

 Netherlands 931,452 1,041,834 1,025,429 1,106,267 1,417,903

 France 1,007,575 939,896 920,264 748,278 883,514

 Taiwan 506,743 499,814 596,490 547,383 693,553

 Belgium 683,278 634,242 675,661 722,767 683,996

 China 484,019 608,428 799,153 648,452 631,613

 Thailand 488,175 449,131 459,941 751,149 570,070

 Subtotal 7,920,033 8,304,326 9,024,898 9,346,753 10,831,138

 All Other 5,524,591 5,378,651 6,345,583 6,677,700 7,210,508

Total 17,346,680 16,150,407 19,453,783 18,856,993 21,408,883

Table continued on following page.
IV-51

Table IV-46–Continued

Wire rod: Global imports, 2002-06

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Value ($1,000)

United States 1,058,489 740,974 1,796,550 1,423,117 1,600,414

Top import markets:

 Italy 300,834 424,807 655,585 724,592 845,508

 Korea 269,141 317,027 520,326 611,723 637,894

 Germany 305,688 378,317 604,847 739,034 811,471

 Spain 109,574 206,221 332,224 438,876 672,460

 Netherlands 207,963 291,871 438,348 417,815 606,277

 France 278,932 338,086 464,783 468,824 517,718

 Taiwan 121,903 153,632 257,279 249,768 291,053

 Belgium 175,648 212,886 326,432 405,614 362,291

 China 137,933 198,575 339,792 395,464 341,936

 Thailand 135,064 153,729 209,873 298,287 305,952

 Subtotal 2,042,679 2,675,152 4,149,489 4,749,996 5,392,560

 All Other 1,367,190 1,708,972 2,853,462 3,213,587 3,624,646

Total 4,468,358 5,125,098 8,799,501 9,386,700 10,617,619

Unit value (per short ton)

United States $271 $300 $440 $502 $475

Top import markets:

 Italy 263 322 482 564 530

 Korea 240 287 411 463 430

 Germany 276 353 496 573 560

 Spain 246 323 472 474 473

 Netherlands 223 280 427 378 428

 France 277 360 505 627 586

 Taiwan 241 307 431 456 420

 Belgium 257 336 483 561 530

 China 285 326 425 610 541

 Thailand 277 342 456 397 537

 Subtotal 258 322 460 508 498

 All Other 247 318 450 481 503

Total 258 317 452 498 496

Note.--HS codes included: 7213.90, 7213.99, 7227.20, and 7227.90.

Source: Reported by Global Trade Atlas.
IV-52

Table IV-47

Wire rod: Global exports, 2002-06

Reporting country 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Quantity (short tons)

United States 69,284 92,872 100,365 157,585 146,686

Top 10 markets:

 China 836,971 1,152,539 2,576,726 3,425,767 5,942,683

 Germany 2,216,937 2,144,196 2,597,363 2,179,520 2,456,982

 Ukraine 2,278,706 2,125,642 1,977,980 1,613,736 2,071,561

 Japan 1,565,666 1,436,736 1,454,907 1,153,772 1,102,441

 Brazil 535,432 863,124 819,546 1,323,816 1,022,819

 Russia 1,251,074 1,181,503 1,118,448 1,017,021 831,903

 Belgium 634,280 654,907 619,301 618,016 810,134

 Czech Republic 915,091 912,750 864,485 701,671 807,317

 France 725,607 714,178 699,829 707,443 663,606

 Netherlands 313,232 377,712 520,374 522,739 599,186

 Subtotal 11,272,994 11,563,286 13,248,960 13,263,502 16,308,631

 All other 6,956,789 7,081,557 8,354,280 7,842,676 6,244,789

Total 18,299,067 18,737,716 21,703,604 21,263,764 22,700,106

Value ($1,000)

United States 35,759 46,482 65,237 105,463 104,200

Top 10 markets

 China 174,064 285,534 972,916 1,291,469 2,184,395

 Germany 554,853 698,191 1,252,584 1,180,390 1,345,943

 Ukraine 382,172 439,699 593,744 539,185 737,911

 Japan 464,812 504,361 673,753 764,858 706,067

 Brazil 115,797 208,483 298,203 561,120 466,026

 Russia 182,934 209,389 317,213 330,827 283,984

 Belgium 146,187 195,575 289,562 269,570 381,861

 Czech Republic 192,751 256,456 388,147 363,793 415,211

 France 205,792 257,406 368,075 352,589 391,943

 Netherlands 103,115 147,756 261,728 273,962 317,182

 Subtotal 2,522,478 3,202,850 5,415,926 5,927,764 7,230,523

 All other 1,811,852 2,166,014 3,684,590 3,678,477 3,300,238

Total 4,370,089 5,415,347 9,165,754 9,711,705 10,634,961

Table continued on following page.
 102 Hearing transcript, p. 58 (Kerwin) and p. 100 (Kerkvliet).

 103 Nucor has further added scrap processing capacity at its Memphis plant. Contracting with Memphis Mill

Services, it plans to build a scrap yard, open-air processing plant, garage and cutting shed for steel scrap (“Nucor

Inks Deal for Memphis Operations.” Charlotte Business Journal, October 22, 2007. http://www.bizjournals.com

(accessed April 24, 2008)).

 104 Scott Robertson, “Steel buyers predict fallout from buys by Nucor and SDI,” American Metal Market,

February 11, 2007. www.amm.com (accessed February 22, 2008); Michael Cowden, “SDI closes buy of

OmniSource; vows neutrality,” American Metal Market, October 26, 2007. www.amm.com (accessed February 22,

2008); and “Gerdau’s Acquisitions Spur Earnings Spike,” Tampa Bay Business Journal, May 4, 2006.

http://www.bizjournals.com (accessed April 24, 2008).

 105 Michael Marley, “Full of Scrap: If you can’t run with the big dogs, stay on the porch,” American Metal

Market, November 1, 2007. www.amm.com (accessed February 22, 2008).

IV-53

Table IV-47–Continued

Wire rod: Global exports, 2002-06

Reporting country 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Unit value (per short ton)

United States $516 $500 $650 $669 $710

Top 10 markets

 China 208 248 378 377 368

 Germany 250 326 482 542 548

 Ukraine 168 207 300 334 356

 Japan 297 351 463 663 640

 Brazil 216 242 364 424 456

 Russia 146 177 284 325 341

 Belgium 230 299 468 436 471

 Czech Republic 211 281 449 518 514

 France 284 360 526 498 591

 Netherlands 329 391 503 524 529

 Subtotal 224 277 409 447 443

 All other 260 306 441 469 528

Total 239 289 422 457 468

Note.–Data reported by GTA for exports from Mexico to Mexico were removed because it was assumed that these data were in

error (46,002 short tons in 2002).

Note.--HS codes included: 7213.90, 7213.99, 7227.20, and 7227.90.

Source: Reported by Global Trade Atlas.

Global Raw Material Availability and Prices

Recycled iron and steel scrap is an important raw material in the production of steel, particularly

for wire rod producers.102 As such, the steel and foundry industries in the United States are structured to

recycle steel scrap, and, as a result, are highly dependent upon it.103 Some producers have either moved to

owning scrap brokers, such as Nucor’s recent purchase of David and Joseph and Gerdau’s purchase of

Fargo Iron and Metal,104 or owning their own shredders to produce scrap on site for use in their operations,

such as Gerdau and Commercial Metals.105 

Because scrap is somewhat difficult and expensive to transport over land, steel companies either

source their scrap locally, through local scrap brokers or import centers, or pay higher premiums to

transport. Further, due to the difficulties and costs associated with overland transportation, coastal scrap is
 106 Michael Fenton, "Iron and Steel Scrap," U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries, January

2007 p. 86, http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/mcs/index.html#appendix (accessed February 28, 2008).

 107 USITC, Dataweb. http://dataweb.usitc.gov (accessed various dates).

 108 USITC, Dataweb. http://dataweb.usitc.gov (accessed various dates).

 109 Global Trade Atlas.

 110 Global Trade Atlas.

 111 Midrex. “2006 World Direct Reduction Statistics.” Midrex Technologies, Inc. January 2007, pp. 7 and 9,

http://www.midrex.com/handler.cfm?cat_id=30 (accessed March 5, 2008).

 112 Michael Fenton. “Iron and Steel Scrap.” U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries, January

2007 p. 86, http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/mcs/index.html#appendix (accessed February 28, 2008).

 113 Hearing transcript, p. 260 (Winton).

 114 American Metal Market, www.amm.com, retrieved January 30, 2008.

 115 American Metal Market, www.amm.com, retrieved January 30, 2008.

IV-54

generally exported, which further increases the competition for scrap. Moreover, steel companies that are

co-located in a particular region often compete for scrap purchases.

The automotive recycling industry, a major source of scrap metal for steel producers, supplied an

estimated 14 million tons of shredded steel scrap to the steel industry in 2006, or nearly 25 percent of the

total U.S. scrap consumption.106 In the United States alone, an estimated 55 million tons of steel was

recycled in steel mills and foundries in 2006.

By quantity, imports of scrap and direct reduced iron (DRI), a scrap substitute, increased by 35.8

percent between 2000 and 2007.107 Imports of scrap, principally from Canada entering the United States

through the ports at Detroit and Seattle, increased by 10.3 percent overall. Imports of DRI, principally

from Trinidad and Tobago and Venezuela entering the United States through the ports at New Orleans or

Mobile, increased by 114.0 percent.108 Exports of scrap have followed a similar trend. U.S. scrap exports

increased by nearly 190 percent, principally to China and Turkey, since 2000.109 U.S. DRI exports,

however, have dropped since 2000 from 27,000 short tons in 2000 to only 250 short tons in 2007.110 This

drop in DRI exports is primarily due to the idling of DRI plants in the United States.111

Using scrap in the production process also helps conserve energy because the remelting of scrap

requires less energy than the production of iron or steel products from iron ore. Recycled scrap consists of

approximately 50 percent post-consumer (old, obsolete) scrap, 29 percent prompt scrap (produced in

steel-product manufacturing plants), and 21 percent home scrap (recirculating scrap from current

operations).112

Scrap prices rose between 40 and 60 percent during the first quarter of 2007. Prices peaked in

March before declining 20-30 percent by May 2007. Prices were relatively stable during the second half

of 2007, rising gradually between 11 and 19 percent by December 2007. In contrast, prices since January

2008 have risen dramatically. Prices have risen 80 percent between January and April 2008 with much of

price increases occurring in January and April (figure IV-3).

Scrap prices, the highest cost component of U.S. wire rod production, have risen greatly since

2001.113 Number one busheling and auto shredded scrap prices have risen dramatically since 2002;

initially below $100 per gross ton, they now exceed $500 per gross ton.114 Number one heavy melt scrap,

an industrial quality scrap product, has followed a similar patterns, however, began at around $70 per gross

ton and is now nearly $485 per gross ton (see Part V, figure V-1).115
IV-55

Figure IV-3

Scrap: Average world price, January 2007-April 2008

Average Scrap Price

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

1/5/07

2/5/073/5/074/5/07

5/5/076/5/077/5/078/5/07

9/5/07

10/5/0711/5/07

12/5/07

1/5/08

2/5/08

3/5/084/5/08

Note.-Simple average for: Composite No. 1 busheling, Composite shredded auto scrap, and Composite No. 1 heavy

melt.

Source: American Metal market, www.amm.com, retrieved April 21, 2007

 1

 Since the price for bushelings is the Chicago price and not a composite price as was used for the other types of

steel scrap some of the differences may reflect differences between the Chicago price and the composite price. 

V-1

PART V: PRICING AND RELATED INFORMATION

FACTORS AFFECTING PRICES

Raw Material and Energy Costs

The primary inputs used in the production of wire rod by U.S. minimills are billets (generally

produced from steel scrap), natural gas, and electricity. Producers such as *** and *** purchase billets. 

Republic, in contrast, is an integrated mill, ***. 

Different types of steel scrap are used in different types of wire rod, with bushelings scrap used to

produce higher end product and heavy melt used to produce less-specialized wire rod. The price of steel

scrap has increased dramatically since January 2002 with large price fluctuations. When prices rose

rapidly in 2004-05, bushelings scrap prices increased much more than other scrap prices.1

 As scrap prices

eased by mid-2005, the bushelings premium evaporated. Since then, however, scrap prices have risen,

particularly in 2008, so that by May 2008, prices were more than five times the levels recorded in January

2002 (figure V-1). 

Energy prices have also risen since 2002. Natural gas prices more than doubled from 2002 to

2005, and although they have fallen since 2005, the price in 2007 was still above the prices prior to 2005. 

Electricity prices vary from location to location, however, the national average price has increased every

year from 2002 through 2007 (table V-1).

Figure V-1

U.S. ferrous scrap prices: Weekly scrap prices, January 1, 2002-May 2, 2008

Source: American Metal Market LLC. Composite prices were not available for bushelings until September 2006, as a

result, the Chicago price is used.

-

100

200

300

400

500

600

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

$/Short ton

Composite shredded auto scrap Composite heavy melt Chicago bushelings
 2

 Estimates are based on the ten 2007 HTS subheadings discussed in Part I. No 2007 data were available for

Indonesia, Moldova, and Ukraine.

 3

 Hearing transcript, p. 129 (Nystrom, Cheek, and Kerkvliet).

 4

 No real exchange rate was available for Moldova because no producer price index was available. 

V-2

Table V-1

U.S. natural gas and electricity prices for industrial customers, 2002-07

Item 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

U.S. natural gas industrial price1 $4.02 $5.81 $6.53 $8.56 $7.86 $7.60

Electricity industrial price2 4.88 5.11 5.25 5.73 6.16 6.38

 1 In dollars per thousand cubic feet.

 2

 In cents per kilowatt-hour.

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.doe.gov. retrieved January 30, 2008 and April 24,

2008.

Transportation Costs to the U.S. Market

Transportation costs for steel wire rod from the subject countries to the United States (excluding

U.S. inland costs) are estimated for 2007 in the following tabulation. Estimates are derived from official

import data and represent the transportation and other charges on imports valued on a c.i.f. basis, as

compared with customs value.2

Country Estimated shipping cost in 2007 (percent)

Brazil 13.1

Canada 4.8

Mexico 5.2

Trinidad and Tobago 8.7

U.S. Inland Transportation Costs

U.S. producers reported that U.S. inland transportation costs accounted for 1 to 10 percent of the

total delivered value of wire rod, with six of the ten responding producers reporting costs between 3 and 6

percent. Eleven importers reported U.S. inland transportation costs ranging from 1 to 15 percent; five of

these reported that such costs accounted for 2 to 6 percent of the total delivered value of wire rod. A

number of U.S. producers report that they incorporate a fuel surcharge for shipments.3

Exchange Rates

Real and nominal quarterly exchange rates reported by the International Monetary Fund during

2002-07 for the seven countries subject to review are shown in figure V-2.4
V-3

Figure V-2

Exchange rates: Indices of the nominal and real exchange rates (when available) of the subject

countries relative to the U.S. dollar, by quarters, 2002-07

Figure continued on following page.
V-4

Figure V-2--Continued

Exchange rates: Indices of the nominal and real exchange rates (when available) of the subject

countries relative to the U.S. dollar, by quarters, 2002-07

Figure continued on following page.
V-5

Figure V-2--Continued

Exchange rates: Indices of the nominal and real exchange rates (when available) of the subject

countries relative to the U.S. dollar, by quarters, 2002-07

Figure continued on following page.
V-6

Figure V-2--Continued

Exchange rates: Indices of the nominal and real exchange rates (when available) of the subject

countries relative to the U.S. dollar, by quarters, 2002-07

Source: International Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics, http://ifs.apdi.net/imf, retrieved

January 30, 2008. 

PRICING PRACTICES

Pricing Methods

Wire rod sales in the United States typically involve either short term contracts or spot sales. 

Only four producers reported any long term contracts, and only *** sold the majority of its product using

long term contracts. Three of ten responding U.S. producers sold the majority of their product using short

term contracts, while six sold half or more on a spot basis. Short term contracts of 1-3 months’ duration

were reported by four of the seven responding U.S. producers; the other three had contracts of 6-12

months. Three of the seven firms reported prices could be renegotiated during the contract (including

scrap surcharges). Six of the seven responding producers reported that contracts set price and quantity,

while the other reported price was set for a target quantity. Two reported meet or release provisions were

in the contract but neither of these reported that they had been used.

No importer reported using long term contracts. Five of nine responding importers reported only

selling on the spot market; two sold only using short term contracts and two used both methods but sold

the majority using short term contracts. Six of seven responding importers reported that their contracts

were from 2 to 4 months while the other reported year long contracts. Five of the six with contracts of 2

to 4 months reported that prices could not be renegotiated during the contract period and the other

reported that prices were indexed. The importer with 12-month contracts reported that it could add a

surcharge. Five of seven responding importers reported that both prices and quantities were fixed in the

contract, one reported that only price was fixed and one reported that price was fixed, while the volume

was a target volume. Six reported no meet-or-release clause and the other reported closed end

consignment.
 5

 Hearing transcript, p. 128 (Creek, Kerkvliet, Nystrom).

 6

 Hearing transcript, p. 128 (Simon).

 7

 Hearing transcript, pp. 201, 288-289 (Lachapelle).

V-7

Keystone, Gerdau, and Nucor reported that they do not use raw material surcharges for wire rod

at this time, although some of these firms did use surcharges for other products.5

 Rocky Mountain

reported it had used an energy surcharge for several years and it was implementing a raw material

surcharge in April 2008.6

 The Canadian producer, Ivaco, reported that it used automatic scrap and alloy

surcharge formulas for its prices, and that price increases caused by theses surcharges were supplemented

by three increases in its base prices in the last six months.7

Sales Terms and Discounts

Seven of the ten responding producers reported transaction-by-transaction prices; two used

market based prices; and one used a price list. Five of the ten responding producers reported no volume

discounts; two reported that there were occasionally volume discounts; two reported that they normally

had volume discounts; and one reported that it had no discount policy. Fifteen of 19 responding

importers reported transaction-by-transaction negotiations to set price; one each reported price list, cost

plus pricing, spot sales, and market prices. Sixteen of the 17 responding importers reported no volume

discounts or no discount policy; one reported it negotiated discounts with customers.

All ten U.S. producers reported sales terms of net 30 days. Ten of 13 responding importers

reported sales terms of net 30 days; 1 sold net 30/45/60; and 2 required cash against documents. Four of

10 responding producers reported mainly f.o.b. sales; 3 reported mainly delivered sales; and 3 reported

selling both f.o.b. and delivered. Six of 15 responding importers sold wire rod on an f.o.b. basis; 5 sold

delivered; 2 sold both delivered and f.o.b.; 1 sold ex-dock duty paid; and 1 sold on a truck load basis.

Most wire rod is produced to order rather than sold from inventory. Four of the nine responding

U.S. producers reported selling all their product produced to order; the other five sold 80 to 90 percent

produced to order. Eight of the 13 responding importers produced all their wire rod to order; 3 sold 70

percent or more to order; and the remaining 2 sold 80 and 98 percent from inventories. The delivery time

for U.S. producers’ produced-to-order wire rod ranged from one week to three months; seven of nine

responding U.S. producers reported average lead times of one month or more. Lead time from

inventories ranged from one day to two weeks. 

Lead times for importers’ produced-to-order wire rod were much longer, ranging from one month

to five months. Nine of 15 responding importers reported lead times of three months or more, with 7 of

these firms reporting lead times of three to four months. Importers’ lead times from inventories ranged

from two days to one month.
 8

 Greater than 100 percent coverage from Moldova and Ukraine reflects the relatively large inventories held at the

beginning of the period relative to the imports during the period.

V-8

PRICE DATA

The Commission requested that U.S. producers and importers provide quarterly data for their

sales of six wire rod products during January 2002- December 2007. The products for which pricing data

were requested are as follows:

Product 1.–Industrial quality wire rod, grade C1006, 5.5 mm (7/32 inch) through 12 mm (15/32

inch) in diameter, for hangers, chain link fencing, collated nails and staples, grates, and other

formed products (in green condition, e.g., not cleaned, coated, etc.)

Product 2.--Industrial quality wire rod, grade C1008 through C1010, 5.5 mm (7/32 inch) through

12 mm (15/32 inch) in diameter, for hangers, chain link fencing, collated nails and staples, grates,

and other formed products (in green condition, e.g., not cleaned, coated, etc.)

Product 3.–Mesh quality wire rod, grades C1006 through C1015, 5.5 mm (7/32 inch) through 14

mm (9/16 inch) in diameter, for manufacturing of concrete reinforcement products such as wire

for A-82 applications (in green condition, e.g. not cleaned, coated, etc.)

Product 4.–Grades C1050 through C1070, 5.5 mm (7/32 inch) through 6.5 mm (1/4 inch) in

diameter, for spring applications excluding valve spring (in green condition, e.g. not cleaned,

coated, etc.)

Product 5.–Cold-heading quality wire rod, grades C1006 through C1008, 5.5 mm (7/32 inch)

through 14 mm (9/16 inch) in diameter, for the manufacturing of mechanical fasteners (in green

condition, e.g. not cleaned, coated, etc.)

Product 6.–Welding quality wire rod, grades ER70S-3, 5.5 mm (7/32 inch) in diameter, for solid

mig wire (in green condition, e.g., not cleaned, coated, etc.).

Ten U.S. producers and nine importers provided usable pricing data for sales of the requested

products in the U.S. market, although these firms did not necessarily report pricing data for all products or

for all quarters. Selling price data reported by U.S. producers and importers accounted for 51.2 percent of

the quantity of U.S. producers’ commercial shipments of wire rod during January 2002-December 2007,

72.5 percent of imports from Brazil, 11.2 percent of imports from Canada, 34.7 percent of imports from

Indonesia, 94.9 percent of imports from Mexico, 3.5 percent of imports from Trinidad and Tobago, and in

excess of 100 percent of imports from Moldova and Ukraine.8

Data on U.S. producers’ and importers’ selling prices and quantities of products 1 through 6 are

presented in tables V-2 through V-7 and figure V-3. Table V-8 summarizes the pricing data and table V9 summarizes the data on margins of under/(over) selling during 2002-07. Table V-10 summarizes

margins of under/(over)selling during the original investigations.
V-9

Table V-2

Wire rod: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 11

 and

margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2002-December 2007

Period

United States Canada Mexico

Price

(per ton)

Quantity

(tons)

Price

(per ton)

Quantity

(tons)

Margin

(percent)

Price

(per ton)

Quantity

(tons)

Margin

(percent)

2002:

 Jan.-Mar. $280 45,720 $*** *** *** $*** *** ***

 Apr.-June 288 58,624 - - - *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 304 47,156 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 288 36,048 *** *** *** *** *** ***

2003:

 Jan.-Mar. 284 47,093 - - - *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 295 57,269 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 291 68,396 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 301 51,913 *** *** *** *** *** ***

2004:

 Jan.-Mar. 387 57,139 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 523 58,642 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 565 65,091 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 557 70,636 *** *** *** *** *** ***

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. 527 97,044 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 510 76,402 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 475 57,110 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 498 75,329 *** *** *** *** *** ***

2006:

 Jan.-Mar. 488 70,757 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 481 91,612 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 513 87,024 *** *** *** - - -

 Oct.-Dec. 506 65,871 *** *** *** *** *** ***

2007:

 Jan.-Mar. 491 89,865 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 524 86,126 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 538 105,382 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 535 118,190 *** *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on following page.
V-10

Table V-2--Continued

Wire rod: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 11

 and

margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2002-December 2007

Period

United States Moldova Trinidad and Tobago

Price

(per ton)

Quantity

(tons)

Price

(per ton)

Quantity

(tons)

Margin

(percent)

Price

(per ton)

Quantity

(tons)

Margin

(percent)

2002:

 Jan.-Mar. $280 45,720 $*** *** *** - - -

 Apr.-June 288 58,624 *** *** *** - - -

 July-Sept. 304 47,156 - - - - - -

 Oct.-Dec. 288 36,048 - - - - - -

2003:

 Jan.-Mar. 284 47,093 - - - - - -

 Apr.-June 295 57,269 - - - - - -

 July-Sept. 291 68,396 - - - $*** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 301 51,913 - - - *** *** ***

2004:

 Jan.-Mar. 387 57,139 - - - *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 523 58,642 - - - *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 565 65,091 - - - - - -

 Oct.-Dec. 557 70,636 - - - - - -

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. 527 97,044 - - - *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 510 76,402 - - - *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 475 57,110 - - - *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 498 75,329 - - - *** *** ***

2006:

 Jan.-Mar. 488 70,757 - - - *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 481 91,612 - - - *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 513 87,024 - - - - - -

 Oct.-Dec. 506 65,871 - - - - - -

2007:

 Jan.-Mar. 491 89,865 - - - - - -

 Apr.-June 524 86,126 - - - - - -

 July-Sept. 538 105,382 ------

 Oct.-Dec. 535 118,190 ------

Table continued on following page.
V-11

Table V-2--Continued

Wire rod: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 11

 and

margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2002-December 2007

Period

United States Ukraine

Price

(per ton)

Quantity

(tons)

Price

(per ton)

Quantity

(tons)

Margin

(percent)

2002:

 Jan.-Mar. $280 45,720 - - -

 Apr.-June 288 58,624 - - -

 July-Sept. 304 47,156 $*** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 288 36,048 *** *** ***

2003:

 Jan.-Mar. 284 47,093 - - -

 Apr.-June 295 57,269 - - -

 July-Sept. 291 68,396 - - -

 Oct.-Dec. 301 51,913 - - -

2004:

 Jan.-Mar. 387 57,139 - - -

 Apr.-June 523 58,642 - - -

 July-Sept. 565 65,091 - - -

 Oct.-Dec. 557 70,636 - - -

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. 527 97,044 - - -

 Apr.-June 510 76,402 - - -

 July-Sept. 475 57,110 - - -

 Oct.-Dec. 498 75,329 - - -

2006:

 Jan.-Mar. 488 70,757 - - -

 Apr.-June 481 91,612 - - -

 July-Sept. 513 87,024 - - -

 Oct.-Dec. 506 65,871 - - -

2007:

 Jan.-Mar. 491 89,865 - - -

 Apr.-June 524 86,126 - - -

 July-Sept. 538 105,382 - - -

 Oct.-Dec. 535 118,190 - - -

1

 Industrial quality wire rod, grade C1006, 5.5 mm (7/32 inch) through 12 mm (15/32 inch) in diameter, for hangers, chain link

fencing, collated nails and staples, grates, and other formed products (in green condition, e.g., not cleaned, coated, etc.). 2

 Price data were only available for one quarter for product 1 from Brazil and Indonesia. *** tons of Brazilian product were sold

at $*** per ton; this undersold U.S. product by *** percent. *** tons of Indonesian product were sold at $*** per ton; this undersold

U.S. product by *** percent.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-12

Table V-3

Wire rod: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 21

 and

margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2002-December 2007

Period

United States Brazil Canada

Price

(per ton)

Quantity

(tons)

Price

(per ton)

Quantity

(tons)

Margin

(percent)

Price

(per ton)

Quantity

(tons)

Margin

(percent)

2002:

 Jan.-Mar. $272 131,420 $*** *** *** $*** *** ***

 Apr.-June 284 133,472 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 294 107,388 - - - *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 287 101,569 - - - *** *** ***

2003:

 Jan.-Mar. 283 138,941 - - - *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 286 173,582 - - - *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 289 178,218 - - - *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 294 164,594 - - - *** *** ***

2004:

 Jan.-Mar. 355 161,434 - - - *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 493 172,783 - - - *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 540 189,888 - - - *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 548 163,128 - - - *** *** ***

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. 546 134,591 - - - *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 507 154,613 - - - *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 472 153,340 - - - *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 500 124,035 - - - *** *** ***

2006:

 Jan.-Mar. 495 146,066 - - - *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 498 143,227 - - - *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 522 153,593 - - - *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 495 104,782 - - - *** *** ***

2007:

 Jan.-Mar. 487 138,717 - - - *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 540 130,319 - - - *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 543 146,774 - - - *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 550 140,129 - - - *** *** ***

Table continued on following page.
V-13

Table V-3--Continued

Wire rod: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 21

 and

margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2002-December 2007 

Period

United States Indonesia Mexico

Price

(per ton)

Quantity

(tons)

Price

(per ton)

Quantity

(tons)

Margin

(percent)

Price

(per ton)

Quantity

(tons)

Margin

(percent)

2002:

 Jan.-Mar. $272 131,420 $*** *** *** $*** *** ***

 Apr.-June 284 133,472 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 294 107,388 - - - *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 287 101,569 - - - *** *** ***

2003:

 Jan.-Mar. 283 138,941 - - - *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 286 173,582 - - - *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 289 178,218 - - - *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 294 164,594 ------

2004:

 Jan.-Mar. 355 161,434 - - - *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 493 172,783 - - - *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 540 189,888 - - - *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 548 163,128 ------

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. 546 134,591 ------

 Apr.-June 507 154,613 ------

 July-Sept. 472 153,340 ------

 Oct.-Dec. 500 124,035 ------

2006:

 Jan.-Mar. 495 146,066 ------

 Apr.-June 498 143,227 ------

 July-Sept. 522 153,593 ------

 Oct.-Dec. 495 104,782 ------

2007:

 Jan.-Mar. 487 138,717 ------

 Apr.-June 540 130,319 ------

 July-Sept. 543 146,774 ------

 Oct.-Dec. 550 140,129 ------

Table continued on following page.
V-14

Table V-3--Continued

Wire rod: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 21

 and

margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2002-December 2007 

Period

United States Moldova Trinidad and Tobago

Price

(per ton)

Quantity

(tons)

Price

(per ton)

Quantity

(tons)

Margin

(percent)

Price

(per ton)

Quantity

(tons)

Margin

(percent)

2002:

 Jan.-Mar. $272 131,420 $*** *** *** $*** *** ***

 Apr.-June 284 133,472 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 294 107,388 *** *** *** - - -

 Oct.-Dec. 287 101,569 ------

2003:

 Jan.-Mar. 283 138,941 ------

 Apr.-June 286 173,582 ------

 July-Sept. 289 178,218 ------

 Oct.-Dec. 294 164,594 ------

2004:

 Jan.-Mar. 355 161,434 ------

 Apr.-June 493 172,783 ------

 July-Sept. 540 189,888 ------

 Oct.-Dec. 548 163,128 ------

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. 546 134,591 ------

 Apr.-June 507 154,613 ------

 July-Sept. 472 153,340 ------

 Oct.-Dec. 500 124,035 ------

2006:

 Jan.-Mar. 495 146,066 ------

 Apr.-June 498 143,227 ------

 July-Sept. 522 153,593 ------

 Oct.-Dec. 495 104,782 ------

2007:

 Jan.-Mar. 487 138,717 ------

 Apr.-June 540 130,319 ------

 July-Sept. 543 146,774 ------

 Oct.-Dec. 550 140,129 ------

Table continued on following page.
V-15

Table V-3--Continued

Wire rod: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 21

 and

margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2002-December 2007 

Period

United States Ukraine

Price

(per ton)

Quantity

(tons)

Price

(per ton)

Quantity

(tons)

Margin

(percent)

2002:

 Jan.-Mar. $272 131,420 $*** *** ***

 Apr.-June 284 133,472 *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 294 107,388 *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 287 101,569 *** *** ***

2003:

 Jan.-Mar. 283 138,941 - - -

 Apr.-June 286 173,582 - - -

 July-Sept. 289 178,218 - - -

 Oct.-Dec. 294 164,594 - - -

2004:

 Jan.-Mar. 355 161,434 - - -

 Apr.-June 493 172,783 - - -

 July-Sept. 540 189,888 - - -

 Oct.-Dec. 548 163,128 - - -

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. 546 134,591 - - -

 Apr.-June 507 154,613 - - -

 July-Sept. 472 153,340 - - -

 Oct.-Dec. 500 124,035 - - -

2006:

 Jan.-Mar. 495 146,066 - - -

 Apr.-June 498 143,227 - - -

 July-Sept. 522 153,593 - - -

 Oct.-Dec. 495 104,782 - - -

2007:

 Jan.-Mar. 487 138,717 - - -

 Apr.-June 540 130,319 - - -

 July-Sept. 543 146,774 - - -

 Oct.-Dec. 550 140,129 - - -

1

 Industrial quality wire rod, grade C1008 through C1010, 5.5 mm (7/32 inch) through 12 mm (15/32 inch) in diameter, for

hangers, chain link fencing, collated nails and staples, grates, and other formed products (in green condition, e.g., not cleaned,

coated, etc.).

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-16

Table V-4

Wire rod: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 31

 and

margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2002-December 2007

Period

United States Trinidad and Tobago

Price

(per ton)

Quantity

(tons)

Price

(per ton)

Quantity

(tons)

Margin

(percent)

2002:

 Jan.-Mar. $283 62,880 - - -

 Apr.-June 293 71,238 - - -

 July-Sept. 313 61,256 - - -

 Oct.-Dec. 307 44,313 - - -

2003:

 Jan.-Mar. 290 53,502 - - -

 Apr.-June 302 78,588 - - -

 July-Sept. 298 106,193 - - -

 Oct.-Dec. 321 104,912 - - -

2004:

 Jan.-Mar. 413 116,554 - - -

 Apr.-June 545 79,115 $*** *** ***

 July-Sept. 574 88,112 *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 582 69,600 - - -

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. 602 74,083 - - -

 Apr.-June 548 103,938 - - -

 July-Sept. 524 121,610 - - -

 Oct.-Dec. 525 127,924 - - -

2006:

 Jan.-Mar. 485 160,495 - - -

 Apr.-June 487 161,218 - - -

 July-Sept. 522 176,737 - - -

 Oct.-Dec. 506 109,170 - - -

2007:

 Jan.-Mar. 489 149,587 - - -

 Apr.-June 517 196,560 - - -

 July-Sept. 536 153,357 - - -

 Oct.-Dec. 531 211,353 - - -

1

 Mesh quality wire rod, grades C1006 through C1015, 5.5 mm (7/32 inch) through 14 mm (9/16 inch) in diameter, for

manufacturing of concrete reinforcement products such as wire for A-82 applications (in green condition, e.g. not cleaned, coated,

etc.).

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-17

Table V-5

Wire rod: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 41

 and

margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2002-December 2007

Period

United States Canada Mexico

Price

(per ton)

Quantity

(tons)

Price

(per ton)

Quantity

(tons)

Margin

(percent)

Price

(per ton)

Quantity

(tons)

Margin

(percent)

2002:

 Jan.-Mar. $*** *** $*** *** *** $*** *** ***

 Apr.-June 306 56,176 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 323 66,149 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 312 60,768 *** *** *** - - -

2003:

 Jan.-Mar. 294 73,239 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 300 75,405 *** *** *** - - -

 July-Sept. 308 66,414 *** *** *** - - -

 Oct.-Dec. 319 74,247 *** *** *** - - -

2004:

 Jan.-Mar. 396 84,077 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 535 92,271 *** *** *** - - -

 July-Sept. 585 88,517 *** *** *** - - -

 Oct.-Dec. 584 73,102 *** *** *** - - -

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. 579 67,043 *** *** *** - - -

 Apr.-June 555 61,365 *** *** *** - - -

 July-Sept. 516 72,168 *** *** *** - - -

 Oct.-Dec. 538 52,037 *** *** *** - - -

2006:

 Jan.-Mar. 535 49,394 *** *** *** - - -

 Apr.-June 532 62,598 *** *** *** - - -

 July-Sept. 559 49,953 *** *** *** - - -

 Oct.-Dec. 529 33,671 *** *** *** - - -

2007:

 Jan.-Mar. 510 44,419 *** *** *** - - -

 Apr.-June 565 36,109 *** *** *** - - -

 July-Sept. 573 34,973 *** *** *** - - -

 Oct.-Dec. 565 45,241 *** *** *** - - -

1

 Grades C1050 through C1070, 5.5 mm (7/32 inch) through 6.5 mm (1/4 inch) in diameter, for spring applications excluding

valve spring (in green condition, e.g. not cleaned, coated, etc.).

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-18

Table V-6

Wire rod: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 5 and

margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2002-December 2007

*******

Table V-7

Wire rod: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 6 and

margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2002-December 2007

*******

Figure V-3

Wire rod: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices of domestic and imported products 1-6

*******
V-19

Table V-8

Wire rod: Summary of weighted-average f.o.b. prices for products 1 through 6, by countries

Country

Number of

quarters

Highest price Lowest price

Percentage

increase

(decrease) in

price1

Per ton Per ton Percent

Product 1

United States 24 $565 $280 90.8

Brazil 1 *** *** --

Canada 22 *** *** ***

Indonesia 1 *** *** --

Mexico 23 *** *** ***

Moldova 2 *** *** ***

Trinidad and Tobago 10 *** *** ***

Ukraine 2 *** *** ***

Product 2

United States 24 $550 $272 102.3

Brazil 2 *** *** ***

Canada 24 *** *** ***

Indonesia 2 *** *** ***

Mexico 10 *** *** ***

Moldova 3 *** *** ***

Trinidad and Tobago 2 *** *** ***

Ukraine 4 *** *** ***

Product 3

United States 24 $602 $283 87.3

Trinidad and Tobago 2 *** *** ***

Product 4

United States 24 $585 $*** ***

Canada 24 *** *** ***

Mexico 5 *** *** ***

Product 5

United States 24 $*** $*** ***

Canada 24 *** *** ***

Mexico 16 *** *** ***

Product 6

United States 24 $*** $*** ***

Canada 24 *** *** ***

 1 Percentage change from the first quarter in which price data were available to the last quarter in which price

data were available.

Note.-- Only countries where price data were reported are listed.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-20

Table V-9

Wire rod: Summary of underselling/overselling, 2002-07

Country/period

Number of

quarters of

underselling

Number of

quarters of

overselling

Average margin

of underselling/

(overselling)

Weighted average

margin of

underselling/

(overselling)

Brazil:

2002 3 0 *** ***

Canada:

2002 0 19 *** ***

2003 0 19 *** ***

2004 0 20 *** ***

2005 0 20 *** ***

 2006 0 20 *** ***

2007 1 19 *** ***

Indonesia:

2002 3 0 *** ***

Mexico:

2002 13 2 *** ***

2003 6 6 *** ***

2004 3 9 *** ***

2005 2 5 *** ***

2006 2 2 *** ***

2007 0 4 *** ***

Moldova:

2002 5 0 *** ***

Trinidad and Tobago:

2002 1 1 *** ***

2003 0 2 *** ***

2004 3 1 *** ***

2005 2 2 *** ***

2006 2 0 *** ***

Ukraine:

2002 6 0 *** ***

Total:

2002 31 22 (5.1) (0.6)

2003 6 27 (12.8) (15.7)

2004 6 30 (18.3) (6.6)

 2005 4 27 (13.6) (1.0)

 2006 4 22 (8.8) (10.2)

 2007 1 23 *** (5.0)

Note.–Margins are weighted by the quantity of imports.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-21

Table V-10

Wire rod: Summary of number of quarters of underselling/overselling and average margins of

underselling or overselling from the original investigations, January 1999-March 2002

Country

Number of

quarters of

underselling

Number of

quarters of

overselling

Average margin

of underselling/

(overselling)

Weighted

average margin

of underselling/

(overselling)

Brazil 38 9 *** ***

Canada 24 54 *** ***

Indonesia 3 0 *** ***

Mexico 37 9 *** ***

Moldova 19 3 *** ***

Trinidad and Tobago 36 16 *** ***

Ukraine 21 1 *** ***

Note.–Margins are weighted by the quantity of imports.

Source: Tables V-3 through V-9 Investigations Nos. 701-TA-417-421 (Final) and 731-TA-953, 954, 956-959, 961,

and 962 (Final): Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, Canada, Germany, Indonesia, Mexico,

Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, and Ukraine-Staff Report, pp. V-15-V-29.

A-1

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES AND THE 

COMMISSION’S STATEMENT ON ADEQUACY

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 4, 2007 / Notices 50659 

review of entries covered by an order, 

finding, or suspended investigation 

listed in this notice and for the period 

identified above, the Department will 

instruct the U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection to assess antidumping or 

countervailing duties on those entries at 

a rate equal to the cash deposit of (or 

bond for) estimated antidumping or 

countervailing duties required on those 

entries at the time of entry, or 

withdrawal from warehouse, for 

consumption and to continue to collect 

the cash deposit previously ordered. 

This notice is not required by statute 

but is published as a service to the 

international trading community. 

Dated: August 23, 2007. 

Gary Taverman, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–17463 Filed 8–31–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 

Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation; Advance Notification of 

Sunset Reviews 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of Upcoming Sunset 

Reviews. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Every five years, pursuant to section 

751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended, the Department of Commerce 

(‘‘the Department’’) and the 

International Trade Commission 

automatically initiate and conduct a 

review to determine whether revocation 

of a countervailing or antidumping duty 

order or termination of an investigation 

suspended under section 704 or 734 

would be likely to lead to continuation 

or recurrence of dumping or a 

countervailable subsidy (as the case may 

be) and of material injury. 

Upcoming Sunset Reviews for October 

2007 

The following Sunset Reviews are 

scheduled for initiation in October 2007 

and will appear in that month’s Notice 

of Initiation of Five-year Sunset 

Reviews. 

Antidumping Duty Proceedings Department Contact

Sulfanilic Acid from Hungary (A–437–804) ..................................................................................................... Brandon Farlander (202) 482–0182 

Sulfanilic Acid from Portugal (A–471–806) ..................................................................................................... Brandon Farlander (202) 482–0182 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings.

Sulfanilic Acid from Hungary (C–437–805) ..................................................................................................... Brandon Farlander (202) 482–0182 

Suspended Investigations.

No Sunset Reviews of suspended investigations are scheduled for initiation in October 2007..

The Department’s procedures for the 

conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth 

in 19 CFR 351.218. Guidance on 

methodological or analytical issues 

relevant to the Department’s conduct of 

Sunset Reviews is set forth in the 

Department’s Policy Bulletin 98.3-- 

Policies Regarding the Conduct of Fiveyear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Orders; Policy Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 

(April 16, 1998) . The Notice of 

Initiation of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Reviews provides further information 

regarding what is required of all parties 

to participate in Sunset Reviews. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(c), the 

Department will maintain and make 

available a service list for these 

proceedings. To facilitate the timely 

preparation of the service list(s), it is 

requested that those seeking recognition 

as interested parties to a proceeding 

contact the Department in writing 

within 15 days of the publication of the 

Notice of Initition. 

Please note that if the Department 

receives a Notice of Intent to Participate 

from a member of the domestic industry 

within 15 days of the date of initiation, 

the review will continue. Thereafter, 

any interested party wishing to 

participate in the Sunset Review must 

provide substantive comments in 

response to the notice of initiation no 

later than 30 days after the date of 

initiation. 

This notice is not required by statute 

but is published as a service to the 

international trading community. 

Dated: August 23, 2007. 

Gary Taverman, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–17442 Filed 8–31–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Initiation of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Reviews 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 

751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’), the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is 

automatically initiating a five-year 

(‘‘Sunset Review’’) of the antidumping 

and countervailing duty orders listed 

below. The International Trade 

Commission (‘‘the Commission’’) is 

publishing concurrently with this notice 

its notice of Institution of Five-year 

Review which covers the same orders. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 4, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

Department official identified in the 

Initiation of Review(s) section below at 

AD/CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th & Constitution Ave., 

NW, Washington, DC 20230. For 

information from the Commission 

contact Mary Messer, Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission at (202) 205–3193. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department’s procedures for the 

conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth 

in its Procedures for Conducting Fiveyear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Orders, 63 FR 13516 (March 20, 1998) 

and 70 FR 62061 (October 28, 2005). 

Guidance on methodological or 

analytical issues relevant to the 

Department’s conduct of Sunset 

Reviews is set forth in the Department’s 

Policy Bulletin 98.3 - Policies Regarding 

the Conduct of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Reviews of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Orders; Policy 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
50660 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 4, 2007 / Notices 

Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998) 

(‘‘Sunset Policy Bulletin’’). 

Initiation of Reviews 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.218(c), we are initiating the Sunset 

Review of the following antidumping 

and countervailing duty orders: 

DOC Case No. ITC Case No. Country Product Department Contact 

A–351–832 ..................................................... 731–TA–953 Brazil Carbon and Certain 

Alloy Steel Wire Rod 

Brandon Farlander (202) 482–0182 

A–122–840 ..................................................... 731–TA–954 Canada Carbon and Certain 

Alloy Steel Wire Rod 

Brandon Farlander (202) 482–0182 

A–560–815 ..................................................... 731–TA–957 Indonesia Carbon and Certain 

Alloy Steel Wire Rod 

Brandon Farlander (202) 482–0182 

A–201–830 ..................................................... 731–TA–958 Mexico Carbon and Certain 

Alloy Steel Wire Rod 

Brandon Farlander (202) 482–0182 

A–841–805 ..................................................... 731–TA–959 Moldova Carbon and Certain 

Alloy Steel Wire Rod 

Brandon Farlander (202) 482–0182 

A–274–804 ..................................................... 731–TA–961 Trinidad & 

Tobago 

Carbon and Certain 

Alloy Steel Wire Rod 

Brandon Farlander (202) 482–0182 

A–823–812 ..................................................... 731–TA–962 Ukraine Carbon and Certain 

Alloy Steel Wire Rod 

Brandon Farlander (202) 482–0182 

C–351–833 .................................................... 701–TA–417 Brazil Carbon and Certain 

Alloy Steel Wire Rod 

Brandon Farlander (202) 482–0182 

Suspended Investigations.

No Sunset Reviews of suspended investigations are scheduled for initiation in September 2007..

Filing Information 

As a courtesy, we are making 

information related to Sunset 

proceedings, including copies of the 

pertinent statute and Department’s 

regulations, the Department’s schedule 

for Sunset Reviews, a listing of past 

revocations and continuations, and 

current service lists, available to the 

public on the Department’s sunset 

Internet Web site at the following 

address: ‘‘http://ia.ita.doc.gov/sunset/.’’

All submissions in these Sunset 

Reviews must be filed in accordance 

with the Department’s regulations 

regarding format, translation, service, 

and certification of documents. These 

rules can be found at 19 CFR 351.303. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(c), the 

Department will maintain and make 

available a service list for these 

proceedings. To facilitate the timely 

preparation of the service list(s), it is 

requested that those seeking recognition 

as interested parties to a proceeding 

contact the Department in writing 

within 10 days of the publication of the 

Notice of Initiation. 

Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews 

can be very short, we urge interested 

parties to apply for access to proprietary 

information under administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) immediately 

following publication in the Federal 

Register of the notice of initiation of the 

sunset review. The Department’s 

regulations on submission of proprietary 

information and eligibility to receive 

access to business proprietary 

information under APO can be found at 

19 CFR 351.304–306. 

Information Required from Interested 

Parties 

Domestic interested parties (defined 

in section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b)) 

wishing to participate in these Sunset 

Reviews must respond not later than 15 

days after the date of publication in the 

Federal Register of this notice of 

initiation by filing a notice of intent to 

participate. The required contents of the 

notice of intent to participate are set 

forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(ii). In 

accordance with the Department’s 

regulations, if we do not receive a notice 

of intent to participate from at least one 

domestic interested party by the 15-day 

deadline, the Department will 

automatically revoke the orders without 

further review. See 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(1)(iii). 

For sunset reviews of countervailing 

duty orders, parties wishing the 

Department to consider arguments that 

countervailable subsidy programs have 

been terminated must include with their 

substantive responses information and 

documentation addressing whether the 

changes to the program were (1) limited 

to an individual firm or firms and (2) 

effected by an official act of the 

government. Further, a party claiming 

program termination is expected to 

document that there are no residual 

benefits under the program and that 

substitute programs have not been 

introduced. Cf. 19 CFR 351.526(b) and 

(d). If a party maintains that any of the 

subsidies countervailed by the 

Department were not conferred 

pursuant to a subsidy program, that 

party should nevertheless address the 

applicability of the factors set forth in 

19 CFR 351.526(b) and (d). Similarly, 

parties wishing the Department to 

consider whether a company’s change 

in ownership has extinguished the 

benefit from prior non–recurring, 

allocable, subsidies must include with 

their substantive responses information 

and documentation supporting their 

claim that all or almost all of the 

company’s shares or assets were sold in 

an arm’s length transaction, at a price 

representing fair market value, as 

described in the Notice of Final 

Modification of Agency Practice Under 

Section 123 of the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act, 68 FR 37125 (June 23, 

2003) (‘‘Modification Notice’’). See 

Modification Notice for a discussion of 

the types of information and 

documentation the Department requires. 

If we receive an order–specific notice 

of intent to participate from a domestic 

interested party, the Department’s 

regulations provide that all parties 

wishing to participate in the Sunset 

Review must file complete substantive 

responses not later than 30 days after 

the date of publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation. The 

required contents of a substantive 

response, on an order–specific basis, are 

set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3). Note 

that certain information requirements 

differ for respondent and domestic 

parties. Also, note that the Department’s 

information requirements are distinct 

from the Commission’s information 

requirements. Please consult the 

Department’s regulations for 

information regarding the Department’s 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 4, 2007 / Notices 50661 

1 In comments made on the interim final sunset 

regulations, a number of parties stated that the 

proposed five-day period for rebuttals to 

substantive responses to a notice of initiation was 

insufficient. This requirement was retained in the 

final sunset regulations at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(4). As 

provided in 19 CFR 351.302(b), however, the 

Department will consider individual requests for 

extension of that five-day deadline based upon a 

showing of good cause. 

1Petitioners requested that the Department 

review Mielar and CAA as separate entities. 

However, in a previous segment of this proceeding, 

the Department treated these two companies as a 

single entity, and no new evidence has been 

presented in this segment of the proceeding to 

warrant changing this treatment. 

2The Federal Register notice lists 11 companies; 

however, as explained in the previous footnote, we 

are treating Mielar and CAA as a single entity based 

on our treatment of these two entities in a previous 

segment of this proceeding. 

conduct of Sunset Reviews.1 Please 

consult the Department’s regulations at 

19 CFR Part 351 for definitions of terms 

and for other general information 

concerning antidumping and 

countervailing duty proceedings at the 

Department. 

This notice of initiation is being 

published in accordance with section 

751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c). 

Dated: August 23, 2007. 

Gary Taverman, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–17455 Filed 8–31–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–357–812] 

Honey from Argentina: Notice of 

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 

Results and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is rescinding in part 

the administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on honey from 

Argentina for the period December 1, 

2005, to November 30, 2006 with 

respect to Mielar S.A. (Mielar)/ 

Compania Apicola Argentina (CAA).1

This partial rescission is based on the 

withdrawal of the requests for review by 

the interested parties that requested the 

review. Additionally, the Department is 

extending the preliminary results of this 

administrative review to no later than 

December 20, 2007. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 4, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Deborah Scott 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) 482–2657 and (202) 

482–0649, respectively. 

BACKGROUND: On December 1, 2006, the 

Department published a notice of 

opportunity to request an administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on, inter alia, honey from Argentina. 

See Antidumping or Countervailing 

Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation; Opportunity to Request 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 69543 

(December 1, 2006). In response, the 

American Honey Producers Association 

and the Sioux Honey Association 

(collectively, petitioners) timely 

requested an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on honey 

from Argentina for the December 1, 

2005, through November 30, 2006 

period of review (POR). The petitioners 

requested that the Department conduct 

an administrative review of entries of 

subject merchandise made by nine 

Argentine producers/exporters. In 

addition, the Department received 

timely requests for review from six 

Argentine exporters included in the 

petitioners’ request and one timely 

request from a producer/exporter that 

was not included in petitioners’

requests for review. 

On February 2, 2007, the Department 

initiated a review on the ten companies2

for which an administrative review was 

requested. See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Request for 

Revocation in Part, 72 FR 5005 

(February 2, 2007). On March 27, 2007, 

the Department indicated that it was 

selecting for review the four producers/ 

exporters with the largest export volume 

during the POR: Asociacion de 

Cooperativas Argentinas (ACA), Mielar/ 

CAA, Nexco S.A. (Nexco), and Seylinco, 

S.A. (Seylinco). See the memorandum, 

‘‘Selection of Respondents’’ to Stephen 

J. Claeys, dated March 27, 2007 

(Selection Memorandum). Based on the 

timely withdrawal of requests for review 

from the requesting parties, on June 19, 

2007, the Department rescinded this 

review with respect to four companies, 

one of which was Nexco. See Honey 

from Argentina: Notice of Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 72 FR 33740 

(June 19, 2007). 

On July 17, 2007, petitioners and 

respondent company Mielar/CAA 

withdrew their requests for review. See 

Letters from petitioners and from 

Mielar/CAA to the Department, dated 

July 17, 2007, on file in the Central 

Records Unit (CRU), room B–099 of the 

main Department building. 

Rescission, in Part, of Administrative 

Review 

The applicable regulation, 19 CFR 

351.213(d)(1), states that if a party that 

requested an administrative review 

withdraws the request within 90 days of 

the publication of the notice of 

initiation of the requested review, the 

Secretary will rescind the review in 

whole or in part. Furthermore, the 

regulation states the Secretary may 

extend this time limit if the Secretary 

decides that it is reasonable to do so. 

Although both petitioners and Mielar/ 

CAA withdrew their requests for review 

after the 90-day deadline, the 

Department finds it reasonable to extend 

the withdrawal deadline because the 

Department has not yet devoted 

significant time or resources to this 

review, e.g., the Department has not yet 

conducted a sales–below cost 

investigation. As such, based on prior 

practice, the Department determines it 

is reasonable to extend the time limit in 

this case and rescind the review with 

respect to Mielar/CAA. See, e.g., Honey 

from Argentina: Notice of Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 61018 

(October 17, 2006). The Department will 

issue appropriate assessment 

instructions for Mielar/CAA directly to 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) within 15 days of the publication 

of this notice. The Department will 

direct CBP to assess antidumping duties 

for Mielar/CAA at the cash deposit rates 

in effect on the date of entry for entries 

during the period December 1, 2005, 

through November 30, 2006. 

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 

Results 

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), 

requires the Department to complete the 

preliminary results of an administrative 

review within 245 days after the last day 

of the anniversary month of an order for 

which a review is requested. However, 

if it is not practicable to complete the 

review within this time period, section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act allows the 

Department to extend the time limit for 

the preliminary results to a maximum of 

365 days after the last day of the 

anniversary month of an order for which 

a review is requested. 

The Department has determined it is 

not practicable to complete this review 

within the statutory time limit because 

we require additional time to conduct 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
50696 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 4, 2007 / Notices 

1No response to this request for information is 

required if a currently valid Office of Management 

recommendations on project necessity 

and validity. (3) Make recommendations 

regarding allocation of research funds 

through review of research and project 

proposals as well as needs identified 

through the evaluation process above. 

(4) Could be consulted on issues such as 

protocols for specific projects. 

Topics to be presented and discussed 

by the GSENMAC include: Elections for 

GSENMAC Chair and Vice Chair; 

Management updates to the GSENMAC; 

Sub-committee reports (Rangeland 

Health, Science, and Marketing/ 

Partnerships/Revenue); vegetation 

restoration and fuels reduction on 

Buckskin Mountain. 

Members of the public are welcome to 

address the council from 5 p.m. to 6 

p.m., local time on September 19, 2007, 

in Kanab, Utah, at the GSENM Visitor 

Center. Depending on the number of 

persons wishing to speak, a time limit 

could be established. Interested persons 

may make oral statements to the 

GSENMAC during this time or written 

statements may be submitted for the 

GSENMAC’s consideration. Written 

statements can be sent to: Grand 

Staircase-Escalante National Monument, 

Attn.: Larry Crutchfield, 190 E. Center 

Street, Kanab, UT 84741. Information to 

be distributed to the GSENMAC is 

requested 10 days prior to the start of 

the GSENMAC meeting. 

All meetings, including the site 

orientation, are open to the public; 

however, transportation, lodging, and 

meals are the responsibility of the 

participating public. 

Dated: August 26, 2007. 

Larry E Crutchfield, 

Acting Monument Manager, Grand StaircaseEscalante National Monument. 

[FR Doc. E7–17292 Filed 8–31–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–$$–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[ID–410–1610–DR–006D] 

Notice of Availability of the Record of 

Decision for the Coeur d’Alene 

Resource Management Plan (RMP)/ 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM), Department of the Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of Availability of Record 

of Decision (ROD). 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act (FLPMA), and BLM 

Policy, the BLM announces the 

availability of the RMP/ROD for the 

Coeur d’Alene Field Office located in 

Idaho. The Idaho State Director signed 

the ROD on June 29, 2007, and it is 

effective as of that date. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Coeur d’Alene 

ROD/RMP are available upon request 

from the Coeur d’Alene Field Office, 

Bureau of Land Management, ATTN: 

RMP, 3815 Schreiber Way, Coeur 

d’Alene, ID 83815, or via the internet at 

http://www.blm.gov/rmp/id/cda/. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Scott Pavey, Spokane District Office, 

1103 North Fancher, Spokane Valley, 

Washington 99212, (208) 769–5059, or 

e-mail scott_pavey@blm.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coeur 

d’Alene RMP was developed with broad 

public participation through a three year 

collaborative planning process. This 

RMP addresses management on 

approximately 97,900 acres of public 

land in the planning area. The Coeur 

d’Alene RMP is designed to achieve or 

maintain desired future conditions 

developed through the planning 

process. It includes a series of 

management actions to meet the desired 

resource conditions for forest, upland, 

and riparian vegetation; wildlife 

habitats; cultural and visual resources; 

and recreation. The approved Coeur 

d’Alene RMP is essentially the same as 

Alternative D in the Proposed RMP/ 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(PRMP/FEIS), published in October 

2006. 

The BLM received two protests to the 

PRMP/FEIS which the Director of BLM 

resolved without requiring significant 

changes to proposed decisions in the 

PRMP/FEIS. No inconsistencies with 

State or local plans, policies, or 

programs were identified during the 

Governor’s consistency review of the 

PRMP/FEIS. Thus, as a result of the lack 

of substantive comments in the protest 

and consistency review stages, only 

minor editorial modifications were 

made in preparing the ROD/RMP. These 

modifications corrected errors that were 

noted during review of the PRMP/FEIS 

and provide further clarification for 

some of the decisions. 

The RMP includes decisions 

identifying designated routes of travel 

for motorized vehicles, which are 

implementation level decisions and are 

therefore appealable under 43 CFR Part 

4. These decisions (route 

identifications) are displayed on travel 

management maps in the ROD/RMP. 

Any party adversely affected by these 

route identifications may appeal within 

30 days of publication of this Notice of 

Availability, pursuant to 43 CFR part 4, 

subpart E. The appeal should identify 

the specific route(s) by township, range, 

and section on which the decision is 

being appealed. Please consult the 

appropriate regulations (43 CFR part 4, 

subpart E) for further appeal 

requirements. The appeal must be filed 

with the Field Manager of the Coeur 

d’Alene Field Office at the above listed 

address. 

Before including your address, phone 

number, e-mail address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

appeal, you should be aware that your 

entire appeal—including your personal 

identifying information—may be made 

publicly available at any time. While 

you can ask us in your appeal to 

withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Thomas H. Dyer, 

Bureau of Land Management, Idaho State 

Director. 

[FR Doc. E7–17417 Filed 8–31–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–GG–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–417 and 731–

TA–953, 954, 957–959, 961, and 962 

(Review)] 

Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire 

Rod From Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, 

Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and 

Tobago, and Ukraine 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of five-year reviews 

concerning the countervailing duty 

order on carbon and certain alloy steel 

wire rod (‘‘wire rod’’) from Brazil and 

antidumping duty orders on wire rod 

from Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, Mexico, 

Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and 

Ukraine. 

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 order on wire rod 

from Brazil and the antidumping duty 

orders on wire rod from Brazil, Canada, 

Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad 

and Tobago, and Ukraine 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 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 4, 2007 / Notices 50697 

and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the 

OMB number is 3117–0016/USITC No. 08–5–173, 

expiration date June 30, 2008. 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. 

2A countervailing duty order on imports of wire 

rod from Canada was also issued by Commerce in 

the same notice; however, that order was 

subsequently revoked by Commerce (69 FR 3330, 

January 23, 2004). 

be assured of consideration, the 

deadline for responses is October 24, 

2007. Comments on the adequacy of 

responses may be filed with the 

Commission by November 20, 2007. 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 4, 2007. 

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 October 22, 2002, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘Commerce’’) 

issued a countervailing duty order on 

imports of wire rod from Brazil (67 FR 

64871).2 On October 29, 2002, 

Commerce issued antidumping duty 

orders on imports of wire rod from 

Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, Mexico, 

Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and 

Ukraine (67 FR 65944–65947). 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 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, Indonesia, 

Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, 

and Ukraine. 

(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 

determinations, the Commission found 

a single Domestic Like Product 

consisting of: (1) All carbon and certain 

alloy steel wire rod included within 

Commerce’s scope, and (2) the grade 

1080 tire bead and grade 1080 tire cord 

quality wire rod that had been excluded 

from Commerce’s scope. One 

Commissioner defined the Domestic 

Like Product differently. 

(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 determinations, 

the Commission found a single 

Domestic Industry consisting of all U.S. 

producers of the Domestic Like Product 

which, as stated above, consists of all 

wire rod corresponding to Commerce’s 

scope as well as the certain grade 1080 

tire cord and grade 1080 tire bead wire 

rod products that Commerce had 

excluded from the scope. One 

Commissioner defined the Domestic 

Industry differently. 

(5) The Order Dates are the dates that 

the antidumping and countervailing 

duty orders under review became 

effective. In these reviews, the Order 

Date concerning the countervailing duty 

order on imports of wire rod from Brazil 

is October 22, 2002, and the Order Date 

concerning the antidumping duty orders 

on imports of wire rod from Brazil, 

Canada, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, 

Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine is 

October 29, 2002. 

(6) 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 § 201.11(b)(4) of the 

Commission’s rules, no later than 21 

days after 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. 

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’s 

designated agency ethics official has 

advised that a 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 Verratti, 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 

§ 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 § 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 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
50698 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 4, 2007 / Notices 

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 

§ 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 October 24, 2007. Pursuant 

to § 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 

November 20, 2007. All written 

submissions must conform with the 

provisions of §§ 201.8 and 207.3 of the 

Commission’s rules and any 

submissions that contain BPI must also 

conform with the requirements of 

§§ 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 

§ 201.8 of the Commission’s rules, as 

amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 

2002). Also, in accordance with 

§§ 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 § 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 this 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 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 these reviews by providing 

information requested by the 

Commission. 

(4) A statement of the likely effects of 

the revocation of the antidumping and 

countervailing 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 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 2006 (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(ies), provide 

the following information on your 

firm’s(s’) operations on that product 

during calendar year 2006 (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 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 

Country(ies), provide the following 

information on your firm’s(s’) 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2006 (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 

or countervailing duties). If you are a 

trade/business association, provide the 

information, on an aggregate basis, for 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 4, 2007 / Notices 50699 

1The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 

CFR 207.2(f)). 

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 since the Order 

Dates, 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 § 207.61 of the Commission’s 

rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: August 27, 2007. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E7–17229 Filed 8–31–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–448 and 731–

TA–1117 (Preliminary)] 

Certain Off-the-Road Tires From China 

Determinations 

On the basis of the record 1 developed 

in the subject investigations, the United 

States International Trade Commission 

(Commission) determines, pursuant to 

sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 

1673b(a)) (the Act), that there is a 

reasonable indication that an industry 

in the United States is materially 

injured, by reason of imports from 

China of certain off-the-road tires, 

provided for in subheadings 4011.20.10, 

4011.20.50, 4011.61.00, 4011.62.00, 

4011.63.00, 4011.69.00, 4011.92.00, 

4011.93.40, 4011.93.80, 4011.94.40, and 

4011.94.80 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States, that are 

alleged to be sold in the United States 

at less than fair value (LTFV) and 

subsidized by the Government of China. 

Commencement of Final Phase 

Investigations 

Pursuant to § 207.18 of the 

Commission’s rules, the Commission 

also gives notice of the commencement 

of the final phase of its investigations. 

The Commission will issue a final phase 

notice of scheduling, which will be 

published in the Federal Register as 

provided in section 207.21 of the 

Commission’s rules, upon notice from 

the Department of Commerce 

(Commerce) of affirmative preliminary 

determinations in these investigations 

under sections 703(b) and 733(b) of the 

Act, or, if the preliminary 

determinations are negative, upon 

notice of affirmative final 

determinations in those investigations 

under sections 705(a) and 735(a) of the 

Act. Parties that filed entries of 

appearance in the preliminary phase of 

the investigations need not enter a 

separate appearance for the final phase 

of the investigations. Industrial users, 

and, if the merchandise under 

investigation is sold at the retail level, 

representative consumer organizations 

have the right to appear as parties in 

Commission antidumping and 

countervailing duty investigations. The 

Secretary will prepare a public service 

list containing the names and addresses 

of all persons, or their representatives, 

who are parties to the investigations. 

Background 

On June 18, 2007, a petition was filed 

with the Commission and Commerce by 

Titan Tire Corporation, Des Moines, IA, 

and The United Steel, Paper and 

Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, 

Energy, Allied Industrial and Service 

Workers International Union, AFL–CIO–

CLC, Pittsburgh, PA., alleging that an 

industry in the United States is 

materially injured or threatened with 

material injury by reason of subsidized 

and LTFV imports of certain off-theroad tires from China. Accordingly, 

effective June 18, 2007, the Commission 

instituted countervailing duty and 

antidumping investigation Nos. 701–

TA–448 and 731–TA–1117 

(Preliminary). 

Notice of the institution of the 

Commission’s investigations and of a 

public conference 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 of June 22, 2007 (72 FR 

34478). The conference was held in 

Washington, DC, on July 9, 2007, and all 

persons who requested the opportunity 

were permitted to appear in person or 

by counsel. 

The Commission transmitted its 

determinations in these investigations to 

the Secretary of Commerce on August 

27, 2007. The views of the Commission 

are contained in USITC Publication 

3943 (August 2007), entitled Certain 

Off-the-Road Tires From China: 

Investigation Nos. 701–TA–448 and 

731–TA–1117 (Preliminary). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: August 27, 2007. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E7–17235 Filed 8–31–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Office of the Secretary 

Submission for OMB Review: 

Comment Request 

August 28, 2007. 

The Department of Labor (DOL) 

hereby announces the submission of the 

following public information collection 

request (ICR) to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and approval in accordance with 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35). 

A copy of the ICR, with applicable 

supporting documentation; including 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
73880 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 248 / Friday, December 28, 2007 / Notices 

Commission has instituted a formal 

enforcement proceeding relating to a 

cease and desist order issued at the 

conclusion of the above-captioned 

investigation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Clint A. Gerdine, Esq., Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–3061. Copies of all nonconfidential 

documents filed in connection with this 

investigation are or will be available for 

inspection during official business 

hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the 

Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, 

telephone 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 investigation 

may be viewed on the Commission’s 

electronic docket (EDIS) at http:// 

edis.usitc.gov/. Hearing-impaired 

persons are advised that information on 

the matter can be obtained by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 

21, 2005, the Commission instituted an 

investigation under section 337 of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, based 

on a complaint filed by Broadcom 

Corporation (‘‘Broadcom’’) of Irvine, 

California, alleging a violation of section 

337 in the importation, sale for 

importation, and sale within the United 

States after importation of certain 

baseband processor chips and chipsets, 

transmitter and receiver (radio) chips, 

power control chips, and products 

containing same, including cellular 

telephone handsets by reason of 

infringement of certain claims of U.S. 

Patent Nos. 6,374,311; 6,714,983 (‘‘the 

’983 patent’’); 5,682,379 (‘‘the ’379 

patent’’); 6,359,872 (‘‘the ’872 patent’’); 

and 6,583,675. 70 Fed. Reg. 35707 (June 

21, 2005). The complainant named 

Qualcomm Incorporated (‘‘Qualcomm’’) 

of San Diego, California as the only 

respondent. The ’379 patent and ’872 

patent were terminated from this 

investigation. 

On October 19, 2006, the presiding 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) issued 

an Initial Determination on Violation of 

Section 337 and Recommended 

Determination on Remedy and Bond 

(‘‘ID’’), finding a violation of section 337 

as to the ’983 patent only. On December 

8, 2006, the Commission issued a notice 

of its decision to review and modify in 

part the ALJ’s final ID. The modification 

made by the Commission did not affect 

the finding of violation. 

On March 21–22, 2007, the 

Commission held a public hearing on 

the issues of remedy and the public 

interest. Subsequently, the Commission 

extended the target date for completion 

of this investigation to June 7, 2007. 

On June 7, 2007, the Commission 

issued a limited exclusion order, with 

certain exemptions, prohibiting the 

importation of Qualcomm’s baseband 

processor chips or chipsets, including 

chips or chipsets incorporated into 

circuit board modules and carriers, that 

are programmed to enable the power 

saving features covered by claims 1, 4, 

8, 9, or 11 of the ’983 patent, as well as 

handheld wireless communication 

devices, including cellular telephone 

handsets and PDAs, containing 

Qualcomm baseband processor chips or 

chipsets that are programmed to enable 

the power saving features covered by 

these claims. The Commission also 

issued a cease and desist order that 

prohibits Qualcomm from engaging in 

certain activities in the United States 

related to the infringing chips. 

On November 9, 2007, complainant 

Broadcom filed a complaint for 

enforcement proceedings under 

Commission Rule 210.75. Broadcom 

asserts that respondent Qualcomm has 

violated the Commission’s cease and 

desist order by continued marketing of 

infringing, imported baseband processor 

chips and chipsets, and continued 

testing and programming of imported 

baseband processor chips and chipsets 

to transform them into infringing 

products. On December 5 and 7, 2007, 

respectively, Qualcomm filed a letter 

opposing institution of Broadcom’s 

complaint, and Broadcom filed a letter 

in response to Qualcomm’s opposition. 

Having examined the complaint 

seeking a formal enforcement 

proceeding, and having found that the 

complaint complies with the 

requirements for institution of a formal 

enforcement proceeding contained in 

Commission rule 210.75, the 

Commission has determined to institute 

formal enforcement proceedings to 

determine whether Qualcomm is in 

violation of the Commission’s cease and 

desist order issued in the investigation, 

and what, if any, enforcement measures 

are appropriate. The following entities 

are named as parties to the formal 

enforcement proceeding: (1) 

Complainant Broadcom, (2) respondent 

Qualcomm, and (3) a Commission 

investigative attorney to be designated 

by the Director, Office of Unfair Import 

Investigations. 

The authority for the Commission’s 

determination is contained in section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in 

section 210.75 of the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 

210.75). 

Issued: December 20, 2007. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E7–25173 Filed 12–27–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–417 and 731–

TA–953, 954, 957–959, 961, and 962 

(Review)] 

Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire 

Rod From Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, 

Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and 

Tobago, and Ukraine 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of Commission 

determinations to conduct full five-year 

reviews concerning the countervailing 

duty order on carbon and certain alloy 

steel wire rod (‘‘wire rod’’) from Brazil 

and antidumping duty orders on wire 

rod from Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, 

Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, 

and Ukraine. 

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 

order on wire rod from Brazil and the 

antidumping duty orders on wire rod 

from Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, Mexico, 

Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and 

Ukraine 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). 

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 10, 2007. 

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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 248 / Friday, December 28, 2007 / Notices 73881 

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 

December 10, 2007, 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 (72 

FR 50696, September 4, 2007) was 

adequate and that the respondent 

interested party group responses with 

respect to Canada and Moldova were 

adequate and decided to conduct full 

reviews with respect to the antidumping 

duty orders concerning wire rod from 

Canada and Moldova. The Commission 

found that the respondent interested 

party group responses with respect to 

Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Trinidad and 

Tobago, and Ukraine were inadequate. 

However, the Commission determined 

to conduct full reviews concerning the 

countervailing duty order on wire rod 

from Brazil and the antidumping duty 

orders on wire rod from Brazil, 

Indonesia, Mexico, Trinidad and 

Tobago, and Ukraine to promote 

administrative efficiency in light of its 

decision to conduct full reviews with 

respect to the orders concerning wire 

rod from Canada and Moldova. 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: December 21, 2007. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E7–25174 Filed 12–27–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–955, 960, 963 

(Preliminary) (Third Remand)] 

Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire 

Rod from Egypt, South Africa, and 

Venezuela 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of remand proceedings. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. International Trade 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) hereby 

gives notice of the court-ordered remand 

of its preliminary determinations in the 

antidumping Investigation Nos. 731–

TA–955, 960, 963 concerning carbon 

and certain alloy steel wire rod from 

Egypt, South Africa, and Venezuela. For 

further information concerning the 

conduct of this proceeding 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, 

subpart A (19 CFR part 207). 

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 21, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Messer, Office of Investigations, 

telephone 202–205–3193, or Robin L. 

Turner, Office of General Counsel, 

telephone 202–205–3103, 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 of 

Investigation No. 731–TA–1088 may be 

viewed on the Commission’s electronic 

docket (‘‘EDIS’’) at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—In September 2005, the 

Commission determined on remand that 

there is no potential that subject imports 

from South Africa will exceed the 

applicable individual statutory 

negligibility threshold of three percent 

of total wire rod imports in the 

imminent future, and that with respect 

to Egypt, South Africa and Venezuela 

collectively, there is no potential that 

aggregate subject imports from these 

countries would exceed seven percent 

of total wire rod imports in the 

imminent future. 19 U.S.C. 1677(24). 

The Court of International Trade (‘‘CIT’’) 

issued an opinion in the matter on 

January 17, 2007, Co-Steel Raritan, Inc. 

v. United States, Slip Op. 07–7 (Ct. Int’l 

Trade Jan. 17, 2007), and an order on 

November 8, 2007, Gerdau Ameristeel 

U.S. Inc. v. United States International 

Trade Commission, Slip Op. 07–165 (Ct. 

Int’l Trade Nov. 8, 2007), remanding the 

matter to the Commission for further 

proceedings not inconsistent with its 

opinion. 

Participation in the proceeding.—

Only those persons who were interested 

parties to the original investigation (i.e., 

persons listed on the Commission 

Secretary’s service list) and were parties 

to the appeal may participate in the 

remand proceeding. Such persons need 

not re-file their appearance notices or 

protective order applications to 

participate in the remand proceeding. 

Business proprietary information 

(‘‘BPI’’) referred to during the remand 

proceeding will be governed, as 

appropriate, by the administrative 

protective order issued in the original 

investigation. 

Written submissions.—The 

Commission is reopening the record in 

this proceeding for the limited purpose 

of seeking new factual information 

regarding South African producers of 

steel wire rod that did not respond in 

the original investigation. In addition, 

the Commission will permit the parties 

to file comments pertaining to the 

inquiries that are the subject of the CIT’s 

remand instructions and any new 

factual information. Comments should 

be limited to no more than twenty (20) 

double-spaced and single-sided pages of 

textual material. The parties may not 

submit any new factual information in 

their comments and may not address 

any issue other than the inquiries that 

are the subject of the CIT’s remand 

instructions. Any such comments must 

be filed with the Commission no later 

than January 29, 2008. 

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 (Nov. 8, 2002). 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, 

each document filed by a party to the 

investigation must be served on all other 

parties to the investigation (as identified 

by either the public or BPI service list), 

and a certificate of service must be 

timely filed. The Secretary will not 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 8, 2008 / Notices 1321 

6See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Brake 

Rotors from the People’s Republic of China, 62 FR 

18740 (April 17, 1997). 

7See Policies Regarding the Conduct of Five-year 

(‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Orders; Policy Bulletin, 63 FR 

18871, 18873 (April 16, 1998). 

Final Results of Review 

Pursuant to section 752(c)(3) of the 

Act, we determine that revocation of the 

antidumping duty order on brake rotors 

from the PRC would likely lead to 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

at the following weighted–average 

percentage margins: 

Manufacturers/Exporters/Producers Weighted–Average Margin 

(percent) 

Excluded from the antidumping duty 

order are the following exporters and 

producer combinations:6

Exporter: China National Automotive 

Industry Import &Export 

Corporation 

Producer: Shandong Laizhou CAPCO 

Industry; 

Exporter: Shandong Laizhou CAPCO 

Industry 

Producer: Shandong Laizhou CAPCO 

Industry; 

Exporter: Shenyang Honbase 

Machinery Co., Ltd. 

Producer: Shenyang Honbase 

Machinery Co., Ltd.; 

Exporter: Shenyang Honbase 

Machinery Co., Ltd. 

Producer: Lai Zhou Luyan 

Automobile Fittings Co., Ltd.; 

Exporter: Lai Zhou Luyuan 

Automobile Fittings Co., Ltd. 

Producer: Lai Zhou Luyuan 

Automobile Fittings Co., Ltd.; 

Exporter: Lai Zhou Luyan Automobile 

Fittings Co., Ltd. 

Producer: Shenyang Honbase or 

Laizhou Luyuan; and 

Exporter: China National Machinery 

and Equipment I&E (Xinjiang) 

Corporation, Ltd. 

Producer: Zibo Botai Manufacturing 

Co., Ltd. 

In a five–year sunset review, it is the 

Department’s policy to include 

companies that did not begin exporting 

until after the order was issued as part 

of the PRC–wide entity from the 

investigation.7 For those companies that 

shipped after the order was issued, we 

determine that revocation of the 

antidumping duty order on brake rotors 

from the PRC would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

at the PRC–wide percentage margin. 

Notification Regarding Administrative 

Protective Order: 

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 section 351.305 

of the Department’s regulations. Timely 

notification of the return or destruction 

of APO materials or conversion to 

judicial protective order 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 these 

results and this notice in accordance 

with sections 751(c), 752(c) and 

777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: December 31, 2007. 

Susan H. Kuhbach, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–116 Filed 1–7–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–351–832, A–122–840, A–560–815, A–201–

830, A–841–805, A–274–804, A–823–812 

Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire 

Rod from Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, 

Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and 

Tobago, and Ukraine: Final Results of 

the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the 

Antidumping Duty Orders 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On September 4, 2007, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) initiated sunset reviews of 

the antidumping duty orders on carbon 

and certain alloy steel wire rod (‘‘wire 

rod’’) from Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, 

Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, 

and Ukraine pursuant to section 751(c) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(‘‘the Act’’). The Department has 

conducted expedited (120–day) sunset 

reviews for these orders pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2). 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. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 8, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Devta Ohri or Brandon Farlander, 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) 482–3853, or (202) 

482–0182, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On September 4, 2007, the 

Department published the notice of 

initiation of the sunset reviews of the 

antidumping duty orders on wire rod 

from Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, Mexico, 

Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and 

Ukraine, pursuant to Section 751(c) of 

the Act. See Initiation of Five–Year 

(‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 72 FR 50659 

(September 4, 2007) (‘‘Notice of 

Initiation’’). 

The Department received a notice of 

intent to participate from the following 

domestic parties: Gerdau Ameristeel 

U.S. Inc.; ISG Georgetown, Inc.; 

Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc.; 

and Rocky Mountain Steel Mills within 

the deadline specified in 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(1)(i). The companies claimed 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
1322 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 8, 2008 / Notices 

interested party status under section 

771(9)(C) of the Act, as manufacturers of 

a domestic like product in the United 

States. The Department received a 

separate notice of intent to participate 

from Nucor Corporation within the 

deadline specified in 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(1)(i). Nucor Corporation also 

claimed interested party status under 

section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as a 

manufacturer of a domestic like product 

in the United States. 

Gerdau Ameristeel U.S. Inc. reported 

that it is related to Gerdau S.A., a 

producer and exporter of subject 

merchandise in Brazil. ISG Georgetown, 

Inc. reported that it is related to the 

following producers and exporters of 

subject merchandise: Belgo Siderurgia 

S.A. in Brazil; Mittal Canada, Inc. in 

Canada; Siderurgica Lazaro Cardenas 

Las Truchas, SA in Mexico; Mittal Steel 

Point Lisas Ltd. in Trinidad and Tobago; 

and OJSC Mittal Steel Kryviy Rih in 

Ukraine. Pursuant to section 771(4)(B) 

of the Act, a domestic interested party 

may be excluded from participating as 

part of the domestic industry if it is 

related to an exporter of subject 

merchandise. In this sunset review, 

even if we excluded the parties above 

from participating as part of the 

domestic industry in the sunset review 

of the order, there would still be 

sufficient participation by other 

domestic interested parties to merit a 

sunset review of the order. Since there 

is sufficient industry support regardless 

of whether the two companies are 

included, we do not need to resolve the 

issue of whether to include or exclude 

Gerdau Ameristeel U.S. Inc. and ISG 

Georgetown, Inc. Therefore, collectively, 

Gerdau Ameristeel U.S. Inc., ISG 

Georgetown, Inc., Keystone 

Consolidated Industries, Inc.; Rocky 

Mountain Steel Mills; and Nucor 

Corporation will be known as the 

‘‘domestic interested parties.’’

The Department received a complete 

substantive response to the notice of 

initiation 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, nor was a hearing requested. 

As a result, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department is 

conducting expedited (120–day) sunset 

reviews of the antidumping duty orders 

for Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, Mexico, 

Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and 

Ukraine. 

Scope of the Orders 

The merchandise subject to these 

orders is certain hot–rolled products of 

carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of 

approximately round cross section, 5.00 

mm or more, but less than 19.00 mm, in 

solid cross–sectional diameter. 

Specifically excluded are steel 

products possessing the above–noted 

physical characteristics and meeting the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) definitions for 

(a) stainless steel; (b) tool steel; (c) high 

nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; and 

(e) concrete reinforcing bars and rods. 

Also excluded are (f) free machining 

steel products (i.e., products that 

contain by weight one or more of the 

following elements: 0.03 percent or 

more of lead, 0.05 percent or more of 

bismuth, 0.08 percent or more of sulfur, 

more than 0.04 percent of phosphorus, 

more than 0.05 percent of selenium, or 

more than 0.01 percent of tellurium). 

Also excluded from the scope are 

1080 grade tire cord quality wire rod 

and 1080 grade tire bead quality wire 

rod. Grade 1080 tire cord quality rod is 

defined as: (i) grade 1080 tire cord 

quality wire rod measuring 5.0 mm or 

more but not more than 6.0 mm in 

cross–sectional diameter; (ii) with an 

average partial decarburization of no 

more than 70 microns in depth 

(maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) 

having no non–deformable inclusions 

greater than 20 microns and no 

deformable inclusions greater than 35 

microns; (iv) having a carbon 

segregation per heat average of 3.0 or 

better using European Method NFA 04–

114; (v) having a surface quality with no 

surface defects of a length greater than 

0.15 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to 

a diameter of 0.30 mm or less with 3 or 

fewer breaks per ton, and (vii) 

containing by weight the following 

elements in the proportions shown: (1) 

0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less 

than 0.01 percent of aluminum, (3) 

0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, 

of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.006 

percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) not 

more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, 

of copper, nickel and chromium. 

Grade 1080 tire bead quality rod is 

defined as: (i) grade 1080 tire bead 

quality wire rod measuring 5.5 mm or 

more but not more than 7.0 mm in 

cross–sectional diameter; (ii) with an 

average partial decarburization of no 

more than 70 microns in depth 

(maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) 

having no non–deformable inclusions 

greater than 20 microns and no 

deformable inclusions greater than 35 

microns; (iv) having a carbon 

segregation per heat average of 3.0 or 

better using European Method NFA 04–

114; (v) having a surface quality with no 

surface defects of a length greater than 

0.2 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to 

a diameter of 0.78 mm or larger with 0.5 

or fewer breaks per ton; and (vii) 

containing by weight the following 

elements in the proportions shown: (1) 

0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less 

than 0.01 percent of soluble aluminum, 

(3) 0.040 percent or less, in the 

aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 

0.008 percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) 

either not more than 0.15 percent, in the 

aggregate, of copper, nickel and 

chromium (if chromium is not 

specified), or not more than 0.10 percent 

in the aggregate of copper and nickel 

and a chromium content of 0.24 to 0.30 

percent (if chromium is specified). 

For purposes of grade 1080 tire cord 

quality wire rod and grade 1080 tire 

bead quality wire rod, an inclusion will 

be considered to be deformable if its 

ratio of length (measured along the axis 

- that is, the direction of rolling - of the 

rod) over thickness (measured on the 

same inclusion in a direction 

perpendicular to the axis of the rod) is 

equal to or greater than three. The size 

of an inclusion for purposes of the 20 

microns and 35 microns limitations is 

the measurement of the largest 

dimension observed on a longitudinal 

section measured in a direction 

perpendicular to the axis of the rod. 

This measurement methodology applies 

only to inclusions on certain grade 1080 

tire cord quality wire rod and certain 

grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod 

that are entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

July 24, 2003. 

The designation of the products as 

‘‘tire cord quality’’ or ‘‘tire bead quality’’

indicates the acceptability of the 

product for use in the production of tire 

cord, tire bead, or wire for use in other 

rubber reinforcement applications such 

as hose wire. These quality designations 

are presumed to indicate that these 

products are being used in tire cord, tire 

bead, and other rubber reinforcement 

applications, and such merchandise 

intended for the tire cord, tire bead, or 

other rubber reinforcement applications 

is not included in the scope. However, 

should petitioners or other interested 

parties provide a reasonable basis to 

believe or suspect that there exists a 

pattern of importation of such products 

for other than those applications, end–

use certification for the importation of 

such products may be required. Under 

such circumstances, only the importers 

of record would normally be required to 

certify the end use of the imported 

merchandise. 

All products meeting the physical 

description of subject merchandise that 

are not specifically excluded are 

included in this scope. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 8, 2008 / Notices 1323 

The products under review are 

currently classifiable under subheadings 

7213.91.3010, 7213.91.3015, 

7213.91.3090, 7213.91.3092, 

7213.91.4510, 7213.91.4590, 

7213.91.6010, 7213.91.6090, 

7213.99.0031, 7213.99.0038, 

7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0010, 

7227.20.0020, 7227.20.0090, 

7227.20.0095, 7227.90.6010, 

7227.90.6051, 7227.90.6053, 

7227.90.6058, 7227.90.6059, and 

7227.90.6080 of the HTSUS. Although 

the HTSUS subheadings are provided 

for convenience and customs purposes, 

the written description of the scope of 

these orders is 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 Carbon and Certain Alloy 

Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, Canada, 

Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad 

and Tobago, and Ukraine; Final Results’’

from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, to David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration (December 31, 2007), 

which is hereby adopted by this notice 

(‘‘Decision Memo’’). 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 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 

Department building. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memo can be accessed directly 

on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. 

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 wire rod 

from Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, Mexico, 

Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and 

Ukraine 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.

Belgo Mineira ................ 94.73 

All–Others Rate ............ 74.45 

Canada.

Ispat Sidbec Inc. ........... 3.86 

Manufacturers/Exporters/Producers Weighted–Average 

Margin (percent) 

Ivaco, Inc. ..................... 9.90 

All–Others Rate ............ 8.11 

Indonesia.

P.T. Ispat Indo .............. 4.06 

All–Others Rate ............ 4.06 

Mexico.

SICARTSA .................... 20.11 

All–Others Rate ............ 20.11 

Moldova.

Moldova–wide Rate ...... 369.10 

Trinidad and Tobago.

Caribbean Ispat Ltd. ..... 11.40 

All–Others Rate ............ 11.40 

Ukraine.

Krivorozhstal ................. 116.37 

All–Others Rate ............ 116.37 

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. 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(c), and 777(i)(1) of 

the Act. 

Dated: December 31, 2007. 

Susan H. Kuhbach, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–114 Filed 1–7–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

C–351–833 

Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire 

Rod from Brazil: Final Results of 

Expedited Five–Year Sunset Review of 

the Countervailing Duty Order 

AGENCY: AGENCY: Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, Department of 

Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On September 4, 2007, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) published in the Federal 

Register the notice of initiation of the 

five–year sunset review of the 

countervailing duty order on carbon and 

certain alloy steel wire rod (‘‘wire rod’’) 

from Brazil, pursuant to section 751(c) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(‘‘the Act’’). The Department has 

conducted an expedited sunset review 

of this order pursuant to section 751(c) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2). As a result of this 

sunset review, the Department finds that 

revocation of the countervailing duty 

order is likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of a countervailable subsidy 

at the levels indicated in the ‘‘Final 

Results of Review’’ section of this 

notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 8, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Devta Ohri or Brandon Farlander, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 1, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–3853 or (202) 482–

0182, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On September 4, 2007, the 

Department published the notice of 

initiation of the sunset review of the 

countervailing duty order on wire rod 

from Brazil, pursuant to section 751(c) 

of the Act. See Initiation of Five–Year 

(‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 72 FR 50659 

(September 4, 2007) (‘‘Notice of 

Initiation’’). The Department received a 

notice of intent to participate from the 

following domestic parties: Gerdau 

Ameristeel U.S. Inc.; ISG Georgetown, 

Inc.; Keystone Consolidated Industries, 

Inc.; and Rocky Mountain Steel Mills 

within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(1)(i). The companies claimed 

interested party status under section 

771(9)(C) of the Act, as manufacturers of 

a domestic like product in the United 

States. The Department received a 

separate notice of intent to participate 

from Nucor Corporation within the 

deadline specified in 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(1)(i). Nucor Corporation 

claimed interested party status under 

section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as a 

manufacturer of a domestic like product 

in the United States. 

Gerdau Ameristeel U.S. Inc. reported 

that it is related to Gerdau S.A., a 

producer and exporter of subject 

merchandise in Brazil. ISG Georgetown, 

Inc. reported that it is related to Belgo 

Siderurgia S.A. in Brazil, a producer 

and exporter of subject merchandise. 

Pursuant to Section 771(4)(B) of the Act, 

a domestic interested party may be 

excluded from participating as part of 

the domestic industry if it is related to 

an exporter of subject merchandise. In 

this sunset review, even if we excluded 

the parties above from participating as 

part of the domestic industry in the 

sunset review of the order, there would 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 8, 2008 / Notices 1323 

The products under review are 

currently classifiable under subheadings 

7213.91.3010, 7213.91.3015, 

7213.91.3090, 7213.91.3092, 

7213.91.4510, 7213.91.4590, 

7213.91.6010, 7213.91.6090, 

7213.99.0031, 7213.99.0038, 

7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0010, 

7227.20.0020, 7227.20.0090, 

7227.20.0095, 7227.90.6010, 

7227.90.6051, 7227.90.6053, 

7227.90.6058, 7227.90.6059, and 

7227.90.6080 of the HTSUS. Although 

the HTSUS subheadings are provided 

for convenience and customs purposes, 

the written description of the scope of 

these orders is 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 Carbon and Certain Alloy 

Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, Canada, 

Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad 

and Tobago, and Ukraine; Final Results’’

from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, to David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration (December 31, 2007), 

which is hereby adopted by this notice 

(‘‘Decision Memo’’). 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 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 

Department building. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memo can be accessed directly 

on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. 

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 wire rod 

from Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, Mexico, 

Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and 

Ukraine 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.

Belgo Mineira ................ 94.73 

All–Others Rate ............ 74.45 

Canada.

Ispat Sidbec Inc. ........... 3.86 

Indonesia.

Mexico.

Moldova.

Trinidad and Tobago.

Ukraine.

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. 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(c), and 777(i)(1) of 

the Act. 

Dated: December 31, 2007. 

Susan H. Kuhbach, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–114 Filed 1–7–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

C–351–833 

Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire 

Rod from Brazil: Final Results of 

Expedited Five–Year Sunset Review of 

the Countervailing Duty Order 

AGENCY: AGENCY: Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, Department of 

Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On September 4, 2007, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) published in the Federal 

Register the notice of initiation of the 

five–year sunset review of the 

countervailing duty order on carbon and 

certain alloy steel wire rod (‘‘wire rod’’) 

from Brazil, pursuant to section 751(c) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(‘‘the Act’’). The Department has 

conducted an expedited sunset review 

of this order pursuant to section 751(c) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2). As a result of this 

sunset review, the Department finds that 

revocation of the countervailing duty 

order is likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of a countervailable subsidy 

at the levels indicated in the ‘‘Final 

Results of Review’’ section of this 

notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 8, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Devta Ohri or Brandon Farlander, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 1, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–3853 or (202) 482–

0182, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On September 4, 2007, the 

Department published the notice of 

initiation of the sunset review of the 

countervailing duty order on wire rod 

from Brazil, pursuant to section 751(c) 

of the Act. See Initiation of Five–Year 

(‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 72 FR 50659 

(September 4, 2007) (‘‘Notice of 

Initiation’’). The Department received a 

notice of intent to participate from the 

following domestic parties: Gerdau 

Ameristeel U.S. Inc.; ISG Georgetown, 

Inc.; Keystone Consolidated Industries, 

Inc.; and Rocky Mountain Steel Mills 

within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(1)(i). The companies claimed 

interested party status under section 

771(9)(C) of the Act, as manufacturers of 

a domestic like product in the United 

States. The Department received a 

separate notice of intent to participate 

from Nucor Corporation within the 

deadline specified in 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(1)(i). Nucor Corporation 

claimed interested party status under 

section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as a 

manufacturer of a domestic like product 

in the United States. 

Gerdau Ameristeel U.S. Inc. reported 

that it is related to Gerdau S.A., a 

producer and exporter of subject 

merchandise in Brazil. ISG Georgetown, 

Inc. reported that it is related to Belgo 

Siderurgia S.A. in Brazil, a producer 

and exporter of subject merchandise. 

Pursuant to Section 771(4)(B) of the Act, 

a domestic interested party may be 

excluded from participating as part of 

the domestic industry if it is related to 

an exporter of subject merchandise. In 

this sunset review, even if we excluded 

the parties above from participating as 

part of the domestic industry in the 

sunset review of the order, there would 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
1324 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 8, 2008 / Notices 

still be sufficient participation by other 

domestic interested parties to merit a 

sunset review of the order. Since there 

is sufficient industry support regardless 

of whether these two companies are 

included, we do not need to resolve the 

issue of whether to include or exclude 

Gerdau Ameristeel U.S. Inc. and ISG 

Georgetown, Inc. Therefore, collectively, 

Gerdau Ameristeel U.S. Inc., ISG 

Georgetown, Inc., Keystone 

Consolidated Industries, Inc.; Rocky 

Mountain Steel Mills; and Nucor 

Corporation will be known as the 

‘‘domestic interested parties.’’

The Department received a complete 

substantive response to the notice of 

initiation 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, nor was a hearing 

requested. Therefore, we conducted an 

expedited (120–day) sunset review of 

the CVD order on wire rod from Brazil, 

as provided for in section 351.218 

(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2) of the Department’s 

regulations. 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise subject to this order 

is certain hot–rolled products of carbon 

steel and alloy steel, in coils, of 

approximately round cross section, 5.00 

mm or more, but less than 19.00 mm, in 

solid cross–sectional diameter. 

Specifically excluded are steel 

products possessing the above–noted 

physical characteristics and meeting the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) definitions for 

(a) stainless steel; (b) tool steel; (c) high 

nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; and 

(e) concrete reinforcing bars and rods. 

Also excluded are (f) free machining 

steel products (i.e., products that 

contain by weight one or more of the 

following elements: 0.03 percent or 

more of lead, 0.05 percent or more of 

bismuth, 0.08 percent or more of sulfur, 

more than 0.04 percent of phosphorus, 

more than 0.05 percent of selenium, or 

more than 0.01 percent of tellurium). 

Also excluded from the scope are 

1080 grade tire cord quality wire rod 

and 1080 grade tire bead quality wire 

rod. Grade 1080 tire cord quality rod is 

defined as: (i) grade 1080 tire cord 

quality wire rod measuring 5.0 mm or 

more but not more than 6.0 mm in 

cross–sectional diameter; (ii) with an 

average partial decarburization of no 

more than 70 microns in depth 

(maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) 

having no non–deformable inclusions 

greater than 20 microns and no 

deformable inclusions greater than 35 

microns; (iv) having a carbon 

segregation per heat average of 3.0 or 

better using European Method NFA 04–

114; (v) having a surface quality with no 

surface defects of a length greater than 

0.15 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to 

a diameter of 0.30 mm or less with 3 or 

fewer breaks per ton, and (vii) 

containing by weight the following 

elements in the proportions shown: (1) 

0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less 

than 0.01 percent of aluminum, (3) 

0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, 

of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.006 

percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) not 

more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, 

of copper, nickel and chromium. 

Grade 1080 tire bead quality rod is 

defined as: (i) grade 1080 tire bead 

quality wire rod measuring 5.5 mm or 

more but not more than 7.0 mm in 

cross–sectional diameter; (ii) with an 

average partial decarburization of no 

more than 70 microns in depth 

(maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) 

having no non–deformable inclusions 

greater than 20 microns and no 

deformable inclusions greater than 35 

microns; (iv) having a carbon 

segregation per heat average of 3.0 or 

better using European Method NFA 04–

114; (v) having a surface quality with no 

surface defects of a length greater than 

0.2 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to 

a diameter of 0.78 mm or larger with 0.5 

or fewer breaks per ton; and (vii) 

containing by weight the following 

elements in the proportions shown: (1) 

0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less 

than 0.01 percent of soluble aluminum, 

(3) 0.040 percent or less, in the 

aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 

0.008 percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) 

either not more than 0.15 percent, in the 

aggregate, of copper, nickel and 

chromium (if chromium is not 

specified), or not more than 0.10 percent 

in the aggregate of copper and nickel 

and a chromium content of 0.24 to 0.30 

percent (if chromium is specified). 

For purposes of grade 1080 tire cord 

quality wire rod and grade 1080 tire 

bead quality wire rod, an inclusion will 

be considered to be deformable if its 

ratio of length (measured along the axis 

- that is, the direction of rolling - of the 

rod) over thickness (measured on the 

same inclusion in a direction 

perpendicular to the axis of the rod) is 

equal to or greater than three. The size 

of an inclusion for purposes of the 20 

microns and 35 microns limitations is 

the measurement of the largest 

dimension observed on a longitudinal 

section measured in a direction 

perpendicular to the axis of the rod. 

This measurement methodology applies 

only to inclusions on certain grade 1080 

tire cord quality wire rod and certain 

grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod 

that are entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

July 24, 2003. 

The designation of the products as 

‘‘tire cord quality’’ or ‘‘tire bead quality’’

indicates the acceptability of the 

product for use in the production of tire 

cord, tire bead, or wire for use in other 

rubber reinforcement applications such 

as hose wire. These quality designations 

are presumed to indicate that these 

products are being used in tire cord, tire 

bead, and other rubber reinforcement 

applications, and such merchandise 

intended for the tire cord, tire bead, or 

other rubber reinforcement applications 

is not included in the scope. However, 

should petitioners or other interested 

parties provide a reasonable basis to 

believe or suspect that there exists a 

pattern of importation of such products 

for other than those applications, end–

use certification for the importation of 

such products may be required. Under 

such circumstances, only the importers 

of record would normally be required to 

certify the end use of the imported 

merchandise. 

All products meeting the physical 

description of subject merchandise that 

are not specifically excluded are 

included in this scope. 

The products under review are 

currently classifiable under subheadings 

7213.91.3010, 7213.91.3015, 

7213.91.3090, 7213.91.3092, 

7213.91.4510, 7213.91.4590, 

7213.91.6010, 7213.91.6090, 

7213.99.0031, 7213.99.0038, 

7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0010, 

7227.20.0020, 7227.20.0090, 

7227.20.0095, 7227.90.6010, 

7227.90.6051, 7227.90.6053, 

7227.90.6058, 7227.90.6059, and 

7227.90.6080 of the HTSUS. Although 

the HTSUS subheadings are provided 

for convenience and customs purposes, 

the written description of the scope of 

this order is dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in substantive 

responses by parties in this sunset 

review are addressed in the ‘‘Issues and 

Decision Memorandum for the 

Expedited Sunset Review of the 

Countervailing Duty Order on Carbon 

and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from 

Brazil; Final Results,’’ (‘‘Decision 

Memo’’), from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, to David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, dated December 31, 

2007, which is hereby adopted by this 

notice. The issues discussed in the 

Decision Memo include the likelihood 

of continuation or recurrence of a 

countervailable subsidy, the net 

countervailable subsidy rate likely to 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 8, 2008 / Notices 1325 

prevail if the order were revoked, and 

the nature of the subsidies. 

Parties can find a complete discussion 

of all issues raised in this sunset review 

and the corresponding recommendation 

in this public memorandum which is on 

file in B–099, the Central Records Unit, 

of the main Commerce building. In 

addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memo can be accessed directly 

on the Department’s Web page at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Decision Memo 

are identical in content. 

Final Results of Review 

For the reasons stated in the Decision 

Memo, the Department determines that 

revocation of the countervailing duty 

order on wire rod from Brazil is likely 

to lead to continuation or recurrence of 

countervailable subsidies at the 

following countervailing duty rates: 

Manufacturer/Exporter Net Subsidy Rate 

(percent) 

Belgo Mineira ................ 6.74 

Gerdau S.A. .................. 2.76 

All–Others ..................... 5.64 

Notification Regarding Administrative 

Protective Orders 

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(a)(3). Timely notification of the 

return or destruction of APO materials 

or conversion to judicial protective 

order 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 this 

determination and notice in accordance 

with sections 751(c), 752(b), and 777(i) 

of the Act. 

Dated: December 31, 2007. 

Susan H. Kuhbach, 

Acting Assistant Secretaryfor Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–115 Filed 1–7–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS 

2008 National Capital Arts and Cultural 

Affairs Program 

Notice is hereby given that Public 

Law 99–190, as amended, authorizing 

the National Capital Arts and Cultural 

Affairs Program, has been funded for 

2008 in the amount of $8,367,400.00. 

All requests for information and 

applications for grants should be sent to: 

2008 NCACA Grant Program, U.S. 

Commission of Fine Arts, 401 F Street, 

NW., Suite 312, Washington, DC 20001–

2728, Phone: 202–504–2200. 

Deadline for receipt of grant 

applications as 1 March 2008. 

This program provides grants for 

general operating support of 

organizations whose primary purpose is 

performing, exhibiting, and/or 

presenting the arts. To be eligible for a 

grant, organizations must be located in 

the District of Columbia, must be nonprofit, non-academic institutions of 

demonstrated national repute, and must 

have annual incomes, exclusive of 

federal funds, in excess of one million 

dollars for each of the past three years, 

Organizations seeking grants must 

provide a Dun and Bradstreet (D&S) 

Data Universal Numbering System 

(DUNS) number when applying. 

Thomas E. Luebke, 

Secretary, U.S. Commission of Fine Arts. 

[FR Doc. 08–16 Filed 1–7–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6330–01–M 

COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS 

Notice of Meeting 

The next meeting of the U.S. 

Commission of Fine Arts is scheduled 

for January 17, 2007, at 10 a.m. in the 

Commission’s offices at the National 

Building Museum, Suite 312, Judiciary 

Square, 401 F Street, NW., Washington, 

DC 20001–2728. Items of discussion 

may include buildings, parks and 

memorials. 

Draft agendas and additional 

information regarding the Commission 

are available on our Web site: http:// 

www.cfa.gov. Inquiries regarding the 

agenda and requests to submit written 

or oral statements should be addressed 

to Thomas Luebke, Secretary, U.S. 

Commission of Fine Arts, at the above 

address, or call 202–504–2200. 

Individuals requiring sign language 

interpretation for the hearing impaired 

should contact the Secretary at least 10 

days before the meeting date. 

Dated in Washington, DC, December 31, 

2007. 

Thomas Luebke, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 08–18 Filed 1–7–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6330–01–M 

CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND 

COMMUNITY SERVICE 

Proposed Information Collection; 

Comment Request 

AGENCY: Corporation for National and 

Community Service. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Corporation for National 

and Community Service (hereinafter the 

‘‘Corporation’’), as part of its continuing 

effort to reduce paperwork and 

respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to 

provide the general public and federal 

agencies with an opportunity to 

comment on proposed and/or 

continuing collections of information in 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) (44 

U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program 

helps to ensure that requested data can 

be provided in the desired format, 

reporting burden (time and financial 

resources) is minimized, collection 

instruments are clearly understood, and 

the impact of collection requirement on 

respondents can be properly assessed. 

Currently, the Corporation is 

soliciting comments concerning the 

AmeriCorps Annual Progress Report 

designed to collect demographic, 

performance, and narrative information 

from federal grantees. These reports will 

be submitted by grantees that receive 

Corporation funding through the 

Corporation’s AmeriCorps State and 

National. Completion of the Progress 

Report is required as a condition of 

these awards. 

Copies of the information collection 

request can be obtained by contacting 

the office listed in the addresses section 

of this notice. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted to the individual and office 

listed in the ADDRESSES section by 

March 10, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by the title of the information 

collection activity, by any of the 

following methods: 

(1) By mail sent to: Corporation for 

National and Community Service, Learn 

and Serve America; Attention Amy 

Borgstrom, Associate Director for Policy, 

Room 9515; 1201 New York Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20525. 

(2) By hand delivery or by courier to 

the Corporation’s mailroom at Room 

8100 at the mail address given in 

paragraph (1) above, between 9 a.m. and 

4 p.m. Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

(3) By fax to: (202) 606–3476, 

Attention Amy Borgstrom, Associate 

Director for Policy. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 9 / Monday, January 14, 2008 / Notices 2273 

public meeting. Before including your 

address, phone number, e-mail address, 

or other personal identifying 

information in your comment, you 

should be aware that your entire 

comment—including your personal 

identifying information—may be made 

publicly available at any time. While 

you can ask us in your comment to 

withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. All submissions from 

organizations or businesses, and from 

individuals identifying themselves as 

representatives or officials of 

organizations or businesses, are 

available for public inspection in their 

entirety. The minutes and list of 

attendees for each scoping meeting will 

be available to the public and open for 

30 days after the meeting to any 

participant who wishes to clarify the 

views he or she expressed. 

Preliminary issues and management 

concerns have been identified by BLM 

personnel, other agencies, and in 

meetings with individuals and user 

groups. They represent the BLM’s 

knowledge to date regarding the existing 

issues and concerns with current land 

management. The major issues that will 

be addressed in this planning effort 

include: wildlife and riparian habitat, 

rangeland resources, recreation, 

hazardous materials, and cultural 

resources. 

After public comments, as to what 

issues the Plan should address are 

gathered, they will be placed in one of 

three categories: 

1. Issues to be resolved in the Plan; 

2. Issues to be resolved through policy 

or administrative action; or 

3. Issues beyond the scope of this 

Plan. 

The BLM will provide an explanation 

in the Plan as to why an issue was 

placed in category two or three. In 

addition to these major issues, a number 

of management questions and concerns 

will be addressed in the Plan. The 

public is encouraged to help identify 

these questions and concerns during the 

scoping phase. 

Preliminary planning criteria are: 

1. The RMPA/EA process will be in 

compliance with FLPMA, NEPA, and 

applicable laws, regulations, and 

policies. The land use plan amendment 

process will be governed by the 

planning regulations at 43 CFR 1610 

and BLM Land Use Planning Handbook 

H–1601–1. 

2. Lands affected by the proposed 

plan amendment only apply to public 

surface and mineral estate managed by 

the BLM. No decisions will be made 

relative to non-BLM administered lands 

or non-Federal minerals. 

3. Public participation will be an 

integral part of the planning process. 

4. The plan amendment will 

recognize all valid existing rights. 

5. The BLM will work with 

cooperating agencies, tribal 

governments, and other interested 

groups, agencies, and individuals 

during the RMPA/EA process. 

6. The RMPA/EA will strive to be 

consistent with existing non-Federal 

plans and policies, provided the 

decisions in the existing plans are 

consistent with the purposes, policies, 

and programs of Federal law and 

regulations for BLM public land. 

The BLM will use an interdisciplinary 

approach to develop the Plan in order 

to consider the variety of resource issues 

and concerns identified. Specialists 

with expertise in the following 

disciplines will be involved in the 

planning process: realty, recreation, 

cultural, minerals, range, wildlife, and 

hazardous materials. 

Dated: December 21, 2007. 

Linda S.C. Rundell, 

State Director. 

[FR Doc. 07–6282 Filed 1–11–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–VC–M 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–417 and 731–

TA–953, 954, 957–959, 961, and 962 

(Review)] 

Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire 

Rod From Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, 

Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and 

Tobago, and Ukraine 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Scheduling of full five-year 

reviews concerning the countervailing 

duty order on carbon and certain alloy 

steel wire rod from Brazil and the 

antidumping duty orders on carbon and 

certain alloy steel wire rod from Brazil, 

Canada, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, 

Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine. 

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 order on carbon and 

certain alloy steel wire rod from Brazil 

and the antidumping duty orders on 

carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod 

from Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, Mexico, 

Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and 

Ukraine 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: January 8, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Olympia DeRosa Hand (202–205–3182), 

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 December 10, 2007, 

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 (72 

FR 73880, December 28, 2007). 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. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
2274 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 9 / Monday, January 14, 2008 / Notices 

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 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 March 24, 

2008, 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 the 

reviews beginning at 9:30 a.m. on April 

17, 2008, 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 April 9, 2008. 

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 April 9, 2008, 

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 April 2, 

2008. 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 April 28, 2008; 

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 April 28, 2008. 

On May 22, 2008, 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 May 27, 2008, 

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. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: January 8, 2008. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E8–416 Filed 1–11–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

Investigation No. 337-TA–615 

In the Matter of Certain Ground Fault 

Interrupters and Products Containing 

Same; Notice of Commission Decision 

Not To Review an Initial Determination 

Granting a Motion To Amend the 

Complaint and Notice of Investigation 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined not to 

review an initial determination (‘‘ID’’) 

(Order No. 7) issued by the presiding 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) 

granting a motion to amend the 

complaint and notice of investigation in 

the above-captioned investigation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

M. Bartkowski, Esq., Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

708–5432. Copies of non-confidential 

documents filed in connection with this 

investigation are or will be available for 

inspection during official business 

hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the 

Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, 

telephone (202) 205–2000. General 

information concerning the Commission 

may also be obtained by accessing its 

Internet server at http://www.usitc.gov. 

The public record for this investigation 

may be viewed on the Commission’s 

electronic docket (EDIS) at http:// 

edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired 

persons are advised that information on 

this matter can be obtained by 

contacting the Commission’s TDD 

terminal on (202) 205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

investigation was instituted on 

September 18, 2007, based on a 

complaint filed by Pass & Seymour, Inc. 

(‘‘Pass & Seymour’’) of Syracuse, New 

York. The complaint, as supplemented, 

alleged violations of section 337 of the 

Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. **1337) in 

the importation into the United States, 

the sale for importation, and the sale 

within the United States after 

importation of certain ground fault 

interrupters and products containing the 

same by reason of infringement of 

certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos.: 

5,594,398; RE38,293; 7,154,718; 

7,164,564; 7,212,386; and 7,256,973. 

The complaint named 15 respondents. 

On November 15, 2007, Pass & 

Seymour filed a motion to amend the 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES

EXPLANATION OF COMMISSION DETERMINATIONS ON ADEQUACY

in

Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, Canada, Indonesia,

 Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine

Inv. Nos. 701-TA-417 and 731-TA-953, 954, 957-959, 961, and 962 (Review)

On December 10, 2007 the Commission 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).

The Commission received a consolidated response to the notice of institution from a group of five

domestic interested parties. This group consisted of domestic steel wire rod producers Gerdau Ameristeel

US Inc., ISG Georgetown, Inc., Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., Nucor Corp., and Rocky

Mountain Steel Mills (collectively “Domestic Producers.”) The Commission found each of the individual

domestic interested party responses to be adequate. Because Domestic Producers account for the majority

of U.S. steel wire rod production, the Commission additionally found that the domestic interested party

group response was adequate for all reviews. 

With respect to the review on steel wire rod from Canada, the Commission received an

individually adequate respondent interested party response from Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P. and

Sivaco Ontario (jointly “Ivaco”), which are producers and exporters of subject merchandise from Canada.

 Because Ivaco accounts for a majority of both production and exports to the United States of subject

merchandise from Canada, the Commission concluded that the respondent interested party group response

for this review was adequate.

With respect to the review on steel wire rod from Moldova, the Commission received an

individually adequate respondent interested party response from JSCC Moldova Steel Works (“Moldova

Steel”), a producer of subject merchandise in Moldova. Because Moldova Steel accounts for all known

production of subject merchandise in Moldova, the Commission concluded that the respondent interested

party group response for this review was adequate.

With respect to the review on steel wire rod from Mexico, the Commission received an

individually adequate interested party response from Hylsa, S.A. de C.V. (“Hylsa”), a producer, exporter,

and importer of subject merchandise from Mexico. The Commission determined that the Mexican

respondent interested party group response was inadequate because Hylsa accounts for only a relatively

small share of production or exports to the United States of subject merchandise from Mexico, or of U.S.

imports of such merchandise. However, the Commission determined to conduct a full review of the order

on Mexico in order to promote administrative efficiency in light of its decision to conduct full reviews

with respect to the orders on Canada and Moldova.
2

The Commission received no respondent interested party responses with respect to the reviews on

steel wire rod from Brazil, Indonesia, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine. Accordingly, the Commission

determined that the respondent interested party response was inadequate in each of these reviews. 

However, the Commission determined to conduct full reviews of the orders on Brazil, Indonesia, Trinidad

and Tobago, and Ukraine in order to promote administrative efficiency in light of its decision to conduct

full reviews with respect to the orders in the other reviews.

A record of the Commissioners’ votes in available from the Office of the Secretary and the

Commission’s web site (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

hearings:

Subject: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, Canada,

Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine

Inv. Nos.: 701-TA-417 and 731-TA-953, 954, 957-959, 961, and 962

(Review)

Dates and Time: April 17, 2008 - 9:30 a.m.

Sessions were held in connection with these reviews in the Main Hearing Room (room 101), 500 E

Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.

OPENING REMARKS:

In Support of Continuation of Orders (Paul C. Rosenthal,

Kelley Drye & Warren LLP)

In Opposition to Continuation of Orders (William Silverman,

Hunton & Williams LLP)

In Support of the Continuation of

 the Antidumping and Countervailing

 Duty Orders:

Kelley Drye & Warren LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Gerdau Ameristeel US Inc.

ArcelorMittal USA, Inc.

Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc.

Rocky Mountain Steel Mills

Jim R. Kerkvliet, Vice President, Sales and

Marketing, Gerdau Ameristeel US Inc.
B-4

In Support of the Continuation of

 the Antidumping and Countervailing

 Duty Orders (continued):

David L. Cheek, President and CEO, Keystone

Consolidated Industries, Inc.

Robert A. Simon, Vice President and General

Manager, Rocky Mountain Steel Mills

Bill Groom, Director of Sales, Rod & Bar,

Rocky Mountain Steel Mills

Holly R. Hart, Legislative Director, United

Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber,

Manufacturing, Energy, Allied-Industrial

and Service Works International Union

(“USW”)

Michael T. Kerwin, Senior Economist, Georgetown

Economic Services

Gina E. Beck, Economist, Georgetown Economic

Services

Paul C. Rosenthal )

Kathleen W. Cannon )

) – OF COUNSEL

R. Alan Luberda )

Grace W. Kim )
B-5

In Support of the Continuation of

 the Antidumping and Countervailing

 Duty Orders (continued):

Wiley Rein LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Nucor Corporation

Cascade Steel Rolling Mills, Inc.

Republic Engineered Products, Inc.

Mark Brandon, General Manager, Nucor Steel

Connecticut, Inc.

Eric Nystrom, National Marketing Manager,

SBQ and Cold Finish Products, Nucor

Corporation

Alan H. Price )

) – OF COUNSEL

Daniel B. Pickard )

In Opposition to the Continuation of

 the Antidumping and Countervailing

 Duty Orders:

Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

The American Wire Producers Association (“AWPA”)

Kimberly A. Korbel, Executive Director, AWPA

Walter Robertson, III, President, Johnstown Wire

Technologies Inc.

Robert Moffitt, Vice President, Purchasing, Heico

Wire Group
B-6

In Opposition to the Continuation of

 the Antidumping and Countervailing

 Duty Orders:

H.O. Woltz III, President, Insteel Industries Inc.

Mike McCall, Vice President, MMI Products Inc.

Frederick P. Waite )

) – OF COUNSEL

Kimberly R. Young )

Illinois Tool Works Inc.

Glenview, IL

Michael Lynch, Vice President, Government Affairs

Covington & Burling LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

The Lincoln Electric Company (“Lincoln Electric”)

P. Michael DeShane, Sourcing Manager, Steel

& Chemicals, Lincoln Electric

David R. Grace ) – OF COUNSEL

Hunton & Williams LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P. (“IRM”)

Sivaco Ontario (a division of Sivaco Wire

Group 2004 L.P.)(“Sivaco Ontario”)

Kevin Shudy, Vice President and CFO, Metal

Processing Group, Heico Companies LLC

Luc Lachapelle, Director, Marketing and Sales,

IRM
B-7

In Opposition to the Continuation of

 the Antidumping and Countervailing

 Duty Orders:

David Goldsmith, Consultant

Bruce Malashevich, President, Economic Consulting

Services, Inc.

Jim Dougan, Economist, Economic Consulting

Services, Inc.

Pauline Beauchamp, Manager, Trade Analysis,

IRM

William Silverman )

Douglas Heffner ) – OF COUNSEL

Richard Ferrin )

McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Hylsa, S.A. de C.V. (“Hylsa”)

Michael Guhl, Commercial Director, Ternium

International, USA

Jeffrey Winton )

) – OF COUNSEL

Elisabeth Carrigan )

Greenberg Traurig, LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

DeAcero, S.A. de C.V. (“DeAcero”)

Jeffrey S. Neeley ) – OF COUNSEL

REBUTTAL/CLOSING REMARKS:

In Support of Continuation of Orders (Paul C. Rosenthal,

Kelley Drye & Warren LLP; and Alan H. Price, Wiley Rein LLP)

In Opposition to Continuation of Orders (William Silverman, Hunton

& Williams LLP; Jeffrey Winton, McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP;

and Bruce Malashevich, Economic Consulting Services, Inc.)

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA

Table C-1

Wire rod: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2002-07

(Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=percent except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

Item 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002-07 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,753,874 6,590,919 8,135,080 6,505,628 7,109,045 5,858,981 -24.4 -15.0 23.4 -20.0 9.3 -17.6

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . 51.4 62.8 50.3 57.4 53.7 69.6 18.1 11.3 -12.4 7.0 -3.7 15.9

 Importers' share (1):

 Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ***** ***** 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Canada (subject) . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.5 -0.5 0.4 -0.4 -0.0 0.0

 Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6 0.3 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.1 -1.5 -1.3 0.5 -0.7 -0.1 0.1

 Moldova . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.2 -0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Ukraine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0

 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Trindad & Tobago . . . . . . . . . . 5.0 2.2 3.2 1.6 1.9 1.6 -3.4 -2.8 1.0 -1.6 0.3 -0.2

 Subtotal (subject) . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Canada (nonsubject) . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Grade 1080 (subject sources) . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . 29.2 22.8 35.2 30.7 35.9 16.9 -12.2 -6.3 12.3 -4.4 5.2 -19.0

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48.6 37.2 49.7 42.6 46.3 30.4 -18.1 -11.3 12.4 -7.0 3.7 -15.9

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,411,891 2,138,988 4,109,959 3,592,264 3,838,199 3,403,602 41.1 -11.3 92.1 -12.6 6.8 -11.3

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . 53.5 63.3 53.1 58.1 56.0 68.8 15.3 9.9 -10.2 5.0 -2.2 12.8

 Importers' share (1):

 Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ***** ***** 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Canada (subject) . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.4 -0.4 0.4 -0.4 -0.0 0.0

 Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 0.3 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.1 -1.3 -1.1 0.5 -0.6 -0.1 0.1

 Moldova . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.2 -0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Ukraine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0

 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Trindad & Tobago . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 1.8 3.0 1.4 1.7 1.4 -3.1 -2.6 1.2 -1.6 0.3 -0.3

 Subtotal (subject) . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Canada (nonsubject) . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Grade 1080 (subject sources) . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . 25.8 21.6 31.8 28.5 32.4 16.9 -8.9 -4.2 10.2 -3.3 3.9 -15.6

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46.5 36.7 46.9 41.9 44.0 31.2 -15.3 -9.9 10.2 -5.0 2.2 -12.8

U.S. imports from:

 Brazil:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** 0 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** 0 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . ***** 0 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Canada (subject):

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Indonesia:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40,863 0 29,937 333 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (2) -98.9 -100.0 (2)

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,494 0 17,247 262 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (2) -98.5 -100.0 (2)

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $257 (2) $576 $785 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) 36.2 (2) (2)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Mexico:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123,380 19,986 68,498 11,480 4,256 8,244 -93.3 -83.8 242.7 -83.2 -62.9 93.7

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34,548 6,296 33,332 6,283 2,032 4,263 -87.7 -81.8 429.4 -81.2 -67.7 109.8

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $280 $315 $487 $547 $477 $517 84.7 12.5 54.5 12.5 -12.8 8.3

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Moldova:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,826 0 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,708 0 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $197 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Ukraine:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,159 0 0 738 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (2) (2) -100.0 (2)

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,446 0 0 501 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (2) (2) -100.0 (2)

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $219 (2) (2) $680 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Subtotal:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Trinidad & Tobago:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386,419 146,783 260,618 104,804 133,326 95,325 -75.3 -62.0 77.6 -59.8 27.2 -28.5

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107,445 39,267 124,194 50,039 64,253 46,228 -57.0 -63.5 216.3 -59.7 28.4 -28.1

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $278 $268 $477 $477 $482 $485 74.4 -3.8 78.1 0.2 0.9 0.6

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Subtotal (subject):

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

Table continued on next page.

C-3
Table C-1--Continued

Wire rod: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2002-07

(Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=percent except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

Item 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002-07 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07

U.S. imports from:

 Canada (nonsubject):

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Grade 1080 from subject sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,262,306 1,505,183 2,859,490 1,997,826 2,554,966 992,163 -56.1 -33.5 90.0 -30.1 27.9 -61.2

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 622,360 462,923 1,308,240 1,024,997 1,244,511 574,316 -7.7 -25.6 182.6 -21.7 21.4 -53.9

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $275 $308 $458 $513 $487 $579 110.4 11.8 48.8 12.1 -5.1 18.8

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,765,047 2,453,575 4,039,783 2,773,119 3,294,798 1,782,699 -52.7 -34.8 64.6 -31.4 18.8 -45.9

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,121,780 784,088 1,927,796 1,505,063 1,690,689 1,063,201 -5.2 -30.1 145.9 -21.9 12.3 -37.1

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $298 $320 $477 $543 $513 $596 100.2 7.3 49.3 13.7 -5.5 16.2

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . 244,198 167,756 201,236 143,479 61,438 6,776 -97.2 -31.3 20.0 -28.7 -57.2 -89.0

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . . 4,771,377 5,040,727 4,920,229 5,392,176 5,371,016 5,429,678 13.8 5.6 -2.4 9.6 -0.4 1.1

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . . 4,035,005 4,052,215 4,089,091 3,741,120 3,877,367 4,067,549 0.8 0.4 0.9 -8.5 3.6 4.9

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . . 84.6 80.4 83.1 69.4 72.2 74.9 -9.7 -4.2 2.7 -13.7 2.8 2.7

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,988,827 4,137,344 4,095,297 3,732,509 3,814,247 4,076,282 2.2 3.7 -1.0 -8.9 2.2 6.9

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,290,111 1,354,900 2,182,163 2,087,201 2,147,510 2,340,401 81.4 5.0 61.1 -4.4 2.9 9.0

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $323 $327 $533 $559 $563 $574 77.5 1.3 62.7 4.9 0.7 2.0

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . 250,935 136,816 140,019 164,647 174,288 152,512 -39.2 -45.5 2.3 17.6 5.9 -12.5

 Inventories/total shipments (1) . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . . 2,461 2,513 2,543 2,407 2,395 2,397 -2.6 2.1 1.2 -5.3 -0.5 0.1

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . . 5,545 5,378 5,474 4,919 5,296 5,174 -6.7 -3.0 1.8 -10.1 7.7 -2.3

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . . 140,328 139,194 145,620 143,664 161,223 161,821 15.3 -0.8 4.6 -1.3 12.2 0.4

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $25.31 $25.88 $26.60 $29.21 $30.45 $31.28 23.6 2.3 2.8 9.8 4.2 2.7

 Productivity (tons/1,000 hours) . 727.7 753.5 747.0 760.5 732.2 786.2 8.0 3.5 -0.9 1.8 -3.7 7.4

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . $34.78 $34.35 $35.61 $38.40 $41.58 $39.78 14.4 -1.2 3.7 7.8 8.3 -4.3

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,996,011 4,151,601 4,103,563 3,749,761 3,844,808 4,087,541 2.3 3.9 -1.2 -8.6 2.5 6.3

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,291,920 1,358,707 2,182,872 2,100,194 2,165,513 2,347,208 81.7 5.2 60.7 -3.8 3.1 8.4

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $323 $327 $532 $560 $563 $574 77.6 1.2 62.5 5.3 0.6 2.0

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . . 1,188,586 1,361,436 1,819,855 1,887,745 2,024,653 2,219,518 86.7 14.5 33.7 3.7 7.3 9.6

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . . 103,334 (2,729) 363,017 212,449 140,860 127,690 23.6 (3) (3) -41.5 -33.7 -9.3

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . 43,352 43,223 57,777 53,793 55,354 52,821 21.8 -0.3 33.7 -6.9 2.9 -4.6

 Operating income or (loss) . . . . 59,982 (45,952) 305,241 158,656 85,506 74,869 24.8 (3) (3) -48.0 -46.1 -12.4

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $296 $328 $443 $503 $527 $543 83.2 10.6 35.2 13.5 4.6 3.1

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . $11 $10 $14 $14 $14 $13 20.6 -2.8 35.2 1.9 0.4 -10.2

 Unit operating income or (loss) . $16 ($11) $74 $42 $22 $18 13.4 (3) (3) -43.1 -47.4 -17.6

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92.0 100.2 83.4 89.9 93.5 94.6 2.6 8.2 -16.8 6.5 3.6 1.1

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6 (3.4) 14.0 7.6 3.9 3.2 -1.5 -8.0 17.4 -6.4 -3.6 -0.8

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Not applicable.

 (3) Undefined.

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 and from official Commerce statistics.

C-4
D-1

APPENDIX D

COMMENTS BY U.S. PRODUCERS, IMPORTERS, PURCHASERS, AND

FOREIGN PRODUCERS REGARDING THE EFFECTS OF THE ORDERS

AND THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

D-3

U.S. PRODUCERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE EFFECTS OF THE ORDERS AND THE

LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

Anticipated Operational/Organizational Changes If The Orders Were To Be Revoked 

(Question II-4)

The Commission requested U.S. producers to describe any anticipated changes in the

character of their operations or organization relating to the production of wire rod in the future if

the countervailing duty and antidumping duty orders on wire rod from Brazil, Canada, Indonesia,

Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine were to be revoked. Their responses are as

follows:

***

“Yes. The volume of wire rod would drop, causing the plant to ***. This would decrease production to a

capacity of ***. Sales volume of wire rod dropped ***.”

***

“Yes. If the antidumping/countervailing duty orders on wire rod from these countries were revoked, we

would anticipate a significant increase in imports, and severe price pressure on our US sales. This would

have a serious negative impact on the company, both in terms of production and financial performance,

and worsen the already weak condition of the industry.”

***

“Yes. We estimate that our sales will decline ***% to ***% if the countervailing duty and antidumping

orders are revoked. If this were to occur, we would have to reduce employment and scale back on ***. 

The reduction in employment would probably occur at ***. If it becomes apparent that this will occur,

due to the revoking the countervailing duty and antidumping duty orders, we would put and aggressive

cost reduction at ***.”

***

“Yes. Elimination of duties would cause lower selling prices due to the dumping of wire rod into the

United States. This would lower or eliminate profit margins, reduce employment, reduce capital

investment and cause further damage to the domestic steel producers.”

***

“Yes. If duties are removed, the profitability of the wire rod business will be severely damaged as the

subject countries will redirect exports of wire rod to the United States. The US rod and wire industry is

facing serious competitive threat of imported rod and wire.”

***

“ Yes. No supporting data available. There continues to be excess supply available of wire rod ***.

Revoking orders will overwhelm U.S. market.”

***

“Yes. The wire rod industry has generally been considered a weak sector, mainly due to the pressures

faced from low-priced imports. If the orders are removed, the market will be more unstable, thereby

decreasing the likelihood of future investments. Any increase in low-priced imports will affect the entire

wire rod market.”

***
D-4

“Yes. Traditionally, the wire rod industry has been considered one of the weakest sectors of the U.S.

steel industry. Generally, domestic production has declined over the years. The fierce import pressure

facing domestic wire rod producers is the main reason for this decline. The industry has been plagued

with problems, due in large part to the repeated waves of unfair imports purchased in large volumes by

our downstream customers. 

 If the orders are revoked, domestic production and capacity will decline as dumped imports come into

the U.S. This will only further injure our downstream customers, who require a healthy U.S. wire rod

production base.”

***

No response.

***

“ Yes. We would see prices drop quickly and *** would lay off and cut back operations when margins

dropped below a profitable level.”

Significance of Existing Orders In Terms of Trade and Related Data

(Question II-15)

The Commission requested U.S. producers to describe the significance of the existing

countervailing duty and antidumping duty orders covering imports of wire rod from Brazil,

Canada, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine in terms of the 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. Their responses are as follows:

***

“The countervailing duty and antidumping duty orders have provided stability in our markets over the last

few years, which have allowed us to continue to invest in plant and equipment. *** has invested $*** in

*** since the duties were imposed and has increased its workforce by ***% to *** employees at the end

of 2007. Sales have grown ***% since 2002.”

***

“Since the inception of the antidumping orders imports from subject countries have decrease to 1.5

million tons from 3 million tons in 2001. This is proof that those countries cannot sell wire rod in the US

without dumping. Net income did improve for the years prior to the order though 2004.

Since the order was implemented, we have seen the increase in imports from non-subject

countries. Domestic consumption of wire rod has decreased year over year. Imports of steel finished

goods composed of wire rod have increased further depressing domestic usage of wire rod.

Due to the difficulty we had in competing with low priced imports, ***. Due to all the increase

in imports from non-subject countries and declining demands, we have started to see profitability of the

wire rod business has been declining since 2004.”

***

“After the imposition of these orders, imports continued to be a problem in the US market, with imports

form other countries, particularly China and Turkey, increasing as the subject countries reduced their

exports to the U.S. Prices continued to fall, we lost orders, and ***. ***. These orders have been

beneficial in providing at least some restraint on the unfair trading conditions that existed in the wire rod

market prior to 2002.”
D-5

***

“Existing orders continue to support market transaction prices which translate into continued capital

investment, employment and profitability.”

***

“ The existing orders have been critical to the health of our company and the U.S. industry as a whole. 

***.

***. The imposition of the orders prevented many foreign producers from dumping wire rod in the U.S. 

Just as the industry began to improve, low-priced imports from non-subject countries (i.e. China)

increased. These imports have subsided in the last six months. The only reason the U.S. wire rod

industry has remained afloat is because of these orders. Given declining demand, keeping low-priced

imports out of the U.S. market has been critical to our survival.”

***

“ The orders have helped stabilize the market, allowing us to compete in the domestic market without

facing unfair pricing. Even so, however, challenges remain. We continue to be vulnerable to foreign

producers with excess capacity.

 Specifically, since the orders were imposed, there has been a sea change in market conditions with

U.S. demand down significantly due to historic declines in the residential housing market and steep

declines in U.S. auto production. ”

***

“The current order allows U.S. producer to be competitive in their home market.”

***

“We have been able to grow our business and continue to invest in capital equipment to improve our

product since the imposition of these orders.” 

***

“***.”

***

“Before the orders, there was a surge of imports that negatively impacted shipments and profitability.

When the orders were imposed, we saw imports drop and a positive impact on shipments and

profitability”

Anticipated Changes in Trade and Related Data If Orders Were To Be Revoked

(Question II-16)

The Commission requested U.S. producers to describe any anticipated changes in their

production capacity, production, U.S. shipments, inventories, purchases, employment, revenues,

costs, profits, cash flow, capital expenditures, research and development expenditures, or asset

values relating to the production of wire rod in the future if the countervailing duty and

antidumping duty orders on wire rod from Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad

and Tobago, and Ukraine were to be revoked. Their responses are as follows:

***

“Yes. If the orders were revoked, we would expect increases in imports from these countries, with severe

negative effects on our operations and likely failure of our wire rod operations. Prices have been
D-6

increasing recently because of escalating raw material costs. If low priced imports increase into the US

market, our current weak financial performance would certainly deteriorate even further.”

***

“Yes. We estimate that our sales will decline ***% to ***% if the countervailing duty and antidumping

orders are revoked. If this were to occur, we would have to reduce employment and scale back on ***. 

The reduction in employment would probably occur at ***. If it becomes apparent that this will occur,

due to the revoking the countervailing duty and antidumping duty orders, we would put and aggressive

cost reduction at ***.”

***

“ Yes. The volume of production of wire rod would drop causing our plant to react as we did during 2001,

where we reduced our workers to ***. This action would decrease production to a capacity of ***.

 Demand has continued to decline, and there is no end to this decline in sight. If the orders were

revoked, low priced imports would flood the U.S. market, and push many U.S. producers out of the wire

rod industry.”

***

“Yes. Margins would decline below cost or market causing declines in profitability, production, and

employment. This would in turn eliminate or reduce capital investment back into the production facility.”

***

“Yes. The unfair pricing that these suppliers used in the market before the orders caused pricing and

therefore profitability decreases the would resume and threaten our ability to continue to invest in

improvement for our customers”

***

“Yes. We would expect reductions in all of the business categories listed. Production, employment,

revenues, etc.

***

“Yes. We would expect these countries to quickly begin exporting unfairly traded wire rod to the U.S.

market. Without restrictions such as those imposed by the orders, these countries' imports would have a

negative impact on our production tons, sales volumes, and profits, and would negatively impact the

performance of our business as a whole. Erosion of profitability would not justify any capital expenditure

projects, and lower production tons could result in reduced hours for our employees. We would also

anticipate losing wire rod sales as downstream producers (***) would be forced to purchase low-priced

imported wire rod in order to effectively compete in the market. In conclusion, production, employment,

profits, etc. would all suffer in the face of revocation.”

***

“Yes. Imports would increase, prices will drop until domestic mills can not make profit and we will see

closings, cut backs, asset sales etc. Too much world supply of rod.”

***

“Yes. If duties are removed, the profitability of the wire rod business will be severely damaged as the

subject countries will redirect exports of wire rod to the United States. The US rod and wire industry is

facing serious competitive threat of imported rod and wire.

In order to portray the potential downside on our businesses, we have a practical example that *** has

experienced over the last 4 years. ***. Given this very recent history, if the orders are revoked, we would
D-7

anticipate additional layoffs as well as further declines in most of our wire rod mills. In addition, there

could become a need for facility closure.”

***

“No”

U.S. IMPORTERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE EFFECTS OF THE ORDERS AND THE

LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

Anticipated Operational/Organizational Changes If The Orders Were To Be Revoked 

(Question II-4)

The Commission requested importers to describe any anticipated changes in the character

of their operations or organization (as noted above) relating to the importation of wire rod in the

future if the countervailing duty and antidumping duty orders on wire rod from Brazil, Canada,

Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine were to be revoked. Their

responses are as follows:

***

“This would allow us to have a second source of 70 carbon and 90 carbon. Currently we are 100%

dependent for *** with ***. *** from Japan and Europe are very costly.”

***

“We do not anticipate any changes in the character of our operations or organization relating to the

importation of wire rod in the future should the various duty orders were to be revoked.”

***

“Yes. We would likely buy less from China, Germany and Japan.”

***

“No”

***

“No”

***

“No”

***

“No”

***

“No”

***

“No”

***

“No”
D-8

***

“No”

***

“No”

***

“Yes. Increased profitability and insured longevity of the company.”

***

“Yes. We would have additional wire rod offered do us, only if the price were competitive with other 

global markets.”

***

“No”

***

“If the current antidumping and countervailing duty orders were revoked, *** would have the

opportunity to increase its purchasing volume of wire rod from Brazil. This would not increase the

overall volume of wire rod imported however. Instead, *** would decrease the volume of wire rod

imported from European sources and replace it with products from Brazil.”

***

“Yes. Mexico would be considered for future wire rod orders.”

***

“*** does not have any plans to act as importer of record in the future.”

***

“No”

***

“No. It should be noted that ***.”

***

“No, we do not anticipate any changes in the character of our operations in the future if the antidumping

duty order against were revoked against ***. In order to understand why this is the case, it is important to

understand the market dynamics since 2004. In the fall of 2004, Georgetown Steel shut down operations,

removing an important source of premium high carbon product from the market. In addition, North Star

Beaumont went on strike a few months later, removing another significant chunk of capacity. Following

those events, Chinese domestic demand for wire rod grew at a pace that outstripped domestic supply,

causing the Chinese to import large volumes of wire rod and resulting in a global shortage of wire rod.

Prices in the US and elsewhere, both for raw material (scrap and iron ore) and for wire rod itself, grew

rapidly.

Although aggregate US demand for wire rod moderated in 2007, US imports fell much faster,

causing purchasers to scramble to ensure an adequate supply of wire rod, especially in the CHQ and

welding wire categories. At the same time, our home market affiliates are increasing their demand for

wire rod, further capturing our capacity. The share of output competing with open-market U.S. rod sales

consequently will decline.
D-9

An important factor is the depreciation of the US dollar. ***. This decline in imports from China

was due to a currency appreciation of approximately l0%, along with the Chinese Government's slapping

on of an export tax of 10% (now being increased to 15%) on wire rod have curtailed the supply of

Chinese wire rod to an extraordinary degree, measured in terms of tons as well as export prices.

Given the current circumstances and for the foreseeable future, we do not see any likelihood that

our export activities could cause any harm to the U.S. industry after the existing orders are revoked. After

all, unlike other subject countries, ***.”

***

“N/A”

***

“No”

Significance of Existing Orders In Terms of Trade and Related Data

(Question II-8)

The Commission requested importers to describe the significance of the existing

countervailing duty and antidumping duty orders covering imports of wire rod from Brazil,

Canada, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine in terms of their effect on

their imports, U.S. shipments of imports, and inventories. Their responses are as follows:

***

“In the case of ***. Thus, despite the administrative headache of the order, it has been business as usual.

***.”

***

“The AD order on wire rod in the United States has had little effect on the listed factors. Changes in

imports patterns since 2002 have been driven by increased demand and more favorable pricing ***, not

by the AD order.”

***

“The antidumping duty orders had no significance. During the period under review the countries

under investigation would hardly have been competitive for *** compared to imports from

other countries. We shifted from imports of *** wire rod from Mexico to *** products, because for this

product group the short lead times and closer cultural understanding was essential to develop the

business. The antidumping order probably accelerated the process, which we were working on already.”

***

“The existing antidumping order has no current or future effect on *** imports, US shipment of imports

and inventories. ***.”

***

“No real impact.”

***

“The existence of CVD/AD order against subject countries has eliminated them as a potential supplier.”
D-10

***

“The existing antidumping order has no current or future effect on *** imports, U.S. shipment of imports

as well as its inventories. ***.”

***

“No change”

***

“None ***.”

***

“ ***. In these circumstances. the antidumping order has not had a significant impact on ***'s operations

relating to steel wire rod. However, the company's decision ***.”

***

“Most suppliers in Canada would not want to sell to us.”

***

“Prior to the “order”, we purchased wire rod from Brazil, Europe, Canada and Japan, *** and ***. Since

the “order”, we started development of *** with domestic suppliers, ***. ***, so we purchased from

Spain *** and some domestic. *** and we began limited purchases in 2006 and were *** in 2007.”

***

“Due to the increase in rod costs to the company, there is a significant decrease in our profits.”

***

“Several rod qualities are not available from domestic mills. The existing AD/CVD Duty orders resulted

in increased purchases of wire rod from China, Germany and Japan.”

***

“The United States is a regular importer of wire rod and other countries have filled the need left by the

cases against the named countries.”

***

“Our company shifted import focus to other countries. US shipments of imports dropped dramatically

with cases forcing customers to look elsewhere for rods. Inventories shifted and become more

inconsistent.”

***

“The antidumping order with a deposit rate of ***% doesn’t significantly affect ***’s ability to import to

the U.S. ***.”

***

“None”

***

“Pre-2002. *** imported greater volume of wire rod from Brazil. Since 2002. *** has shifted its import

purchases to European wire rod. These changes have not impacted ***’s use of domestic wire rod.”

***

“No change.”
D-11

***

“Since our business field had been limited in the most critical applications in the market, we didn’t have

substantially big change before/after the imposition of the orders.”

***

“Because ***.”

***

“Restrictions on alternative sources tightens overall supply and results in higher prices/cost. This allows

for imports finished goods at lower prices, destroying US manufacturing.”

***

“None.”

***

“Not much change.”

Anticipated Changes in Trade and Related Data If Orders Were To Be Revoked

(Question II-9)

The Commission requested importers to describe any anticipated changes in their imports,

U.S. shipments of imports, or inventories of wire rod in the future if the countervailing duty and

antidumping duty orders covering imports of wire rod from Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, Mexico,

Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine were to be revoked. Their responses are as follows:

***

“No”

***

“No”

***

“No. As mentioned. ***. 

In the event that the antidumping order were to be revoked, it is possible that *** might resume

exports of a limited quantity of higher-quality products to supply certain niche markets. However, in

view of the decision ***.”

***

“No”

***

“No”

***

“Considering that we lack the capacity to supply additional exports to the U.S., the only change that may

occur in the future if market supply remains exceptionally tight would be to shift more of our supply of

product for ***. This would not be due to the removal of the order, but rather due to the lack of the

inability of ***.”

***

“No”
D-12

***

“No”

***

“No”

***

“ Yes. Our guess is that the Canadian suppliers might try to sell to us”

***

“Yes. *** would have increased profitability and be able to further expand our business. There are no

acceptable sources of *** in the U.S.”

***

“No. *** does not anticipate any changes in its imports, US shipment of imports or inventories of wire

rod in the future if the subject countervailing duty order, antidumping duty orders on wire rod were to be

revoked against any of the named nations”

***

“No”

***

“No.”

***

“N/A”

***

“Yes. We would increase our supply of wire rod from these countries if the prices competitive.”

***

“Yes. We would likely buy less from China, Germany and Japan.”

***

“Yes. We would expect to import from these countries if AD & CVD were removed but only if demand

in the U.S. required the volume and other factors such as ocean freight, foreign export, world price U.S.

price created an opportunity for these countries to be competitive”

***

“No.”

***

“Yes. Tougher competition might be brought by some leading wire rod suppliers from Brazil and Mexico

in the market segment of middle/ high carbon for industrial usage, tire bead and tire cord grades.

Another, rather opposite, anticipation is the balance between supply and demand might be stabilized, if

we consider the recent decrease of imported quantity from China, which is supposed to continue in a

middle term.”

***

“See answer at II-4.”
D-13

***

“No.”

***

“Yes. Less competition. More availability”

***

“We could have a second source from Brazil if needed. We are currently in high risk at *** (***% supply

of ***). We are forced with higher wire rod prices which make up more than ***% of our manufacturing

costs. It is difficult to increase our sales prices because our product are imported from other countries. 

Total consumption of steelcord in North America is decreasing annually.”

***

“Yes. If pricing permits, Mexico would return as source of supply. It may already be too late for us to

compete with imports of finished products.”

U.S. PURCHASERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE EFFECTS OF THE ORDERS AND THE

LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

Effects on Future Activities of the Firms and the U.S. Market as a Whole 

(Question Questions III-35-1 and III-35-2) 

The Commission asked the purchasers to comment on the effects of the revocation of the

countervailing duty and antidumping duty orders covering imports of wire rod from Brazil,

Canada, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine on (1) the future

activities of their firms and (2) the U.S. market as a whole. Their responses are as follows:

Effects on the activities of the firm

***

“It will have no direct effect other than driving up the price of domestic rod.”

***

No response.

***

“If we cannot purchase ‘reasonably’ price raw material, then we cannot compete on the finished goods we

produce.” 

***

“Revocation of duties could increase offers into the U.S. and relieve some price pressure.”

***

“We see no impact for the foreseeable future based on forecasting negligible changes for the value of the

dollar, the current world market for wire rod and the fact that the Canadian and Mexican mills are already

significant (in the U.S.) market place. The Canadian mills wold benefit from the elimination and

participants in the U.S. wire rod may reduce their price incrementally in response to the rescinding of the

order, but the impact on *** would be negligible.”

***

“We might have more options of supply if the countervailing duty order/antidumping duty orders were

lifted, although given the current high pricing of steel worldwide, it is uncertain that any of these
D-14

countries would desire to ship into the United States. Over the last five years, these countries have

developed new markets for their capacities, and any return by them to supply the U.S. market would

probably be a slow one.”

***

“Very little.”

***

“In the next 12 to 18 months we are concerned about availability issues for *** wire rod. If the housing

market or other markets were to recover quickly there will be shortages due to the lack of foreign

suppliers being here currently in the USA. Many foreign suppliers have exited from the U.S. market,

because of the weak dollar creating better sales opportunities with improved margins from other countries

having stronger currencies.” 

***

“These locations other than Canada are not large players in our market.” 

***

“World markets will decide pricing/availability and quality of U.S. wire rod market.”

***

“We would likely buy less from China, Germany, and Japan.”

***

“We would probably add Mexico and Trinidad back to our purchases.”

***

“I don't think this will effect our company since foreign steel is at an all time high. We will continue to

buy domestic.”

***

“We would potentially increase our purchases from the named countries.”

***

“The revocation will allow our firms to be more competitive against finished products from countries

with wire rod prices that are $*** a ton cheaper.” 

***

“We expect no effect on our activities in 2008.” 

***

“No change.”

***

“We would seek availability of rod from several of these countries based on current shortage in the

market.” 

***

“We will be able to purchase rod from ***. We cannot obtain sufficient quantities of product from U.S.

mills alone.”
D-15

***

“More rod available.”

***

“***.”

***

“This should free up North American capacity for high quality *** rod used by us.”

***

“The impact on our firm of revocation would be the same as on the industry - little or none for the next

year.” 

***

“Availability of rods would improve at lower prices.”

***

“No changes in purchasing practice. Possible improvement in cost competitiveness of mills in subject

countries.” 

***

“Increase in available rod suppliers at competitive prices.”

***

No response.

***

No response. 

***

No response. 

*** 

“We have to purchase rod to operate our plants if we are unable to obtain quotes from foreign countries,

the price in the U.S. will continue to climb and could cause some shortages.”

***

“None.”

***

“Would likely source wire rod from *** if the orders were revoked as soon as possible, if price was

attractive.” 

***

“The revocation of the orders from the subject countries is estimated to have a small effect on the imports

of wire rod from these countries in the future. The consolidation of the steel industry has created large

multi-national corporations which have internal restrictions on international shipments of wire rod. 

Arcelor Mittal and Gerdau Ameristeel are two perfect examples where they own mills both in the subject

countries and United States. 

It is estimated that Arcelor Mittal will take a neutral position relative to this investigation. The

Arcelor Mittal mills in the Ukraine, Brazil, Mexico, Trinidad and Tobago, and Indonesia will not ship
D-16

wire rod into the United Sates without first approving the transactions through the Arcelor Mittal U.S.

offices. Arcelor Mittal Canada has a slightly separate structure for sales and service but the effect is the

same. The global consolidation of the steel industry has diminished the need for trade measures such as

these duty orders.

In the case of Gerdau Ameristeel, their Brazilian parent company appears to have no interest in

trying to import wire rod into the United States. Gerdau Ameristeel has a large amount of capacity for

low quality wire rod in the United States. The only possible imports into the United States from Gerdau

in Brazil would be high quality products not available in the United States.

Brazil and Mexico are interesting situations to consider as these countries are still experiencing

strong domestic demand in their home markets for wire rod. It appears that infrastructure growth will

continue to keep these countries steel consumption strong and limit any export possibilities.

For ***. For the carbon steel wire rod and steel industry worldwide we believe there has been a

convergence of steel prices. Due to industry consolidation and improved price and volume discipline

steel producers are more likely to cut production volumes rather than participate in dumping activities.”

***

“It will lower the price that imports will enter the market and consequently the ‘CAP’ on domestic

prices.”

*** 

“We would continue to buy domestic steel for as long as possible. If competitors were to use this cheap

imported steel, we would likely experience lower profitability or erosion of business. If pressures became

large enough, we may need to purchase from imported sources in order to survive, depriving the market

with a reliable domestic fastener manufacturer.” 

***

“If low-priced imports from these countries re-entered the market, we might shift our purchases of wire

rod to these foreign producers.” 

***

“If orders are revoked, we would most likely import wire rod from subject countries as well as others to

keep up with our competition. We would purchase substantially less from domestic suppliers due to the

price differential between domestics and imports. Given imports of finished goods, we would be much

more conservative in investing in equipment and inventory.” 

***

“If duties are revoked, we will expand our list of potential suppliers.”

***

“Possibility to purchase wire rod from Brazil.”

***

“Greater competition in U.S. market for carbon 1070 and 1090 rod particularly from Brazil.”
D-17

Effects on the entire U.S. market

***

“Drive up the price of domestic rod.”

***

“The U.S. places tariffs on the raw materials but does not on the finished goods. Therefore it makes U.S.

manufactured goods more expensive. If we cannot compete with the finished goods coming into this

country, we will be out of business. If the U.S. is going to tariff anything it should tariff all products, or

no products.” 

***

“Typically the lower grade, generic applications (like mesh) benefit the most from offshore sources. This

could also help higher grade producers by relieving the overall pressure on U.S. rod mills.” 

***

“For the reasons given above the impact would be negligible for the foreseeable future which we guess to

be 3 to 5 years.”

***

“As above.”

***

“Very little.”

***

“The U.S. industrial market, in normal economic times, consumes more than the domestic steel industry

can product in many of the high end quality grades like ***. Continuing duties , especially on the high

end products imported from Canada, would have no constructive result.” 

***

“This can increase the availability of industrial quality and other qualities of steel products.”

***

“*** market will continue to decrease with more *** imports coming into the market.”

***

“Imports of finished goods would slow down, less wire mfgs. and their customers would move operations

offshore. U.S. industry would be more competitive. Revocation of the order is necessary: -There is not

enough availability in the U.S. market; this is limiting the development of the domestic wire industry. -

U.S. quality offered is often insufficient; ***.” 

***

“It would ease supply problems and probably reduce prices.”

***

“Dollar continues to devalue, ocean freight is at an all time high, scrap is over $400 per ton overseas, and

the infrastructure in those countries is demanding large quantities of steel. All the factors listed above

puts foreign steel, (even foreign steel that does not have duties) totally out of the reach of domestic

manufacturers.”
D-18

***

“Material availability will improve, and prices will decline with the increase in competition.”

***

“It will make the U.S. manufacturer more competitive. However, if countervailing duties / antidumping

duty orders stay in place it will force more U.S. manufacturers out of business and U.S. rod suppliers will

(have) less manufacturers to sell to.”

***

“Cannot forecast the effect on the U.S. market especially with the influence of China.”

***

“No change.”

***

“I believer the ability to purchase rod from any of these countries would have a positive effect as there is

a shortage and domestic producers can not supply all that is consumed.”

***

“I do not see any near term impact should the orders be revoked. A weak dollar, a poor U.S. economy

and stronger markets elsewhere will keep exports at lower levels.” 

*** 

“Price autoregulation due to increased competition.” 

***

“Probably help supply.”

*** 

“North American general steel products would see global market pricing.” 

***

“I would think revocation of the orders would have little or no impact on the domestic market at this time. 

Wire rod will be in critically short supply during the second and third calendar quarters of 2008 due to

robust world wide demand and lack of interest in the U.S. market by foreign producers. The weakness of

the dollar undoubtedly plays a substantial part in this. Domestic mills have pushed up prices by $*** per

ton since October 2007 in order to recover higher costs for all inputs and to restore margins. Looking out

further, though, the U.S. market must have access to imported material as domestic production is not

sufficient to meet demand.”

***

“Availability of rods would improve at lower prices.”

***

“More competitive pricing for end users from all mills in all products.”

***

“Domestic rod mills would not be able to control prices by cutting their production to promote rod

demand exceeding rod supply.” 

***

“It would help if domestic mills had competition.”
D-19

***

“We have to purchase rod to operate our plants if we are unable to obtain quotes from foreign countries,

the price in the U.S. will continue to climb and could cause some shortages.”

***

“Don't know.”

***

“Same would occur in U.S. market if price was competitive.” 

***

“Low-priced imports from these countries will increase, driving U.S. prices for wire rod down. It is likely

that market forces would drive our industry to purchase low-priced imports of wire rod to maintain our

competitive position in the downstream product market.” 

***

“Would have a devastating financial impact on the domestic rod industry steel. Our view of the entire

U.S. market is not clear, however it is likely that to views stated above may be repeated. Initially each of

our competitors may lose business and may be forced to consider purchasing cheap, imported steel as a

mater of survival.”

***

“Supply and demand will be improved considerably.”

***

“Increase of imports, balancing offer and demand, allowing to secure suppliers. In addition, current lack

of price competition of wire rod potentially threatens *** industry sustainability, as well as the ***.”

***

No response.

***

No response.

***

No response.

***

No response.

***

No response. 

***

No response.
D-20

FOREIGN PRODUCERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE EFFECTS OF THE ORDERS AND

THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

Anticipated Operational/Organizational Changes If The Orders Were To Be Revoked 

(Question II-3)

The Commission requested subject foreign producers to describe any anticipated changes in

the character of their operations or organization relating to the production of wire rod in the future

if the countervailing duty and antidumping duty orders on wire rod from Brazil, Canada,

Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine were to be revoked. Their

responses are as follows:

***

“No.”

***

“No, we do not anticipate any changes in the character of our operations in the future if the antidumping

duty order against were revoked against ***. In order to understand why this is the case, it is important to

understand the market dynamics since 2004. ***. ***.

Given the current circumstances and for the foreseeable future, we do not see any likelihood that

our export activities could cause any harm to the U.S. industry after the existing orders are revoked. ***.

***.”

***

“No”

***

“No”

***

“No”

***

“No”

***

“No”

***

“No”

***

“No”

***

“No”

***

“No.”
D-21

***

“No. *** do not anticipate any changes in the character of our operations or organization relating to the

production of wire rod should the various duty orders were to be revoked.

Significance of Existing Orders In Terms of Trade and Related Data

(Question II-14)

The Commission requested subject foreign producers to describe the significance of the

existing countervailing duty and antidumping duty orders covering imports of wire rod from

Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine in terms of the

effect on their production capacity, production, home market shipments, exports to the United

States and other markets, and inventories. Their responses are as follows:

***

“So far there is no significance, since *** has never sold to the USA and any of the wire rod

specifications which are restraint by the countervailing and antidumping duties.”

***

“The existing anti-dumping order has no current or future effect on ***.”

***

“***. In these circumstances, the antidumping order has not had a significant impact on ***'s operations

relating to steel wire rod. ***.”

***

“The AD order on wire rod in the United States has had little effect on the listed factors. Changes in sales

patterns since 2002 have been driven by increased demand and more favorable pricing in the home and

third country markets and decreased demand and reduced prices in the United States, not by the AD

order.”

***

“The existing duty does not have any effect on *** regarding production capacity, production, and

inventories of wire rod. Regarding home market shipments, ***.”

***

“We have sold less to the US and sold more to our home market and other countries.”

***

“The existing antidumping order has no current neither future effect on ***’s production capacity,

production itself, home market shipments, exports to the United States or other markets as well as

inventories.”

***

“There has been no significant effect on ***’s production capacity, production, shipments, or inventories.

Modernization of the rolling mill *** was aimed at improving the quality of wire rod and the performance

***.

*** enjoys diversified sales markets. *** does not maintain inventories of finished rolled

products. The minor quantities of finished products available in the mill’s stock are the remainders left

from shipments made under placed orders.”
D-22

***

“***.”

***

“***. Thus, despite the administrative headache of the order, it has been business as usual. ***.

***

“The antidumping order with a deposit rate of ***% doesn’t significantly affect ***’s ability to export to

the United States. The decision to focus on the domestic market and other export markets answers to price

premiums observed in such other markets. ***.”

Anticipated Changes in Trade and Related Data If Orders Were To Be Revoked

(Question II-15)

The Commission requested subject foreign producers to describe any anticipated changes in

their production capacity, production, home market shipments, exports to the United States and

other markets, or inventories relating to the production of wire rod in the future if the

countervailing duty and antidumping duty orders on wire rod from Brazil, Canada, Indonesia,

Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine were to be revoked. Their responses are as

follows:

***

“No”

***

“No”

***

“No”

***

“No”

***

“No”

***

“No, ***.

In the event that the antidumping order were to be revoked, it is possible that ***might resume

exports of a limited quantity of higher-quality products to supply certain niche markets. ***.”

***

“*** does not anticipate any changes in our production capacity, production, home market shipments,

exports to other markets, or inventories relating to the production of wire rod if the antidumping duty

order on wire rod from *** is revoked. If the antidumping order on wire rod from *** were to be

revoked, there is the possibility that *** may consider shipping wire rod to the United States in the

future, but that would depend entirely on the market situations in the United States and other markets.

***.”
D-23

***

“ Yes. Considering that we lack the capacity to supply additional exports to the U.S., the only change

that may occur in the future if market supply remains exceptionally tight would be to shift more of our

supply of product for ***. This would not be due to the removal of the order, but rather due to the ***.”

***

“No”

***

“No. *** does not anticipate any changes in its production capacity, production, home market shipments,

exports to the United States and other markets, or inventories relating to the production of subject goods

in the future, if the subject countervailing duty order, antidumping duty orders on wire rod were to be

revoked against ***.”

***

“***.”

***

“No”

Other Export Markets

(Question II-13)

The Commission requested subject foreign producers to identify export markets (other than

the United States) that they had developed or where they had increased their sales of wire rod as a

result of the countervailing duty and antidumping duty orders on wire rod from Brazil, Canada,

Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago and Ukraine. Their responses are as follows:

***

“***.”

***

“No exports markets have been developed as a result of the antidumping duty order on wire rod from

***.”

***

“*** has increased its sales in *** since 2002, but this increase has not been as a result of the AD order,

but has instead resulted from more favorable conditions in these markets.”

***

“***.”

***

“*** has not developed any market other than the United States, because of countervailing or

antidumping duties orders.”

***

“*** did not either developed new export markets or increased existing ones due to countervailing and

antidumping duties. The development of new markets and/or increasing of sales were due to business

strategy in focusing on the *** market. The volumes for United States remained the same over the

period.”
D-24

***

***.

***

“Historically, almost all of ***. Consequently, *** did not develop or increase sales significantly to any

export markets other than the United States as a result of the antidumping order on steel wire rod from

***. ***.”

***

“***.”

***

“Most exports to offshore locations are of secondary material. *** does not know the ultimate destination

of most of the exports of secondary material because it ships the merchandise to the *** port.”

***

 “*** has diversified markets for its wire rod and it has increased it shipments in its home market in the

***. ***.”

***

“*** hasn ́t developed markets as a result of the antidumping order in the United States. ***.”
E-1

APPENDIX E

COMPANY SPECIFIC SHIPMENT DATA

E-3

Table E-1

Wire rod: U.S. producers’ shipments, by company and product type, 2002-07

* * * * * * *

Table E-2

Wire rod: Arcelor Mittal Brazil’s internal and commercial home market shipments, and exports, 2002-07

* * * * * * *

Table E-3

Wire rod: Gerdau Acominas Brazil’s internal and commercial home market shipments, and exports, 2002-07

* * * * * * *

Table E-4

Wire rod: Gerdau Acos Longos Brazil’s internal and commercial home market shipments, and exports, 2002-07

* * * * * * *

Table E-5

Wire rod: Arcelor Mittal Canada’s internal and commercial home market shipments, and exports, 2002-07

* * * * * * *

Table E-6

Wire rod: Ivaco Canada’s internal and commercial home market shipments, and exports, 2002-07

* * * * * * *

Table E-7

Wire rod: De Acero Mexico’s internal and commercial home market shipments, and exports, 2002-07

* * * * * * *

Table E-8

Wire rod: Hylsa Mexico’s internal and commercial home market shipments, and exports, 2002-07

* * * * * * *

Table E-9

Wire rod: Arcelor Mittal’s Sicartsa Mexico’s internal and commercial home market shipments, and exports, 2002-07

* * * * * * *