were revoked, significant volumes of PC strand from Japan likely would significantly undersell the
domestic like product to gain market share and likely would have significant depressing or suppressing
effects on the prices of the domestic like product.

3. Likely Impact of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely impact of imports of subject merchandise if the antidumping finding is
tevoked, the Commission is directed to consider all relevant economic factors that are likely to have a
bearing on the state of the industry in the United States, including but not limited to: (1) likely declines
in output, sales, market share, profits, productivity, return on investments, and utilization of capacity; (2)
likely negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to raise capital, and
investment; and (3) likely negative effects on the existing development and production efforts of the
industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version of the domestic like
product.TM 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. 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
finding at issue and whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the finding is revoked.** *”

In the original investigation, the Commission found that the domestic industry clearly was being
injured by reason of dumped imports from Japan, experiencing a declining rate of capacity utilization, a
decrease in shipments, an increase in inventories, a drop in employment, and a precipitous decline in
profitability between 1974 and 1977. The ratio of operating profit or loss to net sales for domestic
producers dropped from a profit of about 20 percent in both 1974 and 1975 to a loss of 3 percent in 1976
and to an even greater loss of 7 percent in 1977, the year in which Treasury found that imports from
Japan were sold at less than fair value.**

In the 1999 review, the Commission stated that the existing conditions of competition in the
industry, together with the restraining effect of the antidumping finding, suggested that Japanese
producers would again become significant competitors in the U.S. market if the finding were revoked.

TM 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

8 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). Section 752(a)(6) of the Act states that “the Commission may consider the
magnitude of the margin of dumping” in making its determination in a five-year review. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(6).
The statute defines the “magnitude of the margin of dumping” to be used by the Commission in five-year reviews as
“the dumping margin or margins determined by the administering authority under section 1675a(c)(3) of this title.”
19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)(C){iv). See also SAA at 887. In the final results of its expedited sunset review of the
antidumping finding in PC strand from Japan, Commerce determined that revocation of the finding would likely lead
to a continuation or recurrence of dumping at weighted-average margins as follows: 13.3 percent for Shinko Wire
Co. Ltd.; 6.9 percent for Suzuki Metal Industry Co. Ltd.; 4.5 percent for Tokyo Rope Manufacturing Co., Ltd.; and
9.76 percent for all others (with the exception of Sumitomo and Kawasaki Steel Techno-Wire, for which Commerce
had previously revoked the antidumping finding). 69 Fed. Reg. 25563 (May 7, 2004).

°6 The antidumping finding resulted in imports from Japan largely exiting the U.S. market, enabling the domestic
industry, following issuance of the finding, to regain market share. 1999 Review, USITC Pub. 3156 at 12. U.S.
market share for subject imports has remained consistently low since the first review. CR, PR at Table I-5 (subject
imports have accounted for 0.1 percent to 0.2 percent of apparent U.S. consumption since 2000).

*7 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.

*§ Original Determination, USITC Pub. No. 928 at 4-5.

14


APPENDIX A
FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

A-l


pounds in 2002. Over the same period, the U.S. industry’s share of apparent U.S. consumption increased
from 31.2 percent in 1977 to 72.9 percent in 2002. The share of apparent consumption accounted for by
non-Japanese PC strand imports increased from 8.0 percent in 1977 to 27.1 percent in 2002. Between
1997, the year preceding the Commission’s first review of the antidumping finding against Japan, and
2002, the U.S. industry lost 4.4 percentage points in share of apparent consumption to imports of PC
strand from countries other than Japan.*’

THE INDUSTRY IN JAPAN

In 1978, five Japanese companies were identified by Treasury as producing PC strand for export
to the United States: Shinko Wire Company, Ltd. (“Shinko”); Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd.
(“Sumitomo”);** Suzuki Metal Company, Ltd. (“Suzuki”); Tokyo Rope Manufacturing Company, Ltd.
(“Tokyo Rope”); and Kawatetsu Wire Products Company, Ltd. (“Kawatetsu”).” At the time of the
Commission’s previous five-year review, five Japanese companies were believed to be producing
merchandise subject to the antidumping finding on PC strand: original producers Shinko, Suzuki, and
Tokyo Rope, as well as Kokoku Steel Wire Co., Ltd. (“Kokoku”), and Tesac Corp.° In its response to
the Commission’s notice of institution in the present review, the domestic industry excluded Kokoku and
added JFE Techno-Wire Corp.*’ to the list of Japanese companies believed to be producing and/or
exporting PC strand to the United States subject to the existing antidumping finding.

Available data regarding the industry producing the subject merchandise in Japan are provided in
table I-6. In the period examined in the Commission’s original investigation, the vast majority of PC
strand produced by the industry in Japan was for export. In 1977, shipments to markets outside Japan
equaled nearly 90 percent of the Japanese industry’s production of PC strand. From 1974 to 1977, the
United States served as the primary destination for shipments of PC strand produced in Japan, receiving
77 percent of all PC strand exported from Japan in 1977, equivalent to 69 percent of total Japanese PC

37 Imports of PC strand from Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand, subject countries in the Commission’s
2003 investigations, accounted for 70 percent of total U.S. imports of PC strand in 2002. As noted earlier, as a result
of the U.S. industry’s successful petition for import injury relief, Commerce imposed antidumping and
countervailing duties (India only) ranging from 12.99 to 118.75 percent on imports of PC strand from these
countries. .

2 As stated earlier, the antidumping finding against Sumitomo was revoked by Commerce in 1986.

» As stated earlier, Kawatetsu was excluded from Treasury’s 1978 antidumping finding because its margins of
dumping were minimal and because it provided formal assurances that it would make no future sales at LTFV. Steel
Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan, Investigation No. AA1921-188, USITC Pub. 928, November
1978, p. A-2. Subsequent to the imposition of Treasury’s antidumping finding, Shinko and Sumitomo each
established subsidiaries in the United States to produce PC strand: Shinko Wire America, Inc. (1979 - 1996) and
Sumiden (1980 - present). Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Japan, Investigation No. AA1921-188
(Review), USITC Pub. 3156, February 1999, p. I-11.

© Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Japan, Investigation No. AA1921-188 (Review), USITC Pub.
3156, February 1999, p. I-11.

4) FE Techno-Wire Corp., formerly Kawasaki Steel Techno-Wire Co., Ltd., is the successor company to
Kawatetsu. See www.jfe-holdings.co.jp/en/companv/index.html. Commerce has not conducted a changed
circumstances review with respect to JFE Techno-Wire Corp.

1-15


21160

Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 76/Tuesday, April 20, 2004/Notices

completion of the final results of its
review, the deadline for comments
(which may not contain new factual
information) on Commerce’s final
results is three business days after the
issuance of Commerce's results. If
comments contain business proprietary
information (BPI), they must conform
with the requirements of §§ 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
§ 201.8 of the Commission’s rules, as
amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8,
2002).

In accordance with §§ 201.16(c) and
207.3 of the rules, each document filed
by a party to the review must be served
on all other parties to the review (as
identified by either the public or BPI
service list), and a certificate of service
must be timely filed. The Secretary will
not accept a document for filing without
a certificate of service.

Determination. The Commission has
determined to exercise its authority to
extend the review period by up to 90
days pursuant to 19 U.S.C.
1675(c)(5)(B).

Authority: This review is being conducted
under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act
of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to
§ 207.62 of the Commission’s rules.

Issued: April 14, 2004.

By order of the Commission.

Marilyn R. Abbott,

Secretary to the Commission.

[FR Doc, 04-8882 Filed 4-19-04; 8:45 am)
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION

[Investigation No, AA~1921-188 (Review)]

Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire
Strand From Japan

AGENCY: International Trade
Commission.

ACTION: Scheduling of an expedited five-
year review concerning the antidumping
finding on prestressed concrete steel
wire strand from Japan.

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives
notice of the scheduling of an expedited
review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of
the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C.
1675(c)(3)) (the Act) to determine
whether revocation of the antidumping
finding on prestressed concrete steel
wire strand from Japan would be likely
to lead to continuation or recurrence of
material injury within a reasonably
foreseeable time. For further

information concerning the conduct of
this review and rules of general
application, consult the Commission’s
Rules of Practice and Procedure, part
201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part
201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and
F (19 CFR part 207).

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 6, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jai
Motwane (202-205-3176), 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
this review may be viewed on the
Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS)
at http://edis.usitc.gov.

‘SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background.—On April 6, 2004, the
Commission determined that the
domestic interested party group
response to its notice of institution (69
FR 101, January 2, 2004) of the subject
five-year review was adequate and that
the respondent interested party group
response was inadequate. The
Commission did not find any other
circumstances that would warrant
conducting a full review.1 Accordingly,
the Commission determined that it
would conduct an expedited review
pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act.

Staff report.—A staff report
containing information concerning the
subject matter of the review will be
placed in the nonpublic record on May
10, 2004, and made available to persons
on the Administrative Protective Order
service list for this review. A public
version will be issued thereafter,
pursuant to section 207.62(d)(4) of the
Commission's rules.

Written submissions.—As provided in
section 207.62(d) of the Commission’s
rules, interested parties that are parties
to the review and that have provided
individually adequate responses to the
notice of institution,? and any party

7A 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,

2 The Commission has found the responses
submitted on behalf of American Spring Wire Corp.,
Insteel Wire Products Co., and Sumiden Wire Corp.
to be individually adequate. Comments from other

other than an interested party to the
review may file written comments with
the Secretary on what determination the
Commission should reach in the review.
Comments are due on or before May 13,
2004, and may not contain new factual
information. Any person that is neither
a party to the five-year review nor an
interested party may submit a brief
written statement (which shall not
contain any new factual information)
pertinent to the review by May 13, 2004.
However, should the Department of
Commerce extend the time limit for its
completion of the final results of its
review, the deadline for comments
(which may not contain new factual
information) on Commerce’s final
results is three business days after the
issuance of Commerce's results, If
comments contain business proprietary
information (BPI), they must 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).

In accordance with sections 201.16(c)
and 207.3 of the rules, each document
filed by a party to the review must be
served on all other parties to the review
(as identified by either the public or BPI
service list), and a certificate of service
must be timely filed. The Secretary will
not accept a document for filing without
a certificate of service.

Determination —The Commission has
determined to exercise its authority to
extend the review period by up to 90
days pursuant to 19 U.S.C.
1675(c)(5)(B).

Authority: This review is being conducted
under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act
of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to
section 207,62 of the Commission’s rules.

Issued: April 14, 2004,

By order of the Commission.

Marilyn R. Abbott,

Secretary to the Commission.

[FR Doc, 04-8883 Filed 4-19-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
TAAG/A Order No. 003-2004]

Privacy Act of 1974: System of
Records

Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5
U.S.C. 552a), the Department of Justice,

interested parties will not be accepted (see 19 CFR
207.62(d)(2)).


“reasonably foreseeable time’ will vary from case-to-case, but normally will exceed the ‘imminent’
timeframe applicable in a threat of injury analysis [in antidumping investigations].”*> **

Although the standard in a five-year review is not the same as the standard applied in an original
antidumping 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 order is revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated.”*” It
directs the Commission to take into account its prior injury determination, whether any improvement in
the state of the industry is related to the order or the suspension agreement under review, whether the
industry is vulnerable to material injury if the order is revoked or the suspension agreement is terminated,
and any findings by Commerce regarding duty absorption pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(4).**

Section 751(c)(3) of the Act and the Commission’s regulations provide that in an expedited five-
year review the Commission may issue a final determination “based on the facts available, in accordance
with section 776 of the Act.”°° We have relied on the facts available in this review, which consist
primarily of information from the original investigation and first review, information submitted by the
domestic producers, and official Commerce statistics.

For the reasons stated below, we determine that revocation of the antidumping finding on PC
strand from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic
industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.

B. Conditions of Competition

In evaluating the likely impact of the subject imports on the domestic industry, the statute directs
the Commission to consider all relevant economic factors “within the context of the business cycle and

35 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.

3° In analyzing what constitutes a reasonably foreseeable time, Commissioner Koplan examines all the current
and likely conditions of competition in the relevant industry. He defines “reasonably foreseeable time” as the length
of time it is likely to take for the market to adjust to a revocation or termination. In making this assessment, he
considers all factors that may accelerate or delay the market adjustment process including any lags in response by
foreign producers, importers, consumers, domestic producers, or others due to: lead times; methods of contracting;
the need to establish channels of distribution; product differentiation; and any other factors that may only manifest
themselves in the longer term. In other words, this analysis seeks to define “reasonably foreseeable time” by
reference to current and likely conditions of competition, but also seeks to avoid unwarranted speculation that may
occur in predicting events into the more distant future.

7 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

38 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). While the Commission must consider all factors, no one factor is
necessarily dispositive. SAA at 886. We note that Commerce has made no duty absorption findings.

39 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3)(B); 19 C.F.R. § 207.62(e). Section 776 of the Act, in turn, 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 section 782(i) of the Act. 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a).

8






CONTENTS

Determination ...........
Views of the Commission ..

Information obtained in the review
Introduction
Background ....
The original investigation and first five-year review .
Related investigations . .
Commerce’s final results of expedited sunset review
The product
Scope ..
Description and uses ...
The industry in the United States .
US. producers
U.S. production, capacity, and shipments
U.S. imports and consumption .........
U.S. imports ............
Apparent U.S. consumption .
The industry in Japan

Appendices

A. Federal Register notices
B. Statement on adequacy . .

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.


ell

“SONSHEIS BIOWUOD [eIOWYJO PUE ‘2-1 8198) ‘G6G) AueNIgad “SLE “Gnd OLISN (Maney) BBt-1Z6LYY ‘ON UOHeBYSAAU) ‘ueder WAY PUES aY/Y [98IS e]2/U0D passaysely :e0:nog

“yd “poo Aenuep ‘g9g¢ ‘and OLISN ‘(leUtd) 8ZOL-PZOL-VL-LEL pue (Jeuld) ZEP-VL-LOZ "SON SUOHEBYSAAU ‘pUELEY, pue ‘ooIXeZ ‘ealoy
“eIpuy ‘ZBI WAY PUBS AlIM [90]S 9JB1DUCD passayjsald “OZ'OL'ZLEL Suipeaygns S1H Jepun payisseys Ayedoduut pueweys Wo payodui! PUES Oe EPN|OU! €0-000Z 40} EJep WOdwI! |2}01 ,
“ZLOEOL ZLEZ sequinu Buyiodas jeoyspe}s S.1H 0} puodse.z0d €0-000Z PUE ZEGI 40} sHOduu! jo anjeA pue Ajquenb ay} uo eyeq ,
“spuayy Yodul! Jo s10jeo1pul eyesnoDeu! ‘alos ‘ue BVEP A[YUOW Poy|U!| JO SUOSEdUIOD JeAA-O}-eEA “IeBK
JEPU|ed Oy} JO BSINODd ayy JOAO SjenuajU! JE;NBad| Je SA}E}S PayUN aly Joya Ueder Woy pueNS Od Jo syodw!! esnedeq payuesed you ave ‘eiqeyene eIYM ‘OO ANeniqes-Arenuer 404 eyep We}U] ,

o-00r OOoL O-o00L o°00L o'00L 0001 o°00r ooor 0001 spoduut (230,
266 v66 8°86 826 066 Sib 79 G6 oe S@OuNOS JOJO,
80 90 ab et oF see ees S06 oz ueder
Queozed) enjea jo eseyg
O00! O'ooL ooo! 0001 0001 000! 0001 oor 0°00; spoduy (e304
966 L66 S66 066 9°66 Lub s9 8 99 S80UNOS JOYIO
v0 £0 ‘0 or Lat) £88 see vile vee ueder
(Quaasad) AyQuenb jo eueys
8bz 922 vee Bre 282 v6L soz ize zee spodui! |2}01
Lye 92% eve Sve 08z z6L 96L sé €82 ‘S90INOS J84}O
61S$ 6zs$ ops$ ysss L09$ S6L$ 90z$ greg 622$ ueder
(spunod 990‘; 42d) anjea j1un eBeseay
vSL'7S 920' ry L82'pp Bly'ly €L9' LE ope'se ess‘oe s9s'es sov'ed ¢ 2SHOduy je}0)
gse'zs S9l'ep 8rl'er 00s'0y be'ze vLe'y L68't z6s'sS 9289'S ‘SeouNOs JEyO,
66E zoe ees 8t6 z9E ZLE've 299'8z eL6'2S 68¢'29 ueder
(000'r$) anjen
SEB TLE vlb'v6L Voe'LeL 80Z'991 e6o'eeL £92661 eSZ'erL 60r'zat pv0'ale eSHOdU! [EOL
294212 6L6'E61 see'osl €S0'SOL 960'ee} Lee'ez Ls9'6 6c9'SL Opz'oz seounos Jay,
892 y6r 926 ggo'L 26S Zgp'OLt 960'6eL OSZ‘991 v0e'S6Z ueder
(spunod 0900‘}) Ayuend
£002 z00z L002 0002 I 2661 I 226) 9Z6L Sl6L vl6L
eounog
sueak sepuajed

y€0-0002 Pue “2661 “L/-p26 ‘edunos Aq ‘spodui| "S77 :pueys oq

riaqe.


The Commission characterized the data respecting the industry’s vulnerability as mixed. Operating
income in 1997 was positive, and production capacity, domestic shipments and net sales had shown
recent increases. On the other hand, operating income declined in interim 1998 as compared to interim
1997 as a result of much lower unit sales values combined with an increase in the cost of goods sold
(COGS) and in selling, general and administrative expenses. As the ratio of COGS to sales increased
substantially, the domestic industry was experiencing a cost-price squeeze in a highly competitive, price-
based market supplied by some two dozen other sources that were contributing to an environment of
declining prices. The Commission found that the domestic industry was vulnerable to material injury in
this environment. The Commission concluded that subject imports would likely have significant
negative effects on the domestic industry’s prices, output, profitability, capacity utilization, cash flow,
and ability to raise capital and make future investments within a reasonably foreseeable time if the
finding were revoked.”

In the 2003-04 investigations, the Commission found that imports from Brazil, India, Korea,
Mexico, and Thailand had a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry, with most indicators of
the domestic industry’s condition showing marked declines between 2000 and 2002. The industry was
expanding at the beginning of the period and contracting at the end. Domestic output declined, as did
capacity utilization. Even without the increase in domestic capacity evidenced by the domestic industry,
capacity utilization declines would have exceeded 10 percentage points. Shipment volumes were down,
accompanied by a decrease in AUVs. Employment trends similarly showed declines between 2000 and
2002, and were stabilizing between interim 2002 and 2003. The financial performance of the domestic
industry followed the same downward trends as output, sales, and employment. Among other things,
profitability evaporated over the period examined, with operating margins declining from 7.6 percent in
2000 to negative 4.4 percent in 2002, before increasing to 2.5 percent in the first half of 2003. The
Commission stated that while there was some improvement in the domestic industry’s performance in the
first half of 2003, such improvement was a modest reflection of higher apparent U.S. consumption and
price increases in the second quarter of 2003, following the filing of the petition.”

Based on the record in these reviews, which includes the U.S. producers’ trade and financial data
from the 2003-04 investigations upon which the Commission relied for its present material injury
determination, we find that the domestic industry is vulnerable to further injury if the antidumping
finding on subject imports from Japan is revoked.’ As noted previously, the total volume of nonsubject
imports has not declined, but increased toward the end of the period examined, as nonsubject imports
from other countries apparently replaced imports from the five countries on which orders were imposed
in early 2004.

As stated above, revocation of the antidumping finding would likely 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. We also find that the volume and price effects of the subject imports
would likely have a significant adverse impact on the production, shipments, sales, market share, and
revenues of this vulnerable domestic industry. These reductions, in turn, would have a direct adverse
impact on the industry’s profitability as well as its ability to raise capital and make and maintain
necessary capital investments. Accordingly, we conclude that, if the antidumping finding on subject
imports from Japan is revoked, subject imports would be likely to have a significant adverse impact on
the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.

® 1999 Review, USITC Pub. 3156 at 11-13.
%® 2004 Determinations, USITC Pub. 3663 at 24-27.
5! CR, PR at Table 1-2.


Commerce’s Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review

On May 7, 2004, the Commission received notification of Commerce’s “Final Results of
Expedited Sunset Review” concerning PC strand from Japan.”? The review covered all manufacturers
and exporters of PC strand from Japan. Commerce determined that dumping is likely to continue or
recur if the antidumping finding is revoked. The following tabulation provides information with regard
to the margins (in percent ad valorem) of dumping that Commerce found would likely prevail if the
finding is revoked:'*

Compan Margin

Shinko Wire Co., Ltd 0.00.0... cee eee 13.3
Suzuki Metal Industry Co., Ltd. ......... 69
Tokyo Rope Manufacturing Co., Ltd...... 4S

Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd.
Kawasaki Steel Techno-Wire
Allothers 1.0.0.0... ese eee eee ee 9.76

.. Revoked

Since the imposition of Treasury’s finding, Commerce has conducted numerous administrative
reviews with respect to imports of PC strand from Japan. In August 1986, Commerce revoked the
antidumping finding with respect to Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd.'* In July 1990, Commerce
determined that Kawasaki Steel Techno-Wire was the successor company to Kawatetsu Wire Products
Company, Ltd., and that the discontinuance of the finding issued to Kawatetsu applied to Kawasaki.'°
The finding remains in effect for all other producers and exporters of PC strand from Japan. Commerce
has conducted no administrative reviews since completion of the first sunset review of the finding in
1999.

THE PRODUCT
Scope
Commerce’s final results of its expedited sunset review provides the following definition of the

product subject to investigation: steel wire strand, other than alloy steel, not galvanized, which are
stress-relieved and suitable for use in prestressed concrete. PC strand is classified under HTS

? 69 FR 25563.

3 Commerce’s likelihood determination was based on the fact that dumping at levels above de minimis has
continued over the life of the finding against PC strand from Japan, and on examination of the volume of imports of
subject PC strand in the periods before and after imposition of the finding. See Issues and Decision Memorandum
from James Jochum, Assistant Secretary, Import Administration to Ronald Lorentzen, Acting Director, Office of
Policy, May 3, 2004. Attp://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn.

"51 FR 30894 (August 29, 1986).

15 §5 FR 28796 (July 13, 1990). Treasury discontinued its original investigation with respect to Kawatetsu Wire
Products Company because it determined that the margin for PC strand sold by Kawatetsu at LTFV was de minimis.
Commerce’s Issues and Decision Memorandum, May 3, 2004.

15


INFORMATION OBTAINED IN THE REVIEW


“SONSHEIS SOIAUILUOD |EIDIJO PUR ‘|-D 219} 'D ‘dde ‘gO0z 6] sequasaq jo yoday YeIS :9-AI B19) ‘yOOZ MHeNUer ‘eggE ‘Gnd OLISN ‘(}eu!4)
8Z01-PZOL-V1-LEL pur (IeUI4) ZEP-V.L-LOL “SON SuoHeb)SeAUy ‘PURLEY PUe ‘COIXEW ‘e210} ‘e/pUY ‘IZEIE WO PUES B1/M [9281S B}BUOD PESSA1SEled
ajge} ‘6661 Areniqe ‘9SLe “and OLISN ‘(manay) 88t-LZ61 Vv ON UOHeBySenU] ‘Ueder WOY PUBS aL! [2821S B}91DU0D PaSSesjSeld :80IN0S

“0701 'Z1 EZ Bulpeaygns $1H Jepun paylsse|o Ayedosduy puewey Woy payodui! pueys Og epnjoul E00z euNf-"ueP pue ‘Z00z euNr-er ‘20-000z
BIS SH 0} puodseuoo EQ0z eunr-—uer pue ‘Z00Z eUNr-"Uer ‘70-0002 ‘266! 40} papiAcd eyep Podwy ,

*Z00Z Ul pues Od JO sjuawdiys “g°A ,sieonpoud “sf
jo yuaauad ,,, payueseides pues Oq paseaooun ‘Ajsnoinaid paye}s Sy “PUES Dq Pas@Aooun pue paserod YjOQ Jo sjuaWidiys 0} JaJa1 Byep sueoNpoud “S"f ,

40} BIEQ “ZLOC'OL'ZLEL sequinu Bupiodas je:

ole G12 ole ve oe Le 8°89 679 Gil oel spodut |2}01
ble Llt le eve vie ad cv ee) By syodw! 180
Vo Vo bo xe) £09 £09 ys9 rah) ueder
:syodul g'n
Bel Vel eel gGd ce g'ez ole syuawdiys
“SN sus9onpoid “s"h
(jueosad) uojduinsuod ‘s‘f juaiedde jo aueys -
261'28€ | 9Sz'09E | L6L'SLZ | GBl'epz | egc'ozs ffest‘sss fF oos‘osz | soz'ezz | sae'vsz | 6LL'eer uoyduinsuoo
“S'N juqeddy
eeL'GoL €ly'00L vly'y6l | Loe'let | soz'9gt ffeso'cel ff eoz'se: | esz'ert | 6or'zer | progres 2SHoduul! [2}01
292'y01 616'66 6l6'e6) | Sec‘osl | eso'sol ffoso'eer bbe'ez 2S9'6 6S9'SL Orz‘0z spoduut Jey}
998 v6y v6y 926 ggo'L 26S zsv'o2t | 960'6el | OSZ'991 | vOE'sez ueder
‘sHodul ‘sq
vao'zez | eve'esz | eze'Lzs | pze'los | sce'cog ffoor'rsy Bf zez‘06 zsv'oe oss'zZ GLO'LLL sSjuowidiys
“$'N ,sssonpoid “sh
(spunod 900't) Ayueny
£002 z00e 2002 Looz 0002 I L661 L 216) OZ6L SZ6L vl6L aounog
eunr-uer sueak sepuajeg

€00z aunf-“uer pue ‘Zo0z eunf-"uer ‘70-0002 ‘L661 ‘LL-PL6) Seounos Aq ‘saueys jaysew pue UoWduINsUOD ‘S‘f jueleddy :puejys od

s-191qe1


Because the demand for PC strand is tied to the demand for construction, declines in construction
investment directly impact subject producers’ efforts to sell in the Japanese home market. One Japanese
producer has stated that it will increase its exports by attempting to expand sales in China and other
export markets.” Other subject producers are likely to target overseas markets as well. A strong and
growing U.S. market, historically the destination for significant volumes of subject imports, is a likely
export market for Japan’s PC strand industry absent the antidumping finding.”

The effects of the Commission’s 2003-04 PC strand investigations further evidence the likely
significant increase in the volume of subject imports if the antidumping finding is revoked. As a result of
these investigations, as previously noted, Commerce issued antidumping duty orders on imports from
Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand, and a countervailing duty order on imports from India.”
Imports from these five countries had accounted for 22 percent of apparent U.S. consumption and 73
percent of total imports in 2002.” The volume of imports from these five countries experienced
significant declines in the second half of 2003 through March 2004 as a result of the investigations and
then the orders being imposed.” As these imports declined, U.S. imports from nonsubject countries,
such as China, Argentina, South Africa, and Portugal, replaced them.” Such rapid penetration reflects
the generally price-based nature of competition for this commodity product. Revocation of the
antidumping finding would create a similar incentive for subject producers from Japan to increase sales
to accounts previously supplied by nonsubject imports from Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand.

Accordingly, based on the available information, including the unrebutted information provided
by the domestic industry, we conclude that the likely volume of imports of the subject merchandise, both
in absolute terms and relative to production or consumption in the United States, would be significant
absent the restraining effect of the antidumping finding.”

2. Likely Price Effects of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely price effects of subject imports if the antidumping finding is revoked, the
Commission is directed to consider whether there is likely to be significant underselling by the subject
imports as compared to domestic like products and whether the subject imports are likely to enter the
United States at prices that otherwise would have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on the
price of domestic like products.”

7 Domestic Producers’ Response at Exh. 12 (Japan Metal Bulletin, Dec. 23, 2003).

7 See 1999 Review, USITC Pub. 3156 at 9 (noting that Japanese producers shipped approximately two-thirds of
their total production of PC strand to the United States in the two years before the antidumping finding was
imposed).

7” 69 Fed. Reg. 4109-12 (Jan. 28, 2004) and 5319 (Feb. 4, 2004) (final antidumping and countervailing duty
orders).

TM CR at J-20-I-21, PR at I-21; 2004 Determinations, USITC Pub. 3663 at Table C-1.

TM CR, PR at Figure I-2 and PC Strand: Imports into the United States.

75 CR, PR at Figure I-2; See Domestic Producers’ Response at Exh. 3. Indeed, by February 2004, the volume of
these nonsubject imports had exceeded any level reached by imports from the five subject countries after the
petitions were filed. CR, PR at Figure I-2.

7 We note that, as in the first review, there is no information on the record regarding the potential for product
shifting, the level of inventories in Japan, or significant barriers to importation from other countries. See 1999
Review, USITC Pub. 3156 at 10.

7 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

(continued...)

12


from both groups of interested parties adequate, or if other circumstances warrant, it will determine to
conduct a full review.*

The only interested parties to respond to the notice of institution in the first five-year review
were members of the domestic interested party group — the four producers of PC strand that accounted
for 100 percent of domestic production at the time. Because this response was adequate and no
respondent interested parties responded to the notice, the Commission conducted an expedited review
pursuant to section 1675(c)(3)(B) of the Act. The Commission ultimately determined that revocation of
the antidumping finding would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an
industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.’ Commerce published its notice of
continuation of the antidumping finding on July 27, 1999.°

On January 2, 2004, the Commission instituted the present review to determine whether
revocation of the antidumping finding on PC strand from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.’ The Commission received a
substantive response to the notice of institution from three domestic producers that account for a
significant share of domestic production of PC strand, American Spring Wire Corp. (American), Insteel
Wire Products Co. (Insteel), and Sumiden Wire Products Corp. (Sumiden) (Domestic Producers’
Response). As in its first review, the Commission received no responses from respondent interested
parties.

On April 6, 2004, the Commission determined that the response from the domestic interested
party group was adequate and that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate
because no respondent interested party responded to the notice. The Commission voted to conduct an
expedited review.”

I. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT AND INDUSTRY
A. Domestic Like Product
In making its determination under section 751(c), the Commission defines the “domestic like

product” and the “industry.”!° The Act defines the “domestic like product” as “a product which is like,
or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an

4 See 19 CFR. § 207.62(a); 63 Fed. Reg. 30599, 30602-05 (June 5, 1998).

5 Prestressed Concrete Stee] Wire Strand from Japan, Inv. No. AA-1921-188, USITC Pub. 3156 (Feb. 1999)
(1999 Review) at 3. One Commissioner dissented. Jd. at 15 (Dissenting Views of Commissioner Thelma J. Askey).

® 64 Fed. Reg 40554 (July 27, 1999).

7 69 Fed. Reg. 103 (Jan. 2, 2004), That same month, the Commission made affirmative final material injury
determinations in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations of PC strand from five countries. Prestressed
Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-432 (Final) and
731-TA-1024-1028 (Final), USITC Pub. 3663 (Jan. 2004) (2003-04 investigations or 2004 Determinations)
(instituted January 2003). A copy of the opinion and excerpts from the report in those investigations is appended to
Domestic Producers’ Response and marked Exh. 1.

® Confidential Staff Report, INV-BB-058 (May 10, 2004) (CR) at I-8, Public Staff Report (PR) at I-7.

° 69 Fed. Reg. 21160 (April 20, 2004); see also CR, PR at App. B (Explanation of Commission Determination
on Adequacy). American, Insteel, and Sumiden have filed comments, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 207.62(d), regarding
the determination they advocate the Commission should reach in this expedited second review.

© 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).



smaller companies made occasional purchases from Japan.*' Companies engaged in importing PC strand
into the United States included some of Japan’s largest trading houses, such as Kawasho, Mitsubishi, and
Mitsui. In the Commission’s prior review, the domestic industry identified three firms that they believed
to be importers of PC stand from Japan: Mitsubishi International Corp.; Nippon Express USA, Inc.; and
Mitrans Corp.” In addition to these three firms, the domestic industry identified two more companies in
their response to the Commission’s notice of initiation in the present review that they believe currently
import PC strand from Japan into the United States: Mitsui & Co. (USA), Inc., and Nissho Iwai
Corporation.

Figure I-1 represents the volume of U.S. imports of PC strand from Japan over the period from
1975 to 2003. As shown, imports of PC strand from Japan have exhibited a steady decline since
imposition of Treasury’s December 1978 antidumping finding. Import volumes declined from a pre-
finding level of 158 million pounds in 1978 to 59 million pounds by 1981, further declining to 5 million
pounds in 1988. By 1992, imports of PC strand from Japan were less than one million pounds. In 2003,
imports from Japan stood at 768,000 pounds, representing 0.4 percent of total U.S. imports of PC strand.
By contrast, at the time of the Commission’s original investigation, PC strand from Japan accounted for
the vast majority of PC strand imports into the United States, ranging from 93.4 percent of total imports
in 1974 to 88.3 percent in 1977. Data on the quantity, value, and average unit value (“AUV”) of U.S.
imports of PC strand are presented in table I-4.

AUVs of PC strand imports from Japan more than tripled from $195 per 1,000 pounds in 1977,
the last full year before imposition of the antidumping finding, to $607 per 1,000 pounds in 1997.
Although the AUVs of imports of PC strand from Japan have exhibited a downward trend between 1997
and 2003, they have remained substantially higher than the AUVs for U.S. imports of PC strand from all
other countries combined. Domestic industry parties attribute the disparity in AUVs of imports from
Japan, as compared to those of total imports from all other sources, to the existence of the present
antidumping finding on PC strand from Japan.*

Apparent U.S. Consumption

From 1966, the first year in which statistics relating to PC strand imports were collected by
Commerce, imports from Japan constituted a major portion of the U.S. PC strand market, accounting for
no less than half of apparent U.S. PC strand consumption in every year between 1968 and 1978.°*
Penetration of Japanese PC strand reached its peak in 1972, when imports from Japan accounted for 68.5
percent of apparent U.S. consumption.**

Data on apparent U.S. consumption of PC strand, and the market shares of imports, are presented
in table I-5. Apparent U.S. consumption of PC strand more than doubled from 291 million pounds in
1977, the last full year prior to the imposition of the antidumping finding against Japan, to 715 million

3" Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan, Investigation No. AA1921-188, USITC Pub. 928,
November 1978, p. A-9.

2 Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Japan, Investigation No. AA1921-188 (Review), USITC Pub.
3156, February 1999, p. I-7.

3 U.S. Producers’ Response, p. 12.

¥ U.S. Producers’ Response, p. 8.

35 Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan, Investigation No. AA1921-188, USITC Pub. 928,
November 1978, p. A-22.

Id.


Table I-1
PC strand: Changes in the U.S. industry, 1978-2003

Number of U.S. PC
strand producers
Year (end of period) Notes

1978 6 * Integrated producers: Armco, Bethlehem, and CF&l.
* Nonintegrated producers: American, FW&C, and Washburn.

1979-1998 4 * Armco, Bethlehem, CF&l, and Washburn exit industry.
+ Insteel and Sumiden enter industry.
* Shinko enters (1979), then exits (1996) the industry.

1999-2000 4 + Insteel acquires the common stock of FW&C (January 2000).
+ Strand Tech enters the industry.

2001-2003 5 * Sivaco enters, then exits (Sept. 2003), the industry.
+ Camesa enters the industry (late 2003).

Source: Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Japan, Investigation No. AA1921-188 (Review), USITC.
Pub. 3156, February 1999; Prestressed Concrete Stee! Wire Strand from Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and
Thailand, Investigations Nos. 701-TA-432 (Final) and 731-TA-1024-1028 (Final), USITC Pub. 3663, January
2004; and U.S. Producers’ Response.

U.S. Production, Capacity, and Shipments”

Data reported by U.S. producers in the Commission’s original investigation, in the Commission’s
previous five-year review, and in the Commission’s related 2003 investigations are presented in table I-2.
In the period of the original investigation, from 1974 to 1977, U.S. PC strand production declined by 23
percent, while capacity utilization fell from 89 percent to 51 percent. Between 1977, just prior to
imposition of the antidumping finding on PC strand from Japan, and 2002, the U.S. PC strand industry’s
production capacity quadrupled, and the industry’s production of PC strand increased nearly sixfold.
U.S. industry capacity utilization increased from 51 percent in 1977, before the imposition of the
antidumping finding on Japanese PC strand, to 71 percent in 2002. In the most recent period for which
data are available, 2000 to 2002, U.S. industry production declined by 15 percent, while capacity
utilization declined from 89 percent to 71 percent. In 1997, the year preceding the Commission’s first
five-year review, capacity utilization stood at 90 percent.

From 2000 to 2002, U.S. shipments of U.S.~produced PC strand experienced a yearly decline of
about 7 percent, and an overall decline in unit value of 8 percent. Between 2000 and 2001, the industry
experienced a decline in operating income from $12.5 million to $2.1 million, and in 2002 experienced
an operating loss of $5.8 million. As a percentage of net sales, operating income declined from 7.6
percent in 2000 to 1.4 percent in 2001, and in 2002 fell to a loss of 4.4 percent. In the period of the
Commission’s original investigation, the industry experienced a similar financial trend: a positive
operating income of $6.1 million in 1974 turned into a loss of $1.7 million by 1977. As a percentage of

26 Trade and financial data for the U.S. industry refer to the production of both covered and uncovered PC strand.
As stated previously, Commerce’s scope in the antidumping finding against Japan presently identifies only HTS
number 7312.10.3012, or uncovered PC strand. In 2002, uncovered PC strand accounted for *** percent of total
U.S. industry production of PC strand, and *** percent of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments. Staff Report of
December 19, 2003, app. C, Table C-1.

1-8


UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation No. AA-1921-188 (Second Review)

PRESTRESSED CONCRETE STEEL WIRE STRAND FROM JAPAN

DETERMINATION

On the basis of the record’ developed in the subject five-year review, the United States
International Trade Commission determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19
U.S.C. § 1675(c)) (the Act), that revocation of the antidumping finding on prestressed concrete steel wire
strand from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry
in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted this review on January 2, 2004 (69 FR 103), and determined on April
6, 2004, that it would conduct an expedited review (69 FR 21160, April 20, 2004).

' The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR §
207.2(f).


GLOSSARY OF TERMS

ASTM .. American Society for Testing and Materials
AUV. Average unit value
COGS .. Cost of goods sold
Commerce U.S. Department of Commerce
Commission . U.S. International Trade Commission
Customs .. U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection
FR. Federal Register
FY .. Fiscal year
HTS . Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
LTFV .. .. Less than fair value
PC strand . +s++e++. Prestressed concrete steel wire strand
PRWs .. Production and related workers
SG&A ... Seen eee eee eee e nee ee Selling, general and administrative expenses
Treasury ....... U.S. Department of the Treasury
TSUSA ... Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated
GLOSSARY OF FIRMS
American Spring Wire Corp.
Aceros Camesa
CF & I Steel Corp.
Florida Wire & Cable Co.
Insteel Insteel Wire Products Co.
Kawatetsu . Kawatetsu Wire Products Company, Ltd.
Kokoku . Kokoku Steel Wire Co., Ltd.
Shinko . Shinko Wire Company, Ltd.
Sivaco.... Sivaco Georgia LLC
Strand Tech ..-. Strand Tech Martin, Inc.
Sumiden 0.0.0... 6 0 cece eee cece eee eee ee Sumiden Wire Products Corp.
Sumitomo . .. Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd.
Suzuki ..... .. Suzuki Metal Company, Ltd.

Tokyo Rope .... Tokyo Rope Manufacturing Company, Ltd.

ii


In the original investigation, the Commission found that subject imports consistently undersold
the domestic product for most of the period examined, resulting in lost sales and price depression.” In
the 1999 review, the Commission found that imports of subject merchandise would likely have
significant negative price effects if the finding were revoked. The record contained little pricing data.
The Commission noted that the commodity nature of the product resulted in competition being largely
price-based, a factor of particular significance insofar as the types of product commonly sold had
narrowed since the original investigation in 1978. The Commission further noted that average unit
values for domestic shipments were declining despite generally high demand levels. Subject producers,
the Commission found, likely would win sales in re-entering the diverse U.S, market of nearly two dozen
sources by discounting from prevailing price levels. The Commission therefore concluded that
significant underselling was likely in the event the finding were revoked, and such pricing practices
would likely have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on domestic prices.”

The significance of price in the U.S. market, the high degree of interchangeability of this
commodity product, and the diversity of sources of supply remain unchanged from the first review. We
have very limited pricing data on PC strand imports from Japan given the small quantities of subject
imports currently in the U.S. market. The average unit value (AUV) data for such imports show that
values rose from a pre-antidumping finding low of $195 per thousand pounds in 1977, to $306 per
thousand pounds in 1979, after the imposition of the finding.®° Since the first review, these AUVs have
experienced a steady decline from $607 in 1997 to $519 in 2003, but have remained consistently higher
than the AUVs of other countries, a factor that the domestic industry attributes to the existence of the
antidumping finding against Japan.*! Given the highly limited shipment volumes from Japan upon which
any recent data are based, and the lack of further information regarding subject import pricing practices,
we do not rely upon such data.*?

Since the first review, we have found that the domestic industry has experienced price
depression, substantial lost sales and lost revenues, and significant adverse price effects attributable to
unfairly traded imports from other countries.*? These 2003-04 trade investigations confirm the intense,
price-based nature of competition in the domestic PC strand market. The sensitivity of this market to
price-based competition shows no signs of abating in the foreseeable future. The competitive conditions
in this market are such that subject imports would likely re-enter at prices below prevailing levels in
order to win sales.

Given the importance of price in the PC strand market, the interchangeability of subject imports
and domestically-produced PC strand, the likely significant volume of imports, the likely significant
underselling by such imports, the pricing practices demonstrated in the original investigation, and the
incentives that currently exist for subject imports to enter the U.S. market, we find a likelihood of
significant negative price effects from the subject imports. We conclude that, if the antidumping finding

7 (...continued)
circumstantial, as well as direct, evidence of the adverse effects of unfairly traded imports on domestic prices.” SAA
at 886.

TM Original Determination, USITC Pub. 928 at 6 (“Japanese strand undersold U.S. strand in every quarter from
October 1975 through June 1978.").

® 1999 Review, USITC Pub. 3156 at 10-11.
® Domestic Producers’ Response at Exh. 2 (Commerce data).
5 CR, PR at Table I-4; Domestic Producers’ Response at 8.

2 We note that domestic AUVs declined steadily from 2000 to 2002, but increased in interim 2003 as compared
to interim 2002. CR, PR at Table I-2.

5 2004 Determinations, USITC Pub. 3663 at 20-24.

13


VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

Based on the record in this five-year review, we determine under section 751(c) of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (the Act), that revocation of the antidumping finding on prestressed concrete steel
wire strand (PC strand) from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material
injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

PC strand is steel strand produced from hot-rolled, high-carbon steel wire rod which, after
cleaning and descaling, is drawn into wire, fabricated into multi-wire strand, and thermally stress-
relieved. PC strand is used to “prestress” concrete structural members to improve their ability to
withstand loads. The PC strand is stretched either prior to the pouring of concrete (pre-tensioning) or
after the pouring of the concrete (post-tensioning) to impart compressive force to the concrete in which it
is placed. Five domestic companies currently make PC strand.

Demand for PC strand is derived from demand for prestressed concrete which, in turn, is derived
from demand for construction projects. Typical applications for prestressed concrete include bridge
decks, bridge girders, pilings, precast concrete panels and structural supports, roof trusses, floor supports,
and certain concrete foundations. Apparent U.S. consumption, a proxy for demand, declined modestly
between 2000 and 2001 and again between 2001 and 2002, then increased in the first half of 2003
relative to the first half of 2002.

I. BACKGROUND

In November 1978, the Commission determined, pursuant to section 201 of the Antidumping Act
of 1921 (the 1921 Act), that an industry in the United States was being injured by reason of dumped or
likely to be dumped imports of PC strand from Japan.' Treasury published its final antidumping finding
on PC strand from Japan on December 8, 1978.” In September 1998, the Commission instituted its first
five-year review of the antidumping finding for PC strand from Japan pursuant to section 751(c) of the
Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act).?

In five-year reviews, the Commission initially determines whether to conduct a full review
(which would include a public hearing, the issuance of questionnaires, and other procedures) or an
expedited review. In order to make this decision, the Commission first determines whether individual
tesponses to the notice of institution are adequate. Next, based on those responses deemed individually
adequate, the Commission determines whether the collective responses submitted by two groups of
interested parties ~ domestic interested parties (such as producers, unions, trade associations, or worker
groups) and respondent interested parties (such as importers, exporters, foreign producers, trade
associations, or subject country governments) — demonstrate a sufficient willingness among each group
to participate and provide information requested in a full review. If the Commission finds the responses

' Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan, Inv. No. AA-1921-188, USITC Pub. 928 (Nov. 1978)
(Original Determination) at 1.

2 43 Fed. Reg. 57599 (Dec. 8, 1978). Since the original antidumping finding, Commerce has conducted several
administrative reviews. Commerce revoked the finding with respect to imports produced by Sumitomo Electric
Industries, Ltd. and exported by Sumitomo Corporation in 1986. 51 Fed. Reg. 30894 (Aug. 29, 1986). In 1990,
Commerce determined that the “discontinuance” applicable to Kawatetsu Wire Products Company, Ltd. in the
original investigation (because of a de minimis margin) also applied to Kawasaki Steel Techno-Wire as a successor
corporation. 55 Fed. Reg. 28796 (July 13, 1990).

3 63 Fed. Reg. 46477 (Sept. 1, 1998).


INTRODUCTION
Background

On January 2, 2004, the Commission gave notice that it had instituted a second five-year
(“sunset”) review to determine whether revocation of the antidumping finding on prestressed concrete
steel wire strand (“PC strand”) from Japan would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of
material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.' On April 6, 2004, the Commission determined that
the domestic interested party response to its notice of institution was adequate;” the Commission also
determined that the respondent interested party response was inadequate. The Commission found no
other circumstances that would warrant conducting a full review. Accordingly, the Commission
determined that it would conduct an expedited review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Tariff Act of
1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3)).? The Commission voted on this review on May 27, 2004, and notified
Commerce of its determination on June 7, 2004. Information relating to the background of the review is
presented below.*

Federal Register
Effective date Action citation

Dec. 8, 1978 Treasury's antidumping finding issued 43 FR 34655
Feb. 3, 1999 Commerce's continuation of antidumping finding after first 64 FR 40554

five-year review (July 27, 1999)
Jan. 2, 2004 Commission’s institution of second five-year review 69 FR 103
Apr. 6, 2004 Commission’s determination to conduct expedited second 69 FR 21160

five-year review (Apr. 20, 2004)
May 7, 2004 Commerce's final results of expedited sunset review 69 FR 25563
May 27, 2004 Commission's expedited review determination NA
June 7, 2004 Commission’s determination to Commerce NA

All interested parties were invited to respond to the notice by submitting information requested by the
Commission.

? The Commission received one submission in response to its notice of institution for the subject review. It was
filed on behalf of American Spring Wire Corp. (“American”), Insteel Wire Products Co. (“Insteel”), and Sumiden
Wire Corp. (“Sumiden”). American, Insteel, and Sumiden are believed to account for approximately *** percent of
U.S. PC strand production in 2003. U.S. Producers’ February 23, 2004 Response to the notice of institution (“U.S.
Producers’ Response”), p. 13.

3 See the Commission’s web site (http://www.usitc.gov) for Commissioner votes on whether to conduct an
expedited or full review.

4 Cited Federal Register notices since Commerce’s first five-year review finding are presented in app. A. The
Commission’s statement on adequacy is presented in app. B.

13



Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand
From Japan

Investigation No. AA1921-188 (Second Review)

‘Publication 3699 June 2004

U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436




coated and bare PC strand should be considered separate domestic like products.'? The Commission
concluded that there was no clear dividing line between plastic-coated PC strand and the continuum of
PC strand products and thus determined that there was one domestic like product corresponding to the
scope.”

In response to the Commission’s notice of institution, the domestic producers argued the
Commission should find one domestic like product co-extensive with the scope, consistent with the
domestic like product findings from the 1999 review and the 2003-04 investigations." No new facts
have been presented on this record to warrant a conclusion different from that reached by the
Commission in the prior review. We therefore find one domestic like product, co-extensive with the
scope: all steel wire strand, other than alloy steel, not galvanized, that is stress-relieved and suitable for
use in prestressed concrete.

B. Domestic Industry

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the relevant domestic industry as the “producers as a whole
of a domestic like product, or those producers whose collective output of a domestic like product
constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product.” In the 1999 review, the
Commission defined the domestic industry as all domestic producers of PC strand. The industry at that
time consisted of four non-integrated producers, American, Insteel, Sumiden, and Florida Wire & Cable
Co. (FW&C).* Sumiden was included in the domestic industry definition, notwithstanding its corporate
relationship with the Japanese producer Sumitomo, because Sumitomo was not subject to the
antidumping finding.*

In the 2003-04 investigations of PC strand, the Commission considered whether the definition of
the domestic industry warranted including firms that merely coat PC strand with plastic, rather than
produce the bare PC strand. The Commission concluded that plastic coating did not constitute sufficient
production-related activity to qualify coaters as members of the domestic industry producing PC strand.”*

Domestic producers concur with our previous domestic industry definitions.”* Consistent with
our domestic like product finding, we define the domestic industry as all producers of PC strand,

' Responding parties from Mexico, the only country with significant exports of plastic-coated PC strand to the
U.S. market, raised the issue. We note that between 1994 and 2003, “covered” PC strand from Japan was imported
in only one year, 2001. CR at J-12 n.30, PR at I-10 n.30.

29 2004 Determinations, USITC Pub. 3663 at 7-9. The written description of the scope in those investigations
was more detailed than the instant scope’s description (e.g., expressly stating that “covered” PC strand and “all
types, grades and diameters” of PC strand are included). The wire used for PC strand was also described there as
“non-stainless,” whereas the instant scope refers to wire “other than alloy steel.”

21 Domestic Producers’ Response at 20-21.

2 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). In defining the domestic industry, the Commission’s general practice has been to
include in the industry producers of all domestic production of the like product, whether toll-produced, captively
consumed, or sold in the domestic merchant market, provided that adequate production-related activity is conducted
in the United States, See United States Steel Group v. United States, 873 F. Supp. 673, 682-83 (Ct. Int’] Trade
1994), aff'd, 96 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

23 Insteel has since acquired FW&C. CR, PR at I-7.
2% 1999 Review, USITC Pub. 3156 at 4.

25 2004 Determinations, USITC Pub. 3663 at 10-12.
26 Domestic Producers’ Response at 20-21.



investigation under this subtitle.”"" The Department of Commerce (Commerce) has defined the imported
product subject to review as shipments of “steel wire strand, other than alloy steel, not galvanized, which
are stress-relieved and suitable for use in prestressed concrete.”"” This scope remains unchanged from
the first five-year review.

The starting point of the Commission’s like product analysis in a five-year review is the
Commission’s like product determination in the original investigation.'* The original investigation of PC
strand from Japan was conducted under the 1921 Act, whose provisions did not require a separate like
product finding.'* In the original investigation, the Commission found that the relevant domestic industry
consisted of facilities in the United States devoted to the production of steel wire strand for prestressed
concrete.'° Thus, as the Commission noted in the 1999 review, while the Commission did not make a
like product finding per se in the original investigation, it essentially treated all PC strand as the domestic
like product.’

In the 1999 review, the domestic producers agreed with the implicit like product finding from the
original investigation. The Commission found, based on the facts available, that the appropriate
domestic like product definition was the same as Commerce’s scope, that is, “all steel wire strand, other
than alloy steel, not galvanized,'” which has been stress-relieved and is suitable for use in prestressed
concrete,”"®

In the Commission’s 2003-04 original investigations of PC strand from Brazil, India, Korea,
Mexico, and Thailand, the Commission similarly defined the domestic like product as all PC strand, co-
extensive with Commerce’s scope in those investigations. The Commission considered whether plastic-

1 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’] 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, 96" Cong., 1* Sess. 90-
91 (1979).

12 69 Fed. Reg. 25563 (May 7, 2004). Commerce noted that the subject merchandise is currently classifiable
under subheading 7312.10.30.12 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), but added that
its written description of the merchandise is dispositive of the scope. Jd.

13 In its like product determinations, the Commission generally considers a number of factors including:

(1) physical characteristics and uses; (2) interchangeability; (3) channels of distribution; (4) common manufacturing
facilities, production processes, and production employees; (5) customer or producer perceptions; and, where
appropriate, (6) price. See Timken, 913 F. Supp. at 584. No single factor is dispositive, and the Commission may
consider other factors it deems relevant based on the facts of a particular investigation. The Commission looks for
clear dividing lines among possible like products, and disregards minor variations. See, ¢.g., S. Rep. No. 249, 96"
Cong., 1" Sess. 90-91 (1979); Torrington, 747 F. Supp. at 748-49.

14 Section 201 of the 1921 Act simply directed the Commission to determine “whether an industry in the United
States is being or is likely to be injured, or is prevented from being established by reason of the importation of . . .
merchandise into the United States” that the Secretary of Treasury had determined is being or is likely to be sold in
the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). 19 U.S.C. § 160(a) (1971).

‘5 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 928 at 4 (Statement of Reasons of Chairman Joseph O. Parker and
Commissioners George M. Moore and Catherine Bedell). See also id. at 7 (Statement of Reasons of Commissioner

Bill Alberger).
'6 1999 Review, USITC Pub. 3156 at 4.

17 Tp its 1987 administrative review, Commerce explained that galvanized steel wire strand was not included in
the scope of the antidumping finding. 52 Fed. Reg. 37997 (Oct. 13, 1987).

18 1999 Review, USITC Pub. 3156 at 4 (footnote added).

5


104

Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 1/Friday, January 2,

2004 / Notices

(5) The Order Date is the date that the
antidumping duty order or finding
under review became effective. In this
review, the Order Date is December 8,
1978.

(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 Review 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 review as
parties must file an entry of appearance
with the Secretary to the Commission,
as provided in section 201.11(b)(4) of
the Commission’s rules, no later than 21
days after 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 review.

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. Former employees may
seek informal advice from Commission
ethics officials concerning their
eligibility to appear in five-year reviews.
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 section 207.7(a) of the
Commission’s rules, the Secretary will
make BPI submitted in this review
available to authorized applicants under
the APO issued in the review, 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
review. A separate service list will be
maintained by the Secretary for those
parties authorized to receive BPI under
the APO.

Certification

Pursuant to section 207.3 of the
Commission’s rules, any person
submitting information to the
Commission in connection with this
review must certify that the information
is accurate and complete to the best of
the submitter’s knowledge. In making
the certification, the submitter will be
deemed to consent, unless otherwise
specified, for the Commission, its
employees, and contract personnel to
use the information provided in any
other reviews or investigations of the
same or comparable products which the
Commission conducts under Title VII of
the Act, or in internal audits and
investigations relating to the programs
and operations of the Commission
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3.

Written Submissions

Pursuant to section 207.61 of the
Commission’s rules, each interested
party response to this notice must
provide the information specified
below. The deadline for filing such
responses is February 23, 2004.
Pursuant to section 207.62(b) of the
Commission’s rules, eligible parties (as
specified in Commission rule
207.62(b)(1)) may also file comments
concerning the adequacy of responses to
the notice of institution and whether the
Commission should conduct an
expedited or full review. The deadline
for filing such comments is March 16,
2004. All written submissions must
conform with the provisions of sections
201.8 and 207.3 of the Commission’s
ules and any submissions that contain
BPI must also conform with the
requirements of sections 201.6 and
207.7 of the Commission’s rules. The
Commission’s rules do not authorize
filing of submissions with the Secretary
by facsimile or electronic means, except
to the extent permitted by section 201.8
of the Commission’s rules, as amended,
67 FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Also,
in accordance with sections 201.16(c)
and 207.3 of the Commission's rules,
each document filed by a party to the
review must be served on all other
parties to the review (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 review you do not
need to serve your response).

Inability to Provide Requested
Information

Pursuant to section 207.61(c) of the
Commission’s rules, any interested
party that cannot furnish the
information requested by this notice in
the requested form and manner shall

notify the Commission at the earliest
possible time, provide a full explanation
of why it cannot provide the requested
information, and indicate alternative
forms in which it can provide
equivalent information. If an interested
party does not provide this notification
(or the Commission finds the
explanation provided in the notification
inadequate) and fails to provide a
complete response to this notice, the
Commission may take an adverse
inference against the party pursuant to
section 776(b) of the Act in making its
determination in the review.

Information to be Provided in Response
to This Notice of Institution

As used below, the term “firm”
includes any related firms.

(1) The name and address of your firm
or entity (including World Wide Web
address if available) and name,
telephone number, fax number, and E-
mail address of the certifying official.

(2) A statement indicating whether
your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of
the Domestic Like Product, a U.S. union
or worker group, a U.S. importer of the
Subject Merchandise, a foreign producer
or exporter of the Subject Merchandise,
a U.S. or foreign trade or business
association, or another interested party
(including an explanation). If you are a
union/worker group or trade/business
association, identify the firms in which
your workers are employed or which are
members of your association.

(3) A statement indicating whether
your firm/entity is willing to participate
in this review by providing information
requested by the Commission.

(4) A statement of the likely effects of
the revocation of the antidumping
finding 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 Merchandiseon the
Domestic Industry.

(5) A list of all known and currently
operating U.S. producers of the
Domestic Like Product. Identify any
known related parties and the nature of
the relationship as defined in section
771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C.
1677(4)(B)).

(6) A list of all known and currently
operating U.S. importers of the Subject
Merchandise and producers of the
Subject Merchandise in the Subject
Country that currently export or have
exported Subject Merchandise to the
United States or other countries after
1997.


net sales, operating margins were positive at 22 percent in 1974, and negative at 7 percent in 1977. In the
years for which data are available, operating income was at its highest level in 1997, at $17.5 million, or
11.2 percent of net sales.

In their response to the Commission’s notice of initiation, U.S. producers of PC strand stated that
the declines in trade and financial conditions experienced by the industry from 2000 to 2002, and the
Commission’s subsequent finding of material injury, demonstrate the weakened state of the U.S. PC
strand industry.” Although certain indicators of trade and financial performance showed improvement in
the first half of 2003, domestic parties maintain that the industry remains vulnerable to material injury
should the antidumping finding on PC strand from Japan be revoked.* Employment data for the U.S.
industry, collected in the Commission’s related 2003 investigations, are presented in table I-3. U.S. PC
strand producers point to the approximately 25-percent reduction in production and related workers,
hours worked, and wages from 2000 to 2002 as further evidence of the industry’s weakened state.”

Table I-3
PC strand: U.S. producers’ employment-related indicators, 2000-02, January-June 2002, and
January-June 2003

Calendar year January-June

Item 2000 2001 2002 2002 2003
Production and related workers (PRWs) 409 353 308 289 290
Hours worked by PRWs (1,000 hours) 926 788 671 330 341
Wages paid to PRWs (7,000 dollars) 13,481 12,109 10,171 4,984 5,324
Hourly wages $14.56] $15.36] $15.15] $15.12} $15.61
Productivity (pounds produced per hour) 684.3 730.9 803.9 750.6 780.8
Unit labor costs (per 1,000 pounds) $21.28 $21.01 $18.85 $20.14 $19.99
Note.--Interim period data do not include data of ***.
Source: Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand, Investigations
Nos. 701-TA-432 (Final) and 731-TA-1024-1028 (Final), USITC Pub. 3663, January 2004, table III-6.

U.S. IMPORTS AND CONSUMPTION”
U.S. Imports

In the mid- to late-1970s, the period examined in the original investigation, PC strand from Japan
was imported into the United States principally by eight large importing companies, although several

21 U.S. Producers’ Response, pp. 3-5.
78 Id.
2 Id.

3° The discussion in this section refers to imports and consumption of uncovered PC strand only. As stated
previously, uncovered PC strand accounted for *** percent of total U.S. PC strand production, and *** percent of
U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments in 2002. Between 1994 and 2003, uncovered PC strand accounted for 99.4 percent
of total U.S. imports of PC strand from Japan, based on official Commerce statistics. In the same period, covered
PC strand from Japan was imported into the United States in only one year, 2001.

1-10


APPENDIX B

STATEMENT ON ADEQUACY

B-1


“ueouad ,,, W0uy Buy6ues ‘syuauidiys yodxe yo seqquenb |Jews epnjou! Eo0z euNf—uer pue ‘ZOO eUN-“uer ‘Z0-000Z ‘Z66} 40} BIEp Seles JON ,
“aiqejeaeun ale J/-7/6| JO} SUUY peyejal 0} SuaysUes/UOdUINSUOD JeUJAyU UO eYeq “AIQUeNb Aq sjueWdiYs “S'/ /2}0} Jo JusoIed
sex 10} Bununoooe ‘suy pa} 0} PUBS Od 0} spunod ,,, paueysueN S@oNPOId "S"N ‘000Z Ul “€0-100Z 40} 10 Z6GL U! PUES Od JO ,,, PaHOdad suaoNpaid *s'N ,

1 8192} “E002 ‘61 Jequiedeq Jo podey ye}s jenuepyuod '1-—> 9192} 'pOOe Alenuer
“EQ9E “ANd OLISN ‘(/eUl4) 8ZOl-PZOL-VL-LEZ pue (feuls) ZEP-VL-LOL ‘SON SuOHeBySenu] ‘pueleys pue ‘ooIxey ‘ealoy ‘eIpUy ‘/[ZB/g WO PUBS aJl/Y [98] a}910U0D
pesseayseld ‘}-| 8198} 666) Auemuqe4 ‘GLE “ANd OLISN ‘(Ma/nex) 881-LZELYV ‘ON UOHeBYSeAU ‘Ueder WO PUBS A1I/ [91S B}2JZUOD PESSEL}SAld .:20IN0S

sz (1'8) (vp) vh gL eb (0-2) (62) véL oz (juaasad) sajes;(sso})
Jo awoou! Buyjeied—
S16 e'v6 86 s'16 68 878 916 9'e6 ZL vel (Queasad) sajes/so09
2g2'b (sz6'y) | (68's) | 990'2 g0s‘Z1 isp'Lt (zzz't) | (249) 88L'y z90'9 (o00‘r$)
(sso}) 10 awoou! BuyesedQ
Lee 8er's Soe'zL | y29'6 6ee'z = zoe's vle'z 2r6'b 806'L £19'L (000‘$) vos
29'S els'e gc6'9 ove'tt | 2pe'pz ffesz'oz ff zes oee'L 969'9 seL'L (000't$) woud ssory
bwe'eo | LLL'8S =| 9Gz'GzL | GOG'EEL | OOS'6el fizce'ezl ff loz'pz | szs‘er | ove'zt | eze'oz (000'1$) sooo
slo'69 | 069'9 | Zb2'ZeL | Gre'syL | Zve'v9l ficoz‘scr ff ere'rz | sos‘oz | geg'pz | ego'sz (000‘t$) 2812s ON
sves sees eves vS7s y9z$ V/N VIN VIN VIN VIN (spunod
000‘) 40d) anjea yun
960'69 196'L9 BL/'9%} | 6S6'ZrL | vee’est fIV/N VIN VIN VIN VIN (000'r$) ener
yoo'ese | eve'esz | eze'lzs | pze'Los | sce‘coo ffoor'rsy Ff zez'os | zar'og | oss'zz | szo'zit (spunod 900‘L) Ajuend
,Sjuawidiys “sf
OL 9'99 LOL LOL 988 06 60g ce L6G o'ee (queased) uoyeziIyn Ajoedeg
€60'9/2 | Sez'esz | Log'6es | O1Z'9zG | Gos‘eeg ffoog'zer f ozo'ze | zit‘ez | sir'zz | ole'att (spunod 900‘) uoyonpolg
ogo'sze | 2pz'ose | ZéS’e92 | Szp‘zez | Gz9'pL2 Fsiz'ces ff oos'og: | oo9'ez1 | ooo'ez: | oog'eer (spunod 900‘) Ayoedeo
£002 z00z z00z 100z o00z 2661 L164 9261 SL6L vL6L won
eunr-"uer sueek sepuayeg

£002 eunr-"uer pue ‘2007 eunf-"uer ‘20-0007 ‘LE6L ‘ZZ-PZEL ‘evep jejoueUly pue eped ,sioonpold -g'7) :pueAS Od

a1 aqey




CONCLUSION

For the above-stated reasons, we determine that revocation of the antidumping finding on PC
strand from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry
in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.


and significant excess capacity.** The domestic industry further alleges that diminished home market
demand in Japan provides Japanese producers with an incentive to increasingly look abroad for markets
for PC strand. The U.S. industry points to evidence of reduced spending by the Japanese government on
construction projects, the suspension and/or reduction in size of government-funded infrastructure
projects, and statistics indicating declines in building construction and construction investment, as
confirmation that the demand for PC strand in Japan has declined in recent years. Research evidence
provided by the U.S. industry projects that the decline in overall construction investment in Japan will
continue into 2004.“

The domestic industry has also highlighted the potential effects of the Commission’s
determination of material injury in the related 2003 investigations of PC strand imports from Brazil,
India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand on the U.S. market for PC strand should the antidumping finding on
Japan be revoked. Imports from the five countries subject to the 2003 investigations accounted for 22
percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2002.*° The domestic industry contends that a reduction in the
level of imports from these countries as a result of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders
instituted against them will encourage Japanese producers to divert shipments of PC strand to the U.S.
market in the event that the antidumping finding against imports of PC strand from Japan is revoked.” A
representation of the volume effect of the 2003 duty orders on imports of PC strand from Brazil, India,
Korea, Mexico, and Thailand is presented in figure I-2.

* U.S. Producers’ Response, p. 17.
“ Td., exh. 11.

45 Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand, Investigations Nos.
701-TA-432 (Final) and 731-TA-1024-1028 (Final), USITC Pub. 3663, January 2004, table C-1.

46 U.S. Producers’ Response, p. 20.

1-17


Figure 1-2
PC strand: U.S. imports from Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand, by months, January

2003-February 2004'

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

4,000 pounds

10,000

5,000

Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apr-03 May-03 Jun-03 Jul-03  Aug-03 Sep-03 Oct-03 Nov-03 Dec-03 Jan-04 Feb-04
Month

~~ —Subject imports = ---- Non-subject imports ——— All imports

‘ “Subject imports’ reflect entries of PC strand imported under HTS statistical reporting number
7312.10.3012 from Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand, and imports of PC strand from Thailand
improperly classified under HTS subheading 7312.10.20.

Source: Calculated from official Commerce statistics.

1-18


subheading 7312.10.30'* and enters free of duty under the column 1-general rate. The U.S. industry
agrees with the definitions of domestic like product and domestic industry made by the Commission in its
original investigation and previous five-year review, which are coextensive with Commerce’s scope.'”

Description and Uses'®

PC strand is made from hot-rolled, high-carbon steel wire rod. After cleaning and descaling,
steel wire rod is drawn into wire, fabricated into multi-wire strand, and thermally stress-relieved. The
most common PC strand configuration consists of six wires wound helically around a single wire core.
Nominal diameters of PC strand typically range from 0.25 to 0.70 inch. PC strand is used in the
construction of prestressed concrete structural members. It is used to introduce desirable compressive
forces into a concrete member, either through pre- or post-tensioning, to offset, or neutralize, forces that
occur when the prestressed concrete member is subject to load. Typical applications for prestressed
concrete include bridge decks, bridge girders, pilings, precast concrete panels and structural supports,
roof trusses, floor supports, and certain concrete foundations.

PC strand used in the United States conforms to applicable ASTM specifications based on the
physical size, physical configuration, and grade (minimum ultimate strength) of the strand. When
produced in accordance with ASTM specifications, PC strand is interchangeable, whether produced by a
domestic or foreign company.’* U.S. purchasers of foreign-produced PC strand may, however, face
restrictions at the federal, state, or local government, or private sector level, as a result of “Buy America”
programs that limit or favor purchases of PC strand to material of U.S. origin, either as a matter of formal
policy or informal practice. In the Commission’s 2003 related investigations, purchasers accounting for
29.5 percent of apparent U.S. consumption of PC strand in 2002 indicated that “Buy America(n)”
purchases represented 23.7 percent of their total purchases in 2002.”

Demand for PC strand is derived from the demand for construction, particularly infrastructure
projects, commercial and institutional construction, large housing projects, and, to a lesser degree, single-
family housing.

16 PC strand is imported under HTS statistical reporting numbers 7312.10.3010 and 7312.10.3012. Reporting
number 7312.10.3010 applies to PC strand “covered with textile or other non-metallic material,” while reporting
number 7312.10.3012 applies to “other” PC strand.

7 U.S. Producers’ Response, p. 21.

'8 The discussion in this section is taken from the public record in the Commission’s 2003 related investigations.
Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand, Investigations Nos. 701-
TA-432 (Final) and 731-TA-1024-1028 (Final), USITC Pub. 3663, January 2004, pp. I-7 and I-8.

19 Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand, Investigations Nos.
701-TA-432 (Final) and 731-TA-1024-1028 (Final), USITC Pub. 3663, January 2004, p. I-8.

20 Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand, Investigations Nos.
701-TA-432 (Final) and 731-TA-1024-1028 (Final), USITC Pub. 3663, January 2004, p. II-6.

16




Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 89/Friday, May 7,

2004 / Notices

25563

Dated: April 30, 2004.
James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 04-10484 Filed 56-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-588-068]

Prestressed Concrete Wire Strand
From Japan; Final Results of
Expedited Sunset Review of
Antidumping Finding

AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of
expedited sunset review of antidumping
finding on prestressed concrete wire
strand from Japan.

SUMMARY: On January 2, 2004, the
Department of Commerce (“the
Department") published the notice of
initiation of sunset review on
Prestressed Concrete Wire Strand from
Japan. On the basis of the notice of
intent to participate, and the adequate
substantive comments filed on behalf of
a domestic interested party and
inadequate response (in this case, no
response) from respondent interested
party, we determined to conduct an
expedited 120-day, sunset review. As a
result of this review, we find that
revocation of the antidumping duty
finding would be likely to lead to
continuation or recurrence of dumping
at the levels listed below in the section
entitled “Final Results of Review.”
DATES: Effective Date: May 7, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Alessandra Cortez or Ozlem Koray,
Office of Policy for Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20230;
telephone: (202) 482-5925 or (202) 482-
3675.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On January 2, 2004, the Department
published the notice of initiation of a
sunset review of the antidumping
finding on Prestressed Concrete Wire
Strand from Japan pursuant to section
751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the “Act”).! On January 16,

1 Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews, 69 FR
50 (January 2, 2004) ("‘Initiation Notice”). Although
the initiation notice states that the sunset review is

2004, the Department received the
Notice of Intent to Participate on behalf
of American Spring Wire Corporation,
Insteel Wire Products Company and
Sumiden Wire Products Corporation
(collectively, ‘‘the domestic interested
parties”), within the deadline specified
in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the
Department's regulations. The domestic
interested parties claimed interested
party status under section 771(9)(C) of
the Act, as U.S. producers of a domestic
like product. We received a complete
substantive response in the sunset
review from the domestic interested
parties within the 30-day deadline
specified in the Department's
regulations under section

351.218(d) (3) (i).

We did not receive a substantive
response from any respondent
interested party to this proceeding. As a
result, pursuant to section 751 (c)(3)(B)
of the Act and section
351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C) of the Department's
regulations, the Department conducted
an expedited, 120-day review of this
finding.

Scope of Review

The products covered in this sunset
review are shipments of steel wire
strand, other than alloy steel, not
galvanized, which are stress-relieved
and suitable for use in prestressed
concrete, Such merchandise is currently
classifiable under Harmonized Tariff
Schedule (HTS) item number
7312.10.30.12. The HTS item number is
provided for convenience and Customs
purposes. The written description
remains dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in this case by the
domestic interested parties are
addressed in the “Issues and Decision
Memorandum” (‘Decision Memo")
from Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting
Director, Office of Policy, Import
Administration, to James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, dated May 3, 2004,
which is hereby adopted by this notice.
The issues discussed in the Decision
Memo include the likelihood of
continuation or recurrence of dumping
and the magnitude of the margin likely
to prevail if the finding was to be
revoked. Parties can find a complete
discussion of all issues raised in this
review and the corresponding
recommendations in this public

“of antidumping duty orders,” the Department
hereby corrects the inadvertent misstatement to
reference the original “finding” on steel wire strand
from Japan, as originally stated in the Treasury
Decision. See Treasury Decision 78- 478 (Finding of
Dumping), 43 FR 57599 (December 8, 1978).

memorandum, which is on file in room
B-099, Central Records Unit of the
Department.

In addition, a complete version of the
Decision Memo can be accessed directly
on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn,
under the heading “May 2004." The
paper copy and electronic version of the
Decision Memorandum @re identical in
content.

Final Results of Review

We determine that revocation of the
antidumping finding on Prestressed
Concrete Wire Strand from Japan would
be likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of dumping at the following
percentage weighted-average margins:

Weighted-
average
Japan manufacturersiexporters | vere
percent
Shinko Wire Co., Ltd .... 13.3.
Suzuki Metal industry Co., Ltd 6.9.
Tokyo Rope Manufacturing Co., | 4.5.
Ltd.
Sumitomo ... Revoked.
Kawasaki Steel Techno-Wire ..... | Revoked.
All Others ... 9.76.

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 the
results and notice in accordance with
sections 751 (c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the
Act.

Dated: May 3, 2004.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration,

[FR Doc. 04-10485 Filed 5-6-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-Ds-P


Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 1/Friday, January 2,

2004 / Notices 105

(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 2003 (report quantity data
in pounds and value data in U.S.
dollars, f.0.b. plant). If you are a union/
worker group or trade/business
association, provide the information, on
an aggregate basis, for the firms in
which your workers are employed/
which are members of your association.

(a) Production (quantity) and, if
known, an estimate of the percentage of
total U.S. production of the Domestic
Like Product accounted for by your
firm’s(s’) production;

{b) The quantity and value of U.S.
commercial shipments of the Domestic
Like Product produced in your U.S.
plant(s); and

(c) The quantity and value of U.S.
internal consumption/company
transfers of the Domestic Like Product
produced in your U.S. plant(s).

(8) If you are a U.S. importer or a
trade/business association of U.S.
importers of the Subject Merchandise
from the Subject Country, provide the
following information on your firm’s(s’)
operations on that product during
calendar year 2003 (report quantity data
in pounds and value data in U.S.
dollars). If you are a trade/business
association, provide the information, on
an aggregate basis, for the firms which
are members of your association.

(a) The quantity and value (landed,
duty-paid but not including
antidumping or countervailing duties)
of U.S, imports and, if known, an
estimate of the percentage of total U.S.
imports of Subject Merchandise from
the Subject Country accounted for by
your firm’s(s’) imports;

(b) The quantity and value (f.0.b. U.S.
port, including antidumping and/or
countervailing duties) of U.S.
commercial shipments of Subject
Merchandise imported from the Subject
Country: and

(c) The quantity and value (f.0.b. U.S.
port, including antidumping and/or
countervailing duties) of U.S. internal
consumption/company transfers of
Subject Merchandise imported from the
Subject Country.

(9) If you are a producer, an exporter,
or a trade/business association of
producers or exporters of the Subject
Merchandise in the Subject Country,
provide the following information on
your firm’s(s’) operations on that
product during calendar year 2003
(report quantity data in pounds and
value data in U.S. dollars, landed and
duty-paid at the U.S, port but not
including antidumping or
countervailing duties). If you are a

trade/business association, provide the
information, on an aggregate basis, for
the firms which are members of your
association.

(a) Production (quantity) and, if
known, an estimate of the percentage of
total production of Subject Merchandise
in the Subject Country accounted for by
your firm’s(s’) production; and

(b) The quantity and value of your
firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of
Subject Merchandise and, if known, an
estimate of the percentage of total
exports to the United States of Subject
Merchandise from the Subject Country
accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports.

(10) Identify significant changes, if
any, in the supply and demand
conditions or business cycle for the
Domestic Like Product that have
occurred in the United States or in the
market for the Subject Merchandise in
the Subject Country after 1997, and
significant changes, if any, that are
likely to occur within a reasonably
foreseeable time. Supply conditions to
consider include technology;
production methods; development
efforts; ability to increase production
(including the shift of production
facilities used for other products and the
use, cost, or availability of major inputs
into production); and factors related to
the ability to shift supply among
different national markets (including
barriers to importation in foreign
markets or changes in market demand
abroad). Demand conditions to consider
include end uses and applications; the
existence and availability of substitute
products; and the level of competition
among the Domestic Like Product
produced in the United States, Subject
Merchandise produced in the Subject
Country, and such merchandise from
other countries.

(11) (Optional) A statement of
whether you agree with the above
definitions of the Domestic Like Product
and Domestic Industry; if you disagree
with either or both of these definitions,
please explain why and provide
alternative definitions.

Authority: This review is being conducted
under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act
of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to
section 207.61 of the Commission’s rules.

Issued: December 22, 2003.
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary.
IFR Doc. 03-32299 Filed 12-31-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION

[USITC SE-03-045]
Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY: International Trade
Commission.

TIME AND DATES: January 9, 2004 at 11
am.

PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, Telephone:
(202) 205-2000.

STATUS: Open to the public.

Matters To Be Considered

1, Agenda for future meetings: none.

2. Minutes.

3. Ratification List.

4, Inv. No. 731-TA-1058.
(Preliminary) (Wooden Bedroom
Furniture from China)—briefing and
vote. (The Commission is currently
scheduled to transmit its determination
to the Secretary of Commerce on or
before January 12, 2004; Commissioners’
opinions are currently scheduled to be
transmitted to the Secretary of
Commerce on or before January 20,
2004.)

5. Outstanding action jackets: none.

In accordance with Commission
policy, subject matter listed above, not
disposed of at the scheduled meeting,
may be carried over to the agenda of the
following meeting.

By order of the Commission:

Issued: December 29, 2003.

Marilyn R. Abbott,

Secretary to the Commission.

[FR Doc. 03-32316 Filed 12-30-03; 10:29
am]

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION

[USITC SE-03-044]
Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY: International Trade
Commission.

‘TIME AND DATES: January 8, 2004 at 11
am.

PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, Telephone:
(202) 205-2000.

STATUS: Open to the public.

Matters To Be Considered

1. Agenda for future meetings: none

2. Minutes

3. Ratification List

4. Inv. Nos. 701-TA~432 and 731—
TA-1024—1028 (Final) (Prestressed
Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Brazil,


conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.” The following conditions of
competition in the PC strand industry are relevant to our determination.

Demand for PC strand is derived from demand for construction, particularly infrastructure
projects, commercial and institutional construction, large housing projects and, to a lesser degree, single-
family housing.*' Apparent U.S. consumption of PC strand more than doubled from 291 million pounds
in 1977, the last full year prior to the imposition of the antidumping finding against Japan, to 588 million
pounds in 1997, the last full year for which the Commission had data in the 1999 review.” Apparent
U.S. consumption increased an additional 22 percent between 1997 and 2002,” and showed a 7.5 percent
increase in the first half of 2003 relative to the first half of 2002.“ Demand for PC strand since the first
review has thus been strong overall, and most recently shows signs of increasing strength following
modest, relative declines in 2001 and 2002.*

The U.S. market is currently supplied, virtually entirely, by domestic production and nonsubject
imports. Since the first review, the domestic industry has remained the largest source of supply, although
it has experienced a decline from 77.3 percent of the market in 1997 to 72.8 percent in 2002.4” The
domestic industry has capacity levels approximately equal to apparent U.S. consumption.* Subject
imports accounted for 0.1 percent of apparent U.S. consumption at the time of the first review, a level
that has remained constant.” In contrast, before the antidumping finding was imposed, subject imports
accounted for more than 60 percent of domestic consumption and approximately 90 percent of all
imports of PC strand.

Nonsubject imports, on the other hand, have steadily increased their presence in the U.S. market
since the imposition of the finding, reflecting new and diversified sources of supply. Between 1977 and
1997, nonsubject import volume grew more than five-fold, in the process gaining more than 14
percentage points in share of domestic consumption.*! Nonsubject imports have continued to increase
their presence since the first review, growing 45.7 percent in volume and 4.5 percentage points in share
of domestic consumption through 2002.” PC strand is imported into the United States from no fewer

© 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

4. CR at 1-7, PR at 1-6.

2 CR, PRat Table 1-5.

* Apparent U.S. consumption in 2002 was 715.8 million pounds. CR, PR at Table I-5.

“4 CR, PR at Table I-5 (360.3 million pounds in interim 2002 as compared to 387.2 million pounds in interim
2003).

‘5 Apparent U.S. consumption was 743.2 million pounds and 715.8 million pounds in 2001 and 2002,
respectively. CR, PR at Table I-5.

4 The parties in the 2003-04 investigations disagreed as to the existence and significance of market distinctions
in the domestic PC strand market, with petitioners arguing that there is a single unified market and respondents
contending that the market is strictly segmented between pre- and post-tensioned applications. The Commission
found insufficient evidence of strict segmentation in the market. 2004 Determinations, USITC Pub. 3663 at 16-17.

47 CR, PR at Table I-5.
48 CR, PR at Tables I-2 and 1-5.
* CR, PRat Table I-5.
%° CR, PR at Tables J-4 and I-5.

5! Nonsubject imports accounted for 8.0 percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 1977 and 22.6 percent in 1997,
with volumes growing from 23.3 million pounds in 1977 to 133.1 million pounds in 1997. CR, PR at Table I-5.

2 CR, PR at Table I-5 (volume increased to 194 million pounds and share increased to 27.1 percent).

9


than four million pounds per year in the late 1980s and to levels of less than two million pounds per year
in the 1990s."

In the 1999 review, the Commission found that subject import volume was likely to increase to
significant levels if the antidumping finding were revoked. The Commission noted that Japanese
capacity far exceeded home market demand, in part due to the severe economic recession that Japan and
other Asian countries were experiencing. Given attractive demand conditions in the United States, the
Commission explained that PC strand from Japan that might otherwise be consumed in Japan or shipped
to other Asian countries would be diverted here if the finding were revoked. The Commission found
that although it was unlikely that subject imports would regain the 60 percent market share they once
held within a reasonably foreseeable time, given their historical emphasis on the U.S. market and the
relative conditions in the U.S. and world markets, subject imports would increase to a significant level.
Thus, while U.S. market share for subject imports was less than one percent, subject producers would
likely regain significant share absent the finding’s restraining effect.”

Japanese producers subject to the antidumping finding continue to retain substantial excess
capacity to manufacture PC strand. According to current estimates, annual production capacity is ***
pounds. Given production of approximately *** pounds annually, subject producers are operating at a
capacity utilization rate of only *** percent. The excess capacity of these producers, approximately
*** pounds or *** percent of the U.S. industry’s production, could supply *** percent of the U.S.
market, based on the most recent data. The exportation to the U.S. market of even a limited amount of
this excess capacity would result in significant volume increases, in absolute terms and relative to
production or consumption, in the United States.

Moreover, current market conditions create incentives for subject producers to target the U.S.
market for exportation absent the restraining effects of the antidumping finding. Demand conditions in
the U.S. market contrast sharply with those prevailing in Japan. Due to a generally burgeoning domestic
construction industry, demand for PC strand has increased overall since the last review and shows signs
of further growth based on the most recent data. Demand for PC strand in the Japanese home market, in
contrast, is sluggish. The Japanese government has reduced spending on certain infrastructure projects
and has suspended work on other construction projects.©” Available data regarding market conditions in
Japan confirm declines in construction investment across the public and private sectors in fiscal year
(FY) 2003, with further overall declines forecast for FY 2004. Indeed, projected construction
investment in Japan for FY 2004 reflects a six-year low for the period of 1999 to 2004.°

6! 1999 Review, USITC Pub, 3156 at 9.
@ 1999 Review, USITC Pub. 3156 at 8-9.
® 1999 Review, USITC Pub. 3156 at 9.

CR, PR at Table I-6, Domestic Producers’ Response at Exh. 5 (Decl. of ***). We note that the only
information on the record concerning current Japanese capacity and production is estimates provided by ***.

CR, PR at Tables 1-2, I-5 (annualized 2003 data), and I-6. Based on the most recent full year data for
apparent U.S. consumption (2002), the excess capacity of subject producers could supply *** percent of the U.S.
market. CR, PR at Tables I-5 and I-6.

© CR, PRat Table I-5.
®7 CR at I-19, PR at I-17; Domestic Producers’ Response at Exh. 5.

® CR at I-19, PR at I-17; Domestic Producers’ Response at Exhs. 10 (Japanese Quarterly Outlook of
Construction and Macro Economy (Jan. 2004)) and 11 (excerpts of Construction Economy Report No. 41 (Aug.
2003), prepared by Japan’s Research Institute of Construction and Economy).

© Domestic Producers’ Response at Exh. 11.

11


U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436
www.usite.gov

Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand
From Japan

Investigation No. AA1921-188 (Second Review)

Publication 3699 June 2004


Table 1-6
PC strand: Japanese producers’ trade data, 1974-1977, 1998, and 2003

Calendar years
Item
1974 1975 1976 1977 2003
Capacity (1,000 pounds) 449,298 | 487,217 487,217 | 533,513 weed
Production (1,000 pounds)* 400,384 | 216,373 | 211,199 | 282,037 “
Capacity utilization
(percent) 89.1 44.4 43.3 52.5 seed
Export shipments (1,000
pounds) N/A N/A | 212,832 | 253,485 NIA
Shipments to the U.S.
(1,000 pounds)* 295,304 | 166,750 | 143,023 | 195,414 766
Exports/production
(percent) N/A NIA 100.8 89.9 N/A
U.S. shipments/Export
shipments (percent) NIA N/A 67.2 77.1 NIA
U.S. shipments/production
(percent) 73.8 77.1 67.7 69.3 ial

‘ Capacity and utilization data for 1998 are based on estimates provided by *** in the Commission’s 1998
review. Staff Report of Dec. 31, 1998, table I-4, fn. 2.

? Capacity and utilization data for 2003 are based on estimates provided by *** in response to the
Commission’s notice of institution in the present review. Based on information available to it, *** estimates
Japanese production capacity to stand at roughly ***, and estimates that Japanese producers are currently
operating at a capacity utilization rate of *** percent. ***. U.S. Producers’ Response, exh. 5 and p. 11.

? Production data for 1998 and 2003 are calculated from *** capacity and utilization estimates.

‘4 Shipments to the United States for 1974, 1975, 1998, and 2003 are based on official Commerce import
statistics. Data for 1976 and 1977 are based on information collected in the Commission’s original investigation.

Source: Stee! Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan, Investigation No. AA1921-188, USITC Pub.
928, November 1978, p. A-9; Staff Report of December 31, 1998, p. I-13; and U.S. Producers’ Response, exh. 5.

strand production in that year.” Capacity utilization of the Japanese industry in 1977 stood at 52.5
percent, a decline from its 1974 peak of 89.1 percent. Estimates provided by the U.S. industry in the
present review suggest that the production capacity of the PC strand industry in Japan has approximately
*** since the time of the original investigation. Since the imposition of the antidumping finding against
Japan, exports of PC strand to the United States have declined remarkably, representing *** percent of
total estimated Japanese PC strand production in 2003.

In its response to the Commission’s notice of institution in the present review, the domestic
industry suggested that the PC strand industry in Japan continues to have substantial production capacity,

” Treasury estimated that the five Japanese companies for which data were collected in the original investigation
accounted for 92 percent of PC strand sold for export to the United States. Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed
Concrete from Japan, Investigation No. AA1921-188, USITC Pub. 928, November 1978, p. A-5.

1-16


The Original Investigation and First Five-Year Review

The Commission completed its original investigation in November 1978, determining that an
industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of imports of PC strand from Japan which
the Secretary of Treasury determined were being sold, or likely to be sold, at less than fair value.’ The
Commission identified PC strand in the original investigation as “all steel wire strand, other than alloy
steel, which has been stress-relieved and is suitable for use in prestressing concrete,” and found the
relevant domestic industry to consist of “facilities in the United States devoted to the production” of PC
strand.®

In January 1999, the Commission completed an expedited five-year review of the antidumping
finding on PC strand from Japan, and determined that revocation of the finding would be likely to lead to
a continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably
foreseeable time.’

Related Investigations

In January 2003, the Commission instituted antidumping and countervailing duty investigations
on imports of PC strand from Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand, following receipt of petitions
filed with the Commission and Commerce by American, Insteel, and Sumiden.*’ In January 2004, the
Commission determined that an industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of imports
of PC strand from India that had been found by Commerce to be subsidized by the government of India,
and by reason of imports of PC strand from Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand that had been
found by Commerce to be sold in the United States at less than fair value.'® After receipt of the
Commission’s determination, Commerce issued antidumping duty orders on imports of PC strand from
each of the five subject countries, and a countervailing duty order on imports of PC strand from India."!

5 The investigation resulted from a complaint filed with Treasury on behalf of five U.S. PC strand producers:
American, Bedford Heights, OH; Armco Steel Corp., Kansas City, MO; Bethlehem Steel Corp., Sparrows Point,
MD; CF & I Steel Corp., Pueblo, CO.; and Florida Wire & Cable Co., Jacksonville, FL. Steel Wire Strand for
Prestressed Concrete from Japan, Investigation No. AA1921-188, USITC Pub. 928, November 1978, p. A-3.

© Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan, Investigation No. AA1921-188, USITC Pub. 928,
November 1978, pp. 3 and 4.

7 Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Japan, Investigation No. AA1921-188 (Review), USITC Pub.
3156, February 1999. Commissioner Askey determined that revocation of the antidumping finding in this case
would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States. See
her dissenting views, Id., p. 15.

® 68 FR 6511 (February 7, 2003).

° The scope in the 2003 PC strand investigations encompassed both covered and uncovered PC strand, as
reported in HTS statistical reporting numbers 7312.10.3010 (covered) and 7312.10.3012 (other). The scope of the
antidumping finding against PC strand from Japan, as identified by Commerce, includes only HTS number
7312.10.3012.

1 69 FR 4177 (January 28, 2004).

"69 FR 4112 (Brazil), 4110 (India), 4109 (Korea), 4112 (Mexico), and 4111 (Thailand) (January 28, 2004); and
69 FR 5319 (India) (February 4, 2004). The antidumping orders on PC strand from Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico,
and Thailand required the posting of a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average antidumping duty
margins, which ranged from 12.99 to 118.75 percent. The countervailing duty order on imports of PC strand from
India required the posting of a cash deposit equal to the estimated countervailing duty rate of 62.92 percent for all
subject imports from India.

1-4


U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS

Stephen Koplan, Chairman
Deanna Tanner Okun, Vice Chairman
Marcia E. Miller
Jennifer A. Hillman
Charlotte R. Lane
Daniel R. Pearson

Robert A. Rogowsky
Director of Operations

Staff assigned:

Jai Motwane, Investigator
Mark Rees, Attorney

Diane Mazur, Supervisory Investigator

Address all communications to
Secretary to the Commission
United States International Trade Commission
Washington, DC 20436




Figure !-1
PC strand: U.S. imports from Japan, by quantity, 1975-2003

180,000

160,000 \

sews] WO
\

120,000, |
100,000 |
80,000 |

4,000 pounds

60,000
40,000
20,000 \
0
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Year
— Import volume

Source: Import volumes for 1975-1990 are compiled from data provided by the U.S. industry in response to
the Commission’s notice of institution in the present review. U.S. Producers’ Response, Exhibit 2. Data for
1991-2003 are based on official Commerce statistics. Subject PC strand entered the United States under
TSUSA number 642.1020 from 1975-1976, TSUSA number 642.1120 from 1977-1988, HTS statistical
reporting number 7312.10.3015 from 1989-1990, and HTS statistical reporting number 7312.10.3012 from
1991-present.

1-12


Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 1/Friday, January 2, 2004/Notices

103

{a) Production (quantity) and, if
known, an estimate of the percentage of
total production of Subject Merchandise
in the Subject Country accounted for by
your firm’s(s’) production; and

(b) the quantity and value of your
firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of
Subject Merchandise and, if known, an
estimate of the percentage of total
exports to the United States of Subject
Merchandise from the Subject Country
accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports.

(10) Identify significant changes, if
any, in the supply and demand
conditions or business cycle for the
Domestic Like Product that have
occurred in the United States or in the
market for the Subject Merchandise in
the Subject Country after 1997, and
significant changes, if any, that are
likely to occur within a reasonably
foreseeable time. Supply conditions to
consider include technology;
production methods; development
efforts; ability to increase production
(including the shift of production
facilities used for other products and the
use, cost, or availability of major inputs
into production); and factors related to
the ability to shift supply among
different national markets (including
barriers to importation in foreign
markets or changes in market demand
abroad). Demand conditions to consider
include end uses and applications; the
existence and availability of substitute
products; and the level of competition
among the Domestic Like Product
produced in the United States, Subject
Merchandise produced in the Subject
Country, and such merchandise from
other countries.

(11) (Optional) A statement of
whether you agree with the above
definitions of the Domestic Like Product
and Domestic Industry; if you disagree
with either or both of these definitions,
please explain why and provide
alternative definitions.

Authority: This review is being conducted
under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act
of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to
section 207.61 of the Commission's rules.

Issued: December 22, 2003.
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R, Abbott,

Secretary.
[FR Doc. 03-32298 Filed 12-31-03; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION

[Investigation No. AA1921—188 (Review)]

Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire
Strand From Japan

AGENCY: International Trade
Commission.

ACTION: Institution of a five-year review
concerning the antidumping finding on
prestressed concrete steel wire strand
from Japan.

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives
notice that it has instituted a review
pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff
Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act)
to determine whether revocation of the
antidumping finding on prestressed
concrete steel wire strand from Japan
would be likely to lead to continuation
or recurrence of material injury.
Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act,
interested parties are requested to
respond to this notice by submitting the
information specified below to the
Commission;? to be assured of
consideration, the deadline for
responses is February 23, 2004.
Comments on the adequacy of responses
may be filed with the Commission by
March 16, 2004. For further information
concerning the conduct of this review
and rules of general application, consult
the Commission’s rules of practice and
procedure, part 201, subparts A through
E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207,
subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part
207).

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 2, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mary Messer (202-205-3193), 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

+ No response to this request for information is
required if a currently valid Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the
OMB number is 3117-0016/USITC No. 04-5-079,
expiration date June 30, 2005. Public reporting
burden for the request is estimated to average 7
‘hours per response, Please send comments

ing the accuracy of this burden estimate to
the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC
20436.

this review may be viewed on the
Commission's electronic docket (EDIS)
at http://edis.usitc.gov.
‘SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On December 8, 1978, the Department
of the Treasury issued an antidumping
finding on imports of prestressed
concrete steel wire strand from Japan
(43 FR 57599). Following five-year
reviews by Commerce and the
Commission, effective February 3, 1999,
Commerce issued a continuation of the
antidumping duty order on imports of
prestressed concrete steel wire strand
from Japan (64 FR 40554, July 27, 1999).
The Commission is now conducting a
second review to determine whether
revocation of the order 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 a full review or an expedited
review. The Commission’s
determination in any expedited review
will be based on the facts available,
which may include information
provided in response to this notice.
Definitions

The following definitions apply to
this review:

(1) Subject Merchandise is the class or
kind of merchandise that is within the
scope of the five-year review, as defined
by the Department of Commerce.

(2) The Subject Country in this review
is Japan.

(3) The Domestic Like Product is the
domestically produced product or
products which are like, or in the
absence of like, most similar in
characteristics and uses with, the
Subject Merchandise. In its expedited
five-year review, the Commission found
that the appropriate definition of the
Domestic Like Product was the same as
Commerce’s scope: all steel wire strand,
other than alloy steel, not galvanized,
which has been stress-relieved and is
suitable for use in prestressed concrete.
The Commission did not make a like
production determination per se in its
original determination.

(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 determination
and its expedited five-year review, the
Commission defined the Domestic
Industry as producers of prestressed
concrete steel wire strand.


THE INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES
US. Producers

In 1978, there were six firms producing PC strand in the United States:”' integrated producers
Armco Steel Corp., Kansas City, MO; Bethlehem Steel Corp., Sparrows Point, MD; and CF & I Steel
Corp., Pueblo, CO (“CF&I”); and nonintegrated producers American Spring Wire Corp., Bedford
Heights, OH (“American”); Florida Wire & Cable Co., Jacksonville, FL (“FW&C”); and Washburn Wire
Products Co.,”” New York, NY. In the previous five-year review, the Commission found the industry to
consist of four nonintegrated producers: American, FW&C, Insteel, and Sumiden.”

Between 1998, when the Commission conducted its first review, and 2002, Insteel acquired
FW&C, and two new producers, Strand Tech Martin, Inc., Summerville, SC (“Strand Tech”), and Sivaco
Georgia LLC, Newman, GA (“Sivaco”), began producing PC strand in the United States. Sivaco,
however, shut down its operations in 2003. Late in 2003, Mexican producer Aceros Camesa (“‘Camesa”)
began producing PC strand in a facility in Rosenberg, TX.% The PC strand industry in the United States
is thus believed to currently consist of five producers: American, Camesa, Insteel, Strand Tech, and
Sumiden. The three domestic producers who submitted a response to the Commission’s notice of
institution, American, Insteel, and Sumiden, accounted for approximately *** percent of estimated U.S.
production of PC strand in 2003.> A summary of changes in the U.S. industry since the Commission’s
original investigation is presented in table I-1.

21 Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan, Investigation No. AA1921-188, USITC Pub. 928,
November 1978, p. A-8.

22 Washburn Wire Products Co. began producing PC strand in the United States shortly before the filing of the
1978 complaint. U.S. industry data in the original investigation did not include Washburn, whose production was
estimated at the time to be negligible. Jd.

?3 Sumiden Wire Products Co. is a subsidiary of Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd., a Japanese producer of PC
strand. Sumitomo, as stated earlier, is no longer subject to the antidumping finding against imports of PC strand
from Japan. U.S. Producers’ Response, p. 11; and Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Japan,
Investigation No. AA1921-188 (Review), USITC Pub. 3156, February 1999, p. I-11.

24 According to the U.S. industry, the exact nature of Camesa’s operations at its Rosenberg facility is unclear,
including to what extent the manufacturing of PC stand is undertaken in the United States or Mexico. U.S.
Producers’ Response, p. 10. Although the U.S. industry’s response to the Commission’s notice of institution
identifies Camesa’s Rosenberg facility as operating under the name “PCS America” (Jd, p. 10), no evidence of such a
company is available in the public domain. There is, however, evidence of a company named “Camesa, Inc.”
operating at the address in Rosenberg, TX provided by the U.S. industry for “PCS of America.” See
Attp://www.camesainc.com.

?5 U.S. Producers’ Response, p. 13. U.S. producers American, Insteel, and Sumiden collectively produced ***
pounds of PC strand in 2003. They estimated total U.S. industry production of PC strand in 2003 to be 552 million
pounds, based on annualized January-June 2003 data collected in the Commission’s 2003 investigations. See
Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand, Investigations Nos. 701-
TA-432 (Final) and 731-TA-1024-1028 (Final), USITC Pub. 3663, January 2004, table III-2.

1-7


currently identified as American, Insteel, Sumiden,”’ Strand Tech Martin, Inc. (Strand Tech),”* and
Camesa, Inc. (Camesa).”

I. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY IF
THE ANTIDUMPING FINDING IS REVOKED

A. Legal Standard In A Five-Year Review

In a five-year review conducted under section 751(c) of the Act, Commerce will revoke an
antidumping finding unless: (1) it makes a determination that dumping is likely to continue or recur, and
(2) the Commission makes a determination that revocation of the antidumping finding “would be likely
to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.”*° The
SAA states that “under the likelihood standard, the Commission will engage in a counter-factual analysis;
it must decide the likely impact in the reasonably foreseeable future of an important change in the status
quo — the revocation or termination of a proceeding and the elimination of its restraining effects on
volumes and prices of imports.”*! Thus, the likelihood standard is prospective in nature.” ** 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.”** According to the SAA, a

21 The related parties provision of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B)) remains inapplicable to Sumiden because
Sumiden’s corporate parent, Sumitomo, is not subject to the antidumping finding and thus does not produce subject
merchandise within the meaning of the Act. CR, PR at I-5.

8 Strand Tech began producing PC strand after the first review. CR at I-7-I-8, PR at I-7.

2° CR at I-8, PR at I-7. Based on the facts available, Camesa was established by the Mexican producer Aceros
Camesa and started production in Texas in late 2003. CR at I-8 & n.24, PR at J-7 & n.24.

% 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

31 SAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. I, at 883-84 (1994). The SAA states that “[t]he likelihood of injury
standard applies regardless of the nature of the Commission’s original determination (material injury, threat of
material injury, or material retardation of an industry). Likewise, the standard applies to suspended investigations
that were never completed.” SAA at 883.

32 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.

3 See NMB Singapore Ltd. v. United States, 288 F. Supp. 2d 1306, 1352 (Ct. Int’] Trade 2003); Nippon Steel
Corp. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-153 at 7-8 (Dec. 24, 2002); Usinor Industeel, S.A. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-
152 at 6 n.6 (Dec. 20, 2002); Indorama Chemicals Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-105 at 20-21 (Sept. 4, 2002);
Usinor v. United States, Slip Op. 02-70 at 43-44 (July 19, 2002).

* 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).



EXPLANATION OF COMMISSION DETERMINATION ON ADEQUACY
in

Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Japan, Inv. No. AA1921-188 (Review)

On April 6, 2004, the Commission determined that it should proceed to an expedited review in
the subject five-year review pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended,
19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3)B).

The Commission received responses from domestic producers American Spring Wire, Insteel
Wire Products Company, and Sumiden Wire Corporation. The Commission determined that the
responses were individually adequate. The Commission also determined that the responses were an
adequate domestic interested party group response because the three producers account for a significant
share of domestic production of the like product.

The Commission did not receive a response from any respondent interested party. Consequently,
the Commission determined that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate. The
Commission did not find any circumstances that would warrant conducting a full review. The
Commission therefore determined to conduct an expedited review. A record of the Commissioners’
votes is available from the Office of the Secretary and the Commission’s web site (http://www.usitc.gov).


than twenty nonsubject countries. As a result of the 2003-04 investigations, antidumping duty orders
were imposed on imports of PC strand from Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand, and a
countervailing duty order was imposed on imports from India. Imports from each of these countries
declined toward the end of 2003 and into 2004.** However, the total volume of “nonsubject” imports —
ie., imports from countries other than Japan — was higher in 2003 than in any prior year of the period
examined, indicating that other nonsubject imports took the place of imports from those five countries.*

PC strand, as the Commission found in the first review, is predominantly a commodity product.
It conforms to applicable ASTM specifications for use in the United States. Almost all types of PC
strand are available from multiple sources, and the vast majority sold in the United States is of a single
form (seven strand), size (0.5 inch), and strength (270,000 psi).*° Thus, whether foreign or domestically
produced, PC strand is largely interchangeable, and price plays an important role in competition for
sales.*”

Except as otherwise noted, we find that the foregoing conditions of competition are likely to
prevail for the reasonably foreseeable future and thus provide an adequate basis upon which to assess the
likely effects of revocation of the antidumping finding within the reasonably foreseeable future.

(on Likely Volume of Subject Imports

Jn evaluating the likely volume of imports of subject merchandise if the antidumping finding is
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.* 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.*°

In the original investigation, exports of PC strand from Japan increased from 139 million pounds
in 1976 to 176 million pounds in 1977, and held over 60 percent of the U.S. market. In the two years
prior to the antidumping finding, Japanese producers shipped approximately two-thirds of their total
production to the United States. Once the finding was in place, subject imports decreased sharply, to
Jess than 152 million pounds in 1979 and 126 million pounds in 1980. They continued to decline to less

*3 PC Strand: Imports into the United States (break-out of Commerce statistics from 2003 and 2004 upon which
CR, PR at Figure I-2 relies).

54 CR, PR at Figure I-2 and PC Strand: Imports into the United States.

55 CR, PR at Table I-4.

56 CR, PR at I-6; 1999 Review, USITC Pub. 3156 at 7; 2004 Determinations, USITC Pub. 3663 at 17-18.

*7 CR, PR at I-6; 1999 Review, USITC Pub. 3156 at 7-8; 2004 Determinations, USITC Pub. 3663 at 17-18. We
note that U.S. purchasers of foreign-produced PC strand may face restrictions due to “Buy America” programs.
Under an expansive definition that includes preferences rather than strictly legal limitations, Buy America programs
cover approximately 30 percent of the entire domestic PC strand market. A substantial part of the market therefore
contains no such restrictions or preferences. CR at I-6-J-7, PR at I-6; 2004 Determinations, USITC Pub. 3663 at 18.

5 19 US.C. § 1675a(a)(2).
% 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A-D).
© Original Determination, USITC Pub. 928 at 5 & A-9.

10