U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4086 July 2009

Washington, DC 20436

Prestressed Concrete Steel 

Wire Strand from China 

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-464 and 731-TA-1160 (Preliminary)
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS 

 

Shara L. Aranoff, Chairman 

Daniel R. Pearson, Vice Chairman 

Deanna Tanner Okun 

Charlotte R. Lane 

Irving A. Williamson 

Dean A. Pinkert

Robert A. Rogowsky

Staff assigned

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

Director of Operations

Mary Messer, Investigator 

Jeremy Wise, Industry Analyst 

Joshua Levy, Economist 

Mary Klir, Accountant 

Peter Sultan, Attorney 

Douglas Corkran, Supervisory Investigator

Special assistance from

Mara Alexander, Statistician
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4086 July 2009

Prestressed Concrete Steel 

Wire Strand from China 

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-464 and 731-TA-1160 (Preliminary)
 
CONTENTS

Page

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

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

Part I: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

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

Statutory criteria and organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Statutory criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2

Market summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

Summary data and data sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Previous and related investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Antidumping and countervailing duty investigations and reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Safeguard investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

Nature and extent of alleged subsidies and sales at LTFV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

Alleged subsidies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

Alleged sales at LTFV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

The subject merchandise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

Commerce’s scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

Tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-9

The domestic like product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

Description and applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

Manufacturing process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

Domestic like product issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

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

U.S. market characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1

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

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

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

U.S. demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-4

Substitutability issues .......................................................... II-7

Factors affecting sales and purchases ........................................... II-8

Comparison of U.S.-produced and imported products .............................. II-9

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

U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-1

U.S. capacity, production, and capacity utilization ................................... III-2

U.S. producers’ raw material supply ............................................... III-4

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

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

U.S. producers’ imports and purchases ............................................. III-8

U.S. employment, wages, and productivity ......................................... III-9
ii

CONTENTS

Page

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

U.S. importers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1

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

Critical circumstances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-10

Negligibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-10

Apparent U.S. consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-10

U.S. market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-13

Ratio of subject imports to U.S. production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-13

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

Factors affecting pricing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Raw material costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

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

Pricing practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2

Pricing methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2

Sales terms and discounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3

Price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3

Price trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3

Price comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-6

Lost revenues and lost sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-7

Part VI: Financial experience and condition of U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1

Operations on PC strand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1

Variance analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-3

Capital expenditures and research and development expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-3

Assets and return on investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-5

Capital and investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-6

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

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-1

The industry in China .......................................................... VII-3

U.S. inventories of PC strand from China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-6

U.S. importers current orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-6

Antidumping investigations in third-country markets ................................. VII-8
iii

CONTENTS

Page

Appendixes

A. Federal Register notices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

B. Conference witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

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

D. Nonsubject country and aggregated price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

E. Alleged effects of subject imports on U.S. producers’ existing development and

 production efforts, growth, investment, and ability to raise capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

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

and therefore has been deleted from this report. Such deletions are indicated by asterisks.
 
 1

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

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-464 and 731-TA-1160 (Preliminary)

PRESTRESSED CONCRETE STEEL WIRE STRAND FROM CHINA

DETERMINATIONS

On the basis of the record1

 developed in the subject investigations, the United States International

Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the Tariff Act of

1930 (19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a) and 1673b(a)) (the Act), that there is a reasonable indication that an industry

in the United States is threatened with material injury by reason of imports from China of prestressed

concrete steel wire strand, provided for in subheading 7312.10.30 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of

the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV) and

subsidized by the Government of China.

Pursuant to section 207.18 of the Commission’s rules, the Commission also gives notice of the

commencement of the final phase of its investigations. The Commission will issue a final phase notice of

scheduling, which will be published in the Federal Register as provided in section 207.21 of the

Commission’s rules, upon notice from the Department of Commerce (Commerce) of affirmative

preliminary determinations in the investigations under sections 703(b) or 733(b) of the Act, or, if the

preliminary determinations are negative, upon notice of affirmative final determinations in those

investigations under sections 705(a) or 735(a) of the Act. Parties that filed entries of appearance in the

preliminary phase of the investigations need not enter a separate appearance for the final phase of the

investigations. Industrial users, and, if the merchandise under investigation is sold at the retail level,

representative consumer organizations have the right to appear as parties in Commission antidumping and

countervailing duty investigations. The Secretary will prepare a public service list containing the names

and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the investigations.

BACKGROUND

On May 27, 2009, a petition was filed with the Commission and Commerce by counsel on behalf

of American Spring Wire Corp. (“American”) (Bedford Heights, OH); Insteel Wire Products Co.

(“Insteel”) (Mt. Airy, NC); and Sumiden Wire Products Corp. (“Sumiden”) (Dickson, TN), alleging that

an industry in the United States is materially injured and threatened with material injury by reason of

LTFV and subsidized imports of prestressed concrete steel wire strand from China. Accordingly,

effective May 27, 2009, the Commission instituted countervailing duty investigation No. 701-TA-464 and

antidumping duty investigation No. 731-TA-1160 (Preliminary).

Notice of the institution of the Commission’s investigations and of a public conference to be held

in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S.

International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register

of June 3, 2009 (74 FR 26731). The conference was held in Washington, DC, on June 17, 2009, and all

persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel.
 
 1

 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a), 1673b(a) (2000); see also American Lamb Co. v. United States, 785 F.2d 994, 1001-04

(Fed. Cir. 1986); Aristech Chem. Corp. v. United States, 20 CIT 353, 354-55 (1996). No party argued that the

establishment of an industry is materially retarded by reason of the allegedly unfairly traded imports.

 2

 American Lamb, 785 F.2d at 1001; see also Texas Crushed Stone Co. v. United States, 35 F.3d 1535, 1543

(Fed. Cir. 1994).

 3

 See CR/PR at Table I-1 and CR at I-5-I-6, PR at I-4. These outstanding orders are currently the subject of fiveyear reviews, which are scheduled to be completed in November 2009. 

 4

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

3

VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

Based on the record in the preliminary phase of these investigations, we find that there is a

reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is threatened with material injury by reason of

imports of prestressed concrete steel wire strand (“PC strand”) from China that are allegedly sold in the

United States at less than fair value and subsidized by the Government of China.

I. THE LEGAL STANDARD FOR PRELIMINARY DETERMINATIONS

The legal standard for preliminary antidumping and countervailing duty determinations requires

the Commission to determine, based upon the information available at the time of the preliminary

determination, whether there is a reasonable indication that a domestic industry is materially injured or

threatened with material injury, or that the establishment of an industry is materially retarded, by reason

of the allegedly unfairly traded imports.1

 In applying this standard, the Commission weighs the evidence

before it and determines whether “(1) the record as a whole contains clear and convincing evidence that

there is no material injury or threat of such injury; and (2) no likelihood exists that contrary evidence will

arise in a final investigation.”2

II. BACKGROUND

The petition in these investigations was filed on May 27, 2009, by domestic producers American

Spring Wire Corp. (“American”), Insteel Wire Products Co. (“Insteel”), and Sumiden Wire Products

Corp. (“Sumiden”) (collectively, “Petitioners”). Only one respondent interested party, U.S. importer

Global Steel Sales Corp. (“GSSC”), appeared at the conference and submitted a postconference brief. 

The Commission has conducted several previous antidumping and countervailing duty

investigations and five-year reviews concerning PC strand from nine different countries, and there are

currently antidumping duty orders on imports of PC strand from Brazil, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and

Thailand, and a countervailing duty order on imports of PC strand from India.3

III. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT

A. In General

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

material injury by reason of imports of the subject merchandise, the Commission first defines the

“domestic like product” and the “industry.”4

 Section 771(4)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended

(“the Tariff Act”), defines the relevant domestic industry as the “producers as a {w}hole of a domestic

like product, or those producers whose collective output of a domestic like product constitutes a major
 5

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 6

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10).

 7 See, e.g., Cleo, Inc. v. United States, 501 F.3d 1291, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2007); NEC Corp. v. Department of

Commerce, 36 F. Supp. 2d 380, 383 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 19 CIT 450, 455

(1995); Torrington Co. v. United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 749 n.3 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1990), aff’d, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed.

Cir. 1991) (“every like product determination ‘must be made on the particular record at issue’ and the ‘unique facts

of each case’”). The Commission generally considers a number of factors including the following: (1) physical

characteristics and uses; (2) interchangeability; (3) channels of distribution; (4) customer and producer perceptions

of the products; (5) common manufacturing facilities, production processes, and production employees; and, where

appropriate, (6) price. See Nippon, 19 CIT at 455 n.4; Timken Co. v. United States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l

Trade 1996).

 8

 See, e.g., S. Rep. No. 96-249 at 90-91 (1979).

 9 Nippon, 19 CIT at 455; Torrington, 747 F. Supp. at 748-49; see also S. Rep. No. 96-249 at 90-91 (1979)

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

permit minor differences in physical characteristics or uses to lead to the conclusion that the product and article are

not ‘like’ each other, nor should the definition of ‘like product’ be interpreted in such a fashion as to prevent

consideration of an industry adversely affected by the imports under consideration.”).

 10 See, e.g., USEC, Inc. v. United States, 34 Fed. Appx. 725, 730 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“The ITC may not modify the

class or kind of imported merchandise examined by Commerce.”); Algoma Steel Corp. v. United States, 688 F.

Supp. 639, 644 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1988), aff’d, 865 F.3d 240 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 919 (1989).

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

single like product corresponding to several different classes or kinds defined by Commerce); Cleo, 501 F.3d at 1298

n.1 (“Commerce’s {scope} finding does not control the Commission’s {like product} determination.”); Torrington,

747 F. Supp. at 748-52 (affirming the Commission’s determination defining six like products in investigations where

Commerce found five classes or kinds).

 12 See, e.g., Acciai Speciali Terni S.p.A. v. United States, 118 F. Supp. 2d 1298, 1304-05 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2000);

Nippon, 19 CIT at 455; Asociacion Colombiana de Exportadores de Flores v. United States, 693 F. Supp. 1165,

1169 n.5 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1988); Citrosuco Paulista, S.A. v. United States, 704 F. Supp. 1075, 1087-88 (Ct. Int’l

Trade 1988).

4

proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”5

 In turn, the Tariff Act defines “domestic like

product” as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses

with, the article subject to an investigation ... .”6

The decision regarding the appropriate domestic like product(s) in an investigation is a factual

determination, and the Commission has applied the statutory standard of “like” or “most similar in

characteristics and uses” on a case-by-case basis.7

 No single factor is dispositive, and the Commission

may consider other factors it deems relevant based on the facts of a particular investigation.8

 The

Commission looks for clear dividing lines among possible like products and disregards minor variations.9

Although the Commission must accept the determination of the U.S. Department of Commerce

(“Commerce”) as to the scope of the imported merchandise that is subsidized or sold at less than fair

value,10 the Commission determines what domestic product is like the imported articles Commerce has

identified.11 The Commission must base its domestic like product determination on the record in these

investigations. The Commission is not bound by prior determinations, even those pertaining to the same

imported products, but may draw upon previous determinations in addressing pertinent domestic like

product issues.12
 13 74 Fed. Reg. 29665, 29669 (June 23, 2009) (initiation of antidumping duty investigation) and 74 Fed. Reg.

29670, 29674 (June 23, 2009) (initiation of countervailing duty investigation).

 14 CR at I-3, PR at I-3.

 15 Petitioners’ Postconference Brief at 4.

 16 Petitioners’ Postconference Brief at 5. 

 17 Id. 

 18 Id. 

5

B. Product Description

Commerce’s notices of initiation define the imported merchandise within the scope of

these investigations as follows:

steel wire strand, other than of stainless steel, which is suitable for use in, but not

limited to, prestressed concrete (both pretensioned and post-tensioned)

applications. The scope of this investigation encompasses all types and diameters

of PC strand whether uncoated (uncovered) or coated (covered) by any

substance, including but not limited to, grease, plastic sheath, or epoxy. This

merchandise includes, but is not limited to, PC strand produced to the American

Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) A-416 specification, or comparable

domestic or foreign specifications. PC strand made from galvanized wire is

excluded from the scope if the zinc and/or zinc oxide coating meets 

or exceeds the 0.40 oz./ft2

 standard set forth in ASTM-A-475.13

 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 stressrelieved. PC strand is used to compress concrete structural members to improve their ability to withstand

loads. The PC strand is tensioned either prior to the pouring of concrete (pre-tensioning) or after the

pouring of the concrete (post-tensioning). Typical applications for prestressed concrete in which PC

strand is used include bridge decks, bridge girders, pilings, precast concrete panels and structural

supports, roof trusses, floor supports, and certain concrete foundations.14 

C. Parties’ Arguments

Petitioners argue that the Commission should find one domestic like product coextensive with the

scope of these investigations. At the outset, they note that this is the definition that the Commission has

used in previous investigations and reviews for PC strand. They further assert that no significant changes

have occurred with respect to the production of PC strand, the nature of the product, or its uses, that

would warrant a different definition here.15

Petitioners make the following arguments. All PC strand shares the same basic characteristics of

a seven-wire strand, and the most commonly produced PC strand is of the same dimension (1⁄2 inch) and

grade (270K) (to the extent that there are different types of PC strand, these are variations of a single

product).16 While different types of PC strand are used in different applications, all PC strand has the

same use, which is to impart compressive forces to concrete.17 The various types of PC strand are all

produced in accordance with ASTM specifications; within each type, PC strand is interchangeable.18
 19 Id. 

 20 Petitioners’ Postconference Brief at 5-6.

 21 Conference Transcript at 137 (Levinson).

 22 CR at I-11-I-15, PR at I-10-I-12.

 23 CR at I-12, PR at I-10.

 24 CR at I-13, PR at I-11.

 25 CR at I-14, PR at I-11.

 26 CR/PR at Table II-1.

 27 Petitioners’ Postconference Brief at 5.

6

Almost all PC strand is sold in the same channel of distribution, namely directly to end users.19 All PC

strand is made using the same types of facilities and employees, as well as the same basic manufacturing

process. Domestic producers and customers perceive PC strand as a single discrete product, and they do

not perceive other products to be substitutable for PC strand. Finally, all types of PC strand are sold

“within a reasonable range of prices,” according to Petitioners.20

Respondent GSSC does not contest the like product definition advocated by Petitioners.21

D. Analysis

Physical Characteristics and Uses. All PC strand shares the same basic physical characteristics. 

It is made from hot-rolled, high-carbon steel wire rod. The steel wire rod is drawn into wire and

fabricated into multi-wire strand. There are some variations in physical characteristics of the product

based on the configuration of wires used (the most common PC strand configuration consists of six wires

wound helically around a single wire core), the grade (there are generally three grades: 250, 270, and

300, corresponding to the minimum strength of the product in thousand of pounds per square inch), the

diameter, whether the product is “low-relaxation” (the predominant form) or “stress-relieved” strand (a

custom made form), whether the wire is “indented” or not, and whether or not it is coated with plastic or

epoxy after it is produced (most PC strand is uncoated).22

All PC strand is used for the same general purpose of imparting compressive forces to concrete. 

Concrete is prestressed in one of two ways: pre-tensioning or post-tensioning. In pre-tensioning, the PC

strand is tensioned by a calibrated tensioning apparatus, the concrete is poured around the PC strand and

the tension is released after the concrete has cured, whereby the tensile force of the strand induces a

compressive force on the concrete. The PC strand is installed in this application uncovered because it is

the bond between the cured concrete and the PC strand that holds the concrete in compression.23 In posttensioning, there is no bond between the PC strand and the cured concrete. The PC strand is tensioned

using a calibrated tensioning apparatus after the concrete has cured and tension is maintained by installing

permanent mechanical anchors that remain in place after the tensioning apparatus is removed.24

Interchangeability. All PC strand that has the same physical size, configuration, and grade is

interchangeable.25

 Channel of Distribution. Almost all of the domestic industry’s U.S. shipments of PC strand are

made directly to converters or other end users.26

Manufacturing Facilities, Production Processes, and Employees. There is no information in the

record in this preliminary phase of the investigations to contradict Petitioners’ assertion that all PC strand

is made using the same types of facilities and employees and the same basic manufacturing process.27 We
 28 CR at III-6-III-7, PR at III-4.

 29 Petitioners’ Postconference Brief at 5.

 30 CR at III-6-III-7, PR at III-4.

 31 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 32 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B). 

7

note that plastic coating of PC strand generally is performed by post-tensioners, not by the PC strand

producers.28

Producer and Customer Perceptions. There is no information in the record in this preliminary

phase of the investigations to contradict Petitioners’ assertion that domestic producers and customers

perceive PC strand as a single discrete product.29

Price. PC strand appears to be sold in a range of prices; epoxy or plastic coating adds a price

premium to PC strand (most PC strand is uncoated).30

Conclusion. All PC strand shares the same basic physical characteristics in that it consists of a

multi-wire strand, made from high-carbon steel wire rod. All PC strand is used for the same general

purpose: imparting compressive force to concrete. All PC strand that has the same physical dimensions,

configuration, and grade is interchangeable. Almost all domestically produced PC strand is sold in the

same channel of distribution, namely directly to end users. It appears that all PC strand is made using the

same types of facilities and employees and basic manufacturing process, and that producers and

customers perceive PC strand to be a single, discrete, product. Although there can be significant price

differences between coated and uncoated PC strand, most domestically produced strand is uncoated. In

light of the foregoing, we define a single like product in a manner that is co-extensive with the scope of

the investigations, as the Commission has done in previous investigations involving PC strand.

IV. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY

The domestic industry is defined as the domestic “producers as a {w}hole of a domestic like

product, or those producers whose collective output of a domestic like product constitutes a major

proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”31 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. 

Based on our definition of the domestic like product, we define the domestic industry as all domestic

producers of PC strand.

A. Related Parties

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

the domestic industry pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B). Subsection 1677(4)(B) allows the

Commission, if appropriate circumstances exist, to exclude from the domestic industry producers that are

related to an exporter or importer of subject merchandise or which are themselves importers.32 Exclusion

of such a producer is within the Commission’s discretion based upon the facts presented in each

investigation. In these investigations, one domestic producer, Insteel, is a related party because it directly

imported subject PC strand during the period examined. Another producer, ***, purchased subject

imports from a U.S. importer.
 33 Petitioners’ Postconference Brief at 6-7.

 34 Id.

 35 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 36 CR/PR at Table III-7.

 37 CR at III-15-III-16, PR at III-10-III-11.

 38 *** was not a related party. The statute defines “related parties” as including “an importer of the subject

merchandise.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B)(I). *** was not the importer in this case. It purchased *** pounds of PC

strand from China from an importer in 2006. The Commission has on occasion found that a domestic producer that

does not itself import subject merchandise, or does not share a corporate affiliation with an importer, may

nonetheless be deemed a related party if it controls large volumes of imports. Those circumstances do not appear to

exist in this case.

 39 Conference Transcript at 77-80 (Woltz).

 40 CR/PR at Table VI-2.

8

1. Petitioners’ Arguments

Petitioners maintain that appropriate circumstances do not exist to exclude Insteel or *** from the

domestic industry. Petitioners note that these producers ***. The interests of these companies lie in

domestic production, as evidenced by Insteel’s role as a petitioner and ***. *** benefitted financially

from its importations, according to Petitioners.33 

Respondent GSSC does not address the question of whether related parties should be excluded

from the domestic industry.

2. Analysis

Insteel, one of the petitioners,34 accounted for *** percent of domestic production in 2008.35 Its

imports of the subject merchandise were equivalent to *** percent of its production in ***, the only

period in which it imported the subject merchandise.36 The company explained that it made these

importations pursuant to a short-lived pilot program designed to determine whether it could profitably

import and resell PC strand from China.37

We find that appropriate circumstances do not exist to exclude Insteel from the domestic

industry.38 It is the *** domestic producer and a petitioner, and the levels of its imports relative to its

domestic production ***. Its reason for importing was merely to supplement its domestic production, and

it abandoned its experiment with reselling imported product well before the filing of the petition in these

investigations.39 Any benefit that it derived from importing the subject merchandise is unlikely to skew

the data for the industry overall.40
 41 One of the firms producing PC strand, Rettco, produces the product under a toll arrangement with another firm,

MMI Products, Inc., whereby MMI provides Rettco with the raw material and pays a conversion fee for Rettco to

produce finished PC strand, which MMI then sells. We treat Rettco, the toller, and not MMI, the tollee, as the

domestic producer, as it is Rettco that engages in the production activity. While toll producers that engage in

sufficient production related activity are included in the domestic industry, tollees “that merely supply raw materials

and pay a fabrication fee” are not. See Certain Welded Large Diameter Line Pipe from Japan, Inv. No. 731-TA-919

(Final), USITC Pub. 3464 (November 2001) at 10 n.53. See also, e.g., Ferrovanadium from China and South Africa,

Inv. Nos. 731-TA-986 and 987 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3484 (January 2002) at 7 & n.35. 

 42 In these preliminary phase investigations, subject imports from China accounted for more than 3 percent of the

volume of PC strand imported into the United States from all sources in the most recent 12-month period for which

data are available preceding the filing of the petition. CR at IV-10, PR at IV-5. Accordingly, we find that subject

imports are not negligible under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24).

 43 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a), 1673b(a).

 44 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)( i). The Commission “may consider such other economic factors as are relevant to the

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

19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B).

 45 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(A).

 46 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

 47 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

 48 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a), 1673b(a).

 49 Angus Chemical Co. v. United States, 140 F.3d 1478, 1484-85 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“{T}he statute does not

(continued...)

9

B. Conclusion

We define the domestic industry to include all domestic producers of PC strand during the period

examined, namely, American, Insteel, Rettco, Strand-Tech, Sumiden, PCS, and EMC.41 (The latter two

firms produced PC strand during the early part of the period examined, but then ceased production.)

V. REASONABLE INDICATION OF THREAT OF MATERIAL INJURY BY REASON OF

IMPORTS OF SUBJECT MERCHANDISE42

In the preliminary phase of antidumping or countervailing duty investigations, the Commission

determines whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially

injured or threatened with material injury by reason of the imports under investigation.43 In making this

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

domestic like product, and their impact on domestic producers of the domestic like product, but only in

the context of U.S. production operations.44 The statute defines “material injury” as “harm which is not

inconsequential, immaterial, or unimportant.”45 In assessing whether there is a reasonable indication that

the domestic industry is materially injured by reason of subject imports, we consider all relevant

economic factors that bear on the state of the industry in the United States.46 No single factor is

dispositive, and all relevant factors are considered “within the context of the business cycle and

conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”47

Although the statute requires the Commission to determine whether there is a reasonable

indication that the domestic industry is “materially injured by reason of” unfairly traded imports,48 it does

not define the phrase “by reason of,” indicating that this aspect of the injury analysis is left to the

Commission’s reasonable exercise of its discretion.49 In identifying a causal link, if any, between subject
 49 (...continued)

‘compel the commissioners’ to employ {a particular methodology}.”), aff’g 944 F. Supp. 943, 951 (Ct. Int’l Trade

1996).

 50 The Federal Circuit, in addressing the causation standard of the statute, observed that “{a}s long as its effects

are not merely incidental, tangential, or trivial, the foreign product sold at less than fair value meets the causation

requirement.” Nippon Steel Corp. v. USITC, 345 F.3d 1379, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2003). This was further ratified in

Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States, 542 F.3d 867, 873 (Fed. Cir. 2008), where the Federal Circuit, quoting

Gerald Metals, Inc. v. United States, 132 F.3d 716, 722 (Fed. Cir. 1997), stated that “this court requires evidence in

the record ‘to show that the harm occurred “by reason of” the LTFV imports, not by reason of a minimal or

tangential contribution to material harm caused by LTFV goods.’” See also Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458

F.3d 1345, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Ass’n v. USITC, 266 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir.

2001).

 51 Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”) on Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”), H.R. Rep. 103-

316, Vol. I at 851-52 (1994) (“{T}he Commission must examine other factors to ensure that it is not attributing

injury from other sources to the subject imports.”); S. Rep. 96-249 at 75 (1979) (the Commission “will consider

information which indicates that harm is caused by factors other than less-than-fair-value imports.”); H.R. Rep. 96-

317 at 47 (1979) (“in examining the overall injury being experienced by a domestic industry, the ITC will take into

account evidence presented to it which demonstrates that the harm attributed by the petitioner to the subsidized or

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

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

practices of and competition between the foreign and domestic producers, developments in technology and the

export performance and productivity of the domestic industry”); accord Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 877.

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

unfair imports.”); Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Ass’n v. USITC, 266 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“{T}he

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

Commission must examine other factors to ensure that it is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject

imports.” (emphasis in original)); Asociacion de Productores de Salmon y Trucha de Chile AG v. United States, 180

F. Supp. 2d 1360, 1375 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002) (“{t}he Commission is not required to isolate the effects of subject

imports from other factors contributing to injury” or make “bright-line distinctions” between the effects of subject

imports and other causes.); see also Softwood Lumber from Canada, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-414 and 731-TA-928

(Remand), USITC Pub. 3658 at 100-01 (Dec. 2003) (Commission recognized that “{i}f an alleged other factor is

found not to have or threaten to have injurious effects to the domestic industry, i.e., it is not an ‘other causal factor,’

then there is nothing to further examine regarding attribution to injury”), citing Gerald Metals, Inc. v. United States,

132 F.3d 716, 722 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the statute “does not suggest that an importer of LTFV goods can escape

countervailing duties by finding some tangential or minor cause unrelated to the LTFV goods that contributed to the

(continued...)

10

imports and material injury to the domestic industry, the Commission examines the facts of record that

relate to the significance of the volume and price effects of the subject imports and any impact of those

imports on the condition of the domestic industry. This evaluation under the “by reason of” standard

must ensure that subject imports are more than a minimal or tangential cause of injury and that there is a

sufficient causal, not merely a temporal, nexus between subject imports and material injury.50

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

be having adverse effects on the domestic industry. Such economic factors might include nonsubject

imports; changes in technology, demand, or consumer tastes; competition among domestic producers; or

management decisions by domestic producers. The legislative history explains that the Commission must

examine factors other than subject imports to ensure that it is not attributing injury from other factors to

the subject imports, thereby inflating an otherwise tangential cause of injury into one that satisfies the

statutory material injury threshold.51 In performing its examination, however, the Commission need not

isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by unfairly traded imports.52 Nor does the
 52 (...continued)

harmful effects on domestic market prices.”). 

 53 S. Rep. 96-249 at 74-75; H.R. Rep. 96-317 at 47.

 54 See Nippon Steel Corp., 345 F.3d at 1381 (“an affirmative material-injury determination under the statute

requires no more than a substantial-factor showing. That is, the ‘dumping’ need not be the sole or principal cause of

injury.”).

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

determination unless it finds that a domestic industry is materially injured ‘by reason of’ subject imports, the

Commission is not required to follow a single methodology for making that determination ... . {and has} broad

discretion with respect to its choice of methodology.”) citing United States Steel Group v. United States, 96 F.3d

1352, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1996) and S. Rep. 96-249 at 75.

 56 Commissioner Pinkert does not join this paragraph or the following four paragraphs. He points out that the

Federal Circuit, in Bratsk, 444 F.3d 1369, and Mittal, held that the Commission is required, in certain circumstances,

to undertake a particular kind of analysis of nonsubject imports. Mittal explains as follows:

What Bratsk held is that “where commodity products are at issue and fairly traded, price-competitive, nonsubject imports are in the market,” the Commission would not fulfill its obligation to consider an important

aspect of the problem if it failed to consider whether non-subject or non-LTFV imports would have

replaced LTFV subject imports during the period of investigation without a continuing benefit to the

domestic industry. 444 F.3d at 1369. Under those circumstances, Bratsk requires the Commission to

consider whether replacement of the LTFV subject imports might have occurred during the period of

investigation, and it requires the Commission to provide an explanation of its conclusion with respect to

that factor.

542 F.3d at 878.

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

879 (“Bratsk did not read into the antidumping statute a Procrustean formula for determining whether a domestic

injury was ‘by reason’ of subject imports.”).

 58 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 875-79.

11

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

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

imports, which may be contributing to overall injury to an industry.53 It is clear that the existence of

injury caused by other factors does not compel a negative determination.54

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

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

injury to the domestic industry can reasonably be attributed to the subject imports” and the Commission

“ensure{s} that it is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject imports.”55 56 Indeed, the

Federal Circuit has examined and affirmed various Commission methodologies and has disavowed “rigid

adherence to a specific formula.”57

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

where the relevant “other factor” was the presence in the market of significant volumes of pricecompetitive nonsubject imports. The Commission interpreted the Federal Circuit’s guidance in Bratsk as

requiring it to apply a particular additional methodology following its finding of material injury in cases

involving commodity products and a significant market presence of price-competitive nonsubject

imports.58 The additional “replacement/benefit” test looked at whether nonsubject imports might have

replaced subject imports without any benefit to the U.S. industry. The Commission applied that specific

additional test in subsequent cases, including the Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad

and Tobago determination that underlies the Mittal Steel litigation.
 59 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 873 (quoting from Gerald Metals, 132 F.3d at 722), 875-79 & n.2 (recognizing the

Commission’s alternative interpretation of Bratsk as a reminder to conduct a non-attribution analysis).

 60 Commissioner Lane also refers to her dissenting views in Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip

from Brazil, China, Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1131-1134 (Final), USITC Pub.

4040 (Oct. 2008), for further discussion of Mittal Steel.

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

information or send out information requests in final phase investigations to producers in nonsubject countries that

accounted for substantial shares of U.S. imports of subject merchandise (if, in fact, there were large nonsubject

import suppliers). In order to provide a more complete record for the Commission’s causation analysis, these

requests typically seek information on capacity, production, and shipments of the product under investigation in the

major source countries that export to the United States. The Commission plans to continue utilizing published or

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

 62 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 873; Nippon Steel Corp., 458 F.3d at 1350, citing U.S. Steel Group, 96 F.3d at 1357;

S. Rep. 96-249 at 75 (“The determination of the ITC with respect to causation is ... complex and difficult, and is a

matter for the judgment of the ITC.”).

 63 We provide in the discussion of impact in section V.E. below an analysis of other factors alleged to have

caused any material injury experienced by the domestic industry. 

 64 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii).

 65 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii).

 66 These factors are as follows:

(I) if a countervailable subsidy is involved, such information as may be presented to it by the administering

authority as to the nature of the subsidy (particularly as to whether the countervailable subsidy is a subsidy

(continued...)

12

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

that the Federal Circuit does not require the Commission to apply an additional test nor any one specific

methodology; instead, the court requires the Commission to have “evidence in the record ‘to show that

the harm occurred ‘by reason of’ the LTFV imports,’” and requires that the Commission not attribute

injury from nonsubject imports or other factors to subject imports.59 Accordingly, we do not consider

ourselves required to apply the replacement/benefit test that was included in Commission opinions

subsequent to Bratsk.

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

commodity products where price-competitive nonsubject imports are a significant factor in the U.S.

market, the Court will require the Commission to give full consideration, with adequate explanation, to

non-attribution issues when it performs its causation analysis.60 61

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

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

standard. Congress has delegated this factual finding to the Commission because of the agency’s

institutional expertise in resolving injury issues.62 63

Section 771(7)(F) of the Tariff Act directs the Commission to determine whether the U.S.

industry is threatened with material injury by reason of the subject imports by analyzing whether “further

dumped or subsidized imports are imminent and whether material injury by reason of imports would

occur unless an order is issued or a suspension agreement is accepted.”64 The Commission may not make

such a determination “on the basis of mere conjecture or supposition,” and considers the threat factors “as

a whole” in making its determination whether dumped or subsidized imports are imminent and 

whether material injury by reason of subject imports would occur unless an order is issued.65 In making

our determination, we consider all statutory threat factors that are relevant to these investigations.66
 66 (...continued)

described in Article 3 or 6.1 of the Subsidies Agreement) and whether imports of the subject merchandise

are likely to increase,

(II) any existing unused production capacity or imminent, substantial increase in production capacity in the

exporting country indicating the likelihood of substantially increased imports of the subject merchandise

into the United States, taking into account the availability of other export markets to absorb any additional

exports,

(III) a significant rate of increase of the volume or market penetration of imports of the subject merchandise

indicating the likelihood of substantially increased imports,

(IV) whether imports of the subject merchandise are entering at prices that are likely to have a significant

depressing or suppressing effect on domestic prices and are likely to increase demand for further imports,

(V) inventories of the subject merchandise,

(VI) the potential for product-shifting if production facilities in the foreign country, which can be used to

produce the subject merchandise, are currently being used to produce other products,

* * *

(IX) any other demonstrable adverse trends that indicate the probability that there is likely to be material

injury by reason of imports (or sale for importation) of the subject merchandise (whether or not it is actually

being imported at the time).

19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(i). To organize our analysis, we discuss the applicable statutory threat factors using the

same volume/price/impact framework that applies to our material injury analysis. Statutory threat factors (I), (II),

(III), (V), and (VI) are discussed in the analysis of subject import volume. Statutory threat factor (IV) is discussed in

the price effects analysis, and statutory threat factor (IX) is discussed in the impact analysis. Statutory threat factor

(VII) is inapplicable, as no imports of agricultural products are involved in these investigations. No one has argued

that the domestic industry is currently engaging or will imminently engage in any efforts to develop a derivative or

more advanced version of the domestic like product, which would implicate statutory threat factor (VIII).

 67 CR/PR at IV-1, CR at VII-4, PR at VII-3.

 68 Commissioner Okun notes that the statute authorizes the Commission to take adverse inferences in injury

investigations, but such authorization does not relieve the Commission of its obligation to consider the record

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

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

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

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

(continued...)

13

As noted above, the Commission has nearly complete data coverage for the domestic industry

(with the exception of two domestic producers that ceased production during the period examined, for

which the Commission has only limited information). The Commission also received completed

questionnaire responses from 26 importers that accounted for *** percent of subject imports and ***

percent of nonsubject imports, and from four subject producers in China that accounted for an estimated

17 percent of production of PC strand in China in 2008 and 19.1 percent of subject imports in the same

year.67 When appropriate in these investigations, we have relied on the facts otherwise available,

including official import statistics from Commerce and information available from published sources, as

well as information submitted in these investigations.68
 68 (...continued)

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

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

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

from the evidence it finds most persuasive.” SAA at 869.

 69 CR at II-7, PR at II-5.

 70 CR at II-6-II-7, PR at II-5.

 71 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 72 E.g., Conference Transcript at 33 (Johnson).

 73 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 74 CR at I-12-I-13, PR at I-10-I-11.

14

For the reasons stated below, we find that there is a reasonable indication that the domestic

industry producing PC strand is threatened with material injury by reason of subject imports from China

that are allegedly sold in the United States at less than fair value and subsidized by the Government of

China.

A. Conditions of Competition

The following conditions of competition inform our analysis in the preliminary phase of these

investigations.

1. Demand Conditions 

Demand for PC strand is derived from demand for prestressed concrete. In turn, demand for

prestressed concrete is tied to demand for construction projects, particularly infrastructure projects,

commercial and institutional construction, large housing projects, and single-family housing.69 Producers

and importers are divided in their assessment of how demand has changed since the beginning of the

period examined. Two U.S. producers reported that demand had fallen, and one reported that it had

fluctuated. Of the 20 importers that responded to the Commission’s questionnaire, 13 reported that

demand has fluctuated, five reported that it has fallen, and two reported that demand has increased. 

Producers and importers reporting fluctuations in demand often described increasing demand in

commercial and residential construction applications from 2006 through mid-2008, followed by sharply

declining demand in these sectors since mid-2008.70

Apparent U.S. consumption of PC strand declined by 15.2 percent in the 2006-08 period, from

1.1 billion pounds in 2006 to 942.7 million pounds in 2008.71 Demand dropped precipitously in late

2008 and early 2009, due to the economic downturn and reportedly because end users were drawing

down their inventories rather than making new purchases.72 Apparent U.S. consumption of PC strand was

62.7 percent lower in interim 2009 (January-March 2009), at 97.0 million pounds, than in interim 2008, at

260.3 million pounds.73

PC strand may be pre-tensioned or post-tensioned. Most pre-tensioned concrete elements are

prefabricated in a factory and must be transported to the construction site. Pre-tensioned concrete

components may be used in balconies, lintels, floor slabs, beams, or foundation piles. In contrast,

post-tensioning takes place on the job site in cast-in-place applications. The predominant end uses of

post-tensioned PC strand are in slab-on-grade construction and in buildings for floors with moderate to

long spans and moderate floor loads such as in parking garages and residential buildings.74 Most of the

subject imports were sold for post-tension applications, while the domestic product was sold mostly for
 75 In 2008, subject imports accounted for 70.4 percent of domestic consumption of PC strand in post-tensioned

applications, while U.S. producers accounted for 26.9 percent. CR/PR at Table C-3. In that year, subject imports

accounted for only 8.7 percent of domestic consumption of PC strand in pre-tensioned applications, while U.S.

producers accounted for 90.5 percent. Id.

 76 See CR/PR at Table III-5.

 77 CR at II-9 n.15, PR at II-8 n.15.

 78 Conference Transcript at 11 (Wisla).

 79 Conference Transcript at 57-60 (Feitler, Wolfe, and Cornelius).

 80 CR/PR at Table C-3.

 81 CR at II-8-II-9, PR at II-7.

 82 The domestic industry’s market share was 56.4 percent in 2006, 59.4 percent in 2007, and 56.2 percent in 2008. 

CR/PR at Table C-1. There is some indication in the record that the domestic industry may have been affected by

shortages of steel wire rod (the principal raw material used to make PC strand) for a time in 2008, but such

constraints appear to have been short-lived. CR at II-4, PR at II-3. It is unclear what effects this shortage has had on

the domestic industry. See CR at II-4 n.6, PR at II-3 n.6.

15

pre-tension applications.75 Buy America(n) provisions (discussed below) are much more prevalent with

respect to sales of PC strand to pre-tension customers.76

“Buy America” requirements apply to iron and steel products such as PC strand and their coatings

that are purchased for the Federal-aid highway construction program. Under “Buy America,” Federal-aid

funds may not be obligated for a project unless iron and steel products used in such projects are

manufactured in the United States (with limited exceptions based on the product cost or its share of the

original contract value). In addition, under an alternate-bid procedure, foreign-source materials may be

used if the total project bid using foreign-source materials is 25 percent less than the lowest total bid

using domestic materials. “Buy American” is a separate and distinct program from “Buy America.” The

Buy American Act, which covers specified products, requires the Federal Government to purchase

domestic goods and services unless the head of the agency involved in the procurement has determined

that the prices of the domestic suppliers are “unreasonable” or that their purchase would be “inconsistent

with the public interest.77 The parties to these investigations disagree as to the significance of “Buy

America(n)” provisions. GSSC estimates that “Buy America(n)” provisions now cover over 50 percent of

U.S. consumption of PC strand, and are expected to cover an even greater percentage of U.S.

consumption as a result of increased federal spending on infrastructure projects through the American

Recovery and Reinvestment Act.78 Petitioners on the other hand maintain that strict “Buy America(n)”

requirements may cover less than 30 percent of the U.S. market, and that Federal stimulus spending will

have no impact on the DOT-related “Buy America(n)” part of the U.S. market.79 In 2008, 33.7 percent of

total U.S. shipments of PC strand were subject to Buy America(n) restrictions; in interim 2009, the figure

was 51.1 percent.80

Demand for PC strand is somewhat seasonal in that PC strand is a construction material, and

more construction occurs during warmer weather than during the winter. Thus, demand for PC strand is

generally higher in the April-September period than in October-March.81

2. Supply Conditions

The domestic industry is the largest source of supply in the U.S. market, accounting for more than

half of U.S. consumption by quantity over the period of investigation.82 There were five domestic

producers of PC strand at the end of the period examined and two additional producers ceased production
 83 CR at III-1-III-2, PR at III-1.

 84 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 85 CR at VII-4, PR at VII-3.

 86 CR/PR at Table IV-7. Nonsubject imports’ market share fell from 8.4 percent of apparent U.S. consumption in

2006 to 3.3 percent in 2008.

 87 CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 88 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 89 CR at II-11, PR at II-9; CR/PR at Table II-2.

 90 CR/PR at Table II-3.

 91 Relevant to the likely volume of subject imports (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(i)(I)), Commerce initiated a

countervailing duty investigation based on 30 alleged subsidy programs, including six preferential lending programs,

four programs providing goods and services for less than adequate remuneration, three income and other direct tax

programs, five indirect tax and tariff exemption programs, six grant programs, and six programs involving

preferential income tax subsidies for foreign invested enterprises. CR at I-9, PR at I-7. Several of the alleged

subsidies are intended to benefit exportation and, thus, to encourage exports. Id.

 92 CR/PR at Table C-1.

16

in 2006 and 2007.83 The market share of subject imports was 35.2 percent in 2006, 36.1 percent in 2007,

and 40.5 percent in 2008, and subject imports accounted for the bulk of total imports during the period of

investigation.84 There appear to be at least 22 producers of PC strand in China.85 Nonsubject imports

declined over the period examined.86 The principal sources of nonsubject imports in 2008 were Canada,

Italy, Korea, and Portugal.87 As discussed earlier, a number of nonsubject suppliers of PC strand are

currently subject to antidumping and/or countervailing duties in the United States.88

3. Substitutability

The record indicates that there is a high degree of substitutability between PC strand from

domestic and other sources (subject to the proviso regarding “Buy America(n) restrictions, discussed

below), and that price is an important consideration in purchasing decisions. Most responding producers

and importers reported that subject imports are “always” used interchangeably with the domestic like

product.89 When asked whether differences other than price are significant in their sales of PC strand, all

producers responded “never.” Most importers responded “sometimes” or “never” to this question, though

a significant minority of importers reported that differences other than price are “always” or “frequently”

significant to purchasers choosing between subject imports and the domestic like product.90

The substitutability between domestically produced and imported PC strand is reduced somewhat

by substantial end-use markets for the product that are subject to “Buy America(n)” provisions. As

discussed earlier, a substantial share of U.S. shipments of PC strand are subject to these provisions.

C. Likely Volume of the Subject Imports91

Our analysis of the likely future volume of subject imports begins with trends observed over the

period examined. Apparent U.S. consumption declined over the period examined, particularly in interim

2009 as compared to interim 2008. The volume of subject imports was 391.4 million pounds in 2006,

353.9 million pounds in 2007, and 381.7 million pounds in 2008.92 The volume of subject imports was
 93 Id.

 94 The ratio of subject imports to domestic production measured by quantity was 58.1 percent in 2006, 58.8

percent in 2007, and 68.3 percent in 2008. The ratio of subject imports to domestic production was 15.1 percent in

interim 2009 as compared with 56.7 percent in interim 2008. CR/PR at Table IV-8.

 95 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 96 CR/PR at Table VII-6. U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of subject imports were 62.1 million pounds

in 2006, 31.0 million pounds in 2007, and 52.4 million pounds in 2008. Id.

 97 The market share of subject imports was 12.6 percent in interim 2009.

 98 Conference Transcript at 33-34 (Johnson, Suncoast Post-Tension). See also, Petitioners’ Postconference Brief

at 40 and Exhibit 8. 

 99 See, e.g., CR at II-7 n.10, PR at II-5 n.10.

 100 Four Chinese producers responded to the Commission’s request for information. These producers accounted

for only an estimated 17 percent of the Chinese industry’s overall production, and 19.1 percent of subject imports, in

2008. CR at VII-4, PR at VII-3.

 101 CR at VII-3, PR at VII-3.

17

12.2 million pounds in interim 2009, as compared with 91.3 million pounds in interim 2008.93 

Accordingly, the market share of subject imports was 35.2 percent in 2006, 36.1 percent in 2007, and

40.5 percent in 2008. The market share of subject imports was 12.6 percent in interim 2009 as compared

with 35.1 percent in interim 2008.94 Although subject imports increased market share in the 2006-08

period, the market share of the domestic industry remained virtually unchanged, at 56.4 percent in 2006

and 56.2 percent in 2008.95 

The lower level of subject imports in interim 2009 than in interim 2008 was accompanied by a

substantially higher level of inventories held by importers. The volume of subject merchandise in

importers’ inventories at the end of interim 2009 was 50.1 million pounds, as compared with 9.0 million

pounds at the end of interim 2008.96

These data show that the subject imports were present in substantial volumes and accounted for a

substantial share of the U.S. market throughout the period examined, with the exception of interim 2009. 

Although there was a sharp decline in subject imports in interim 2009, we do not view this decline as

being indicative of the likely levels of subject imports in the imminent future. There is evidence in the

record indicating that there may have been a temporary slowdown in subject imports in late 2008 and

early 2009 as PC strand customers worked down an inventory overhang. Moreover, while subject

imports’ market share fell sharply in interim 2009,97 Chinese suppliers reportedly are still aggressively

offering large quantities of PC strand at prices well below prevailing domestic prices for delivery later in

2009.98

In addition to examining the trends of subject imports over the period examined, we have also

analyzed the likely future volume of imports in the context of expected demand for PC strand in the U.S.

market over the next six to twelve months. As noted previously, demand for PC strand fell sharply in late

2008 and interim 2009 and is projected to remain at low levels for the imminent future.99 Because of

lower projected demand, we recognize that the absolute volume of purchases may be lower in the

imminent future than it was during much of the period examined.

As we consider the likely volume of subject imports in the U.S. market, we observe that the likely

available supply from China will be high.100 China appears to have the largest PC strand industry in the

world. Its production in 2008 is estimated to have been approximately 5.1 billion pounds,101 which is

approximately nine times as large as the U.S. industry’s production in that year and more than twice the
 102 The domestic industry’s production in 2008 was 558.9 million pounds. CR/PR at Table C-1. Production of

PC strand in the European Union was reported to have been 2.1 billion pounds in 2007. CR at VII-3, PR at VII-3.

 103 CR/PR at Table IV-7.

 104 The data provided by the four Chinese producers responding to the Commission’s request for information

show them to have been operating at high rates of capacity utilization during the period examined (97.5 percent in

2006, 100.1 percent in 2007, and 96.7 percent in 2008). CR/PR at Table VII-4. These data also show that the

inventories of these four Chinese producers more than doubled in interim 2009 (at 63.5 million pounds), as

compared with interim 2008 (at 31.3 million pounds). Id. We again note that the responding producers represent

only a relatively small share of the overall Chinese PC strand industry. 

 105 See CR/PR at Table VII-4.

 106 ***. Petitioners’ Postconference Brief at Exh. 2.

 107 Based on the limited information in the record, there does not appear to be a potential for product-shifting, as

none of the four Chinese producers responding to the Commission’s questionnaire reported production of other

products on the same equipment and machinery used in the production of PC strand. CR at VII-5, PR at VII-4. We

note also that Petitioners did not argue that there is a potential for such product-shifting. See Petitioners’

Postconference Brief at 32-44.

 108 CR/PR at VII-1 and Table VII-1. We recognize that these data are not limited to subject PC strand, but they

constitute the facts available for our analysis.

 109 Id.

 110 CR at VII-11 and Table VII-8/PR at VII-8 and Table VII-8. Before the antidumping duties were imposed,

China’s exports of PC strand to the EU were 191.6 million pounds in 2007, 96.1 million pounds in 2006, 25.9

million pounds in 2005, and 8.7 million pounds in 2004. Council Regulation (EC) No 383/2009 of 5 May 2009,

Official Journal of the European Union, May 13, 2009, L 118/1, EDIS Doc No. 405848. One producer received a

rate of 0 percent. It is unclear what, if any, proportion of these exports were accounted for by that producer.

18

production of the leading producers in the European Union in 2007.102 Apparent U.S. consumption was

942.7 million pounds in 2008,103 or a fraction of the estimated subject production. There is little

information on the record as to the Chinese PC strand industry’s capacity utilization rates and the extent

of any unused production capacity,104 although the information available indicates that subject capacity

increased substantially over the period examined.105 Anecdotal evidence suggests that domestic

consumption in China of PC strand has declined sharply since late 2008.106 Given the relatively large size

of the Chinese industry, even a modest amount of unused capacity has the potential for generating a

substantial volume of exports to the U.S. market.107

The record also indicates that Chinese PC strand producers are major exporters of the product. 

Based on data in the Global Trade Atlas, China was by far the world’s leading exporter of PC strand and

related products in the 2006-08 period.108 China’s exports of these products increased by over 70 percent

from 2006 to 2008 and accounted for more than one-third of the world’s exports by 2008.109

Chinese producers also now may have an incentive to shift exports of PC strand from the

European Union to the United States. The European Union, in May 2009, imposed definitive

antidumping duties on PC strand from China ranging from 31.1 percent to 46.2 percent.110

 We do not view the sharp decline in subject imports in interim 2009 as indicative of the likely

levels of subject imports in the imminent future. In light of the substantial volumes of subject imports for

much of the period examined and the high level of likely available supply from China, we find that

subject imports will likely increase substantially from their interim 2009 levels in the imminent future.

Nonetheless, we recognize that due to lower demand, the absolute volume of subject imports from China

will likely be lower in the imminent future than the very high levels observed for much of the period

examined.
 111 CR at II-1-II-2 and II-9, PR at II-1 and II-7.

 112 CR at V-3-V-4, PR at V-3. 

 113 CR at V-4, PR at V-3.

 114 CR/PR at Table V-4. The bulk of the pricing comparisons were for Products 1 and 2. A pricing comparison

was possible only in one calendar quarter for Product 3, the covered strand. CR at V-4 n.5, PR at V-3 n.5.

 115 As noted above, in 2008, for example, U.S. producers accounted for 90.5 percent of PC strand consumed in

pre-tensioned applications, while subject imports accounted for only 8.7 percent. CR/PR at Table C-3.

 116 As noted above, in 2008, for example, subject imports accounted for 70.4 percent of PC strand consumed in

post-tensioned applications, while U.S. producers accounted for 26.9 percent. CR/PR at Table C-3.

 117 Of the total $12.3 million in confirmed lost sales, $*** were “partial” confirmations. CR at V-10 and Table

V-5, PR at V-6 and Table V-5.

 118 CR at V-10 and Table V-6, PR at V-6 and Table V-5.

 119 Seven of 18 purchasers reported that they had switched from the U.S. product to subject imports because of

price, and eight of 15 purchasers reported that U.S. producers reduced their prices to compete with subject imports. 

CR at V-10 and V-13, PR at V-6. 

19

Thus, for purposes of the preliminary phase of these investigations, we find a reasonable

indication that the subject import volume is likely to be significant within an imminent time frame, both

in absolute terms and relative to consumption and production in the United States, and that the increase in

subject imports’ market share will be substantial.

D. Likely Price Effects of the Subject Imports

In assessing the likely price effects of the subject imports, we consider pricing developments

during the period examined and likely developments in the imminent future in light of key conditions of

competition in the U.S. market. The record indicates that subject imports from China and domestic PC

strand are highly substitutable and that most sales of both the domestic like product and subject imports

are made to end users.111

The Commission collected quarterly pricing data for three PC strand products. Product 1 was 1⁄2

inch, grade 270, low relaxation, uncovered PC strand sold for pre-tensioned applications. Product 2 was

the same product, but sold for post-tensioned applications. Product 3 was the same product, but greased

and covered in a polyethylene wrap and sold for post-tensioned applications.112 Usable pricing data were

provided by four domestic producers, accounting for 47.4 percent of domestic producers’ shipments

during 2008, and 18 importers, accounting for virtually all shipments of subject imports in that year.113

The evidence of underselling and overselling by subject imports was mixed. Subject imports undersold

the domestic like product in 15 of 27 quarterly pricing comparisons by margins ranging from 1.9 percent

to 27.6 percent.114 We note that most of the underselling by subject imports (12 of the 15 instances)

occurred with respect to the strand sold in pre-tensioned applications (Product 1), the area in which the

domestic industry dominates the market.115 The subject imports mostly oversold the domestic product

with respect to the strand sold in post-tensioned applications (Product 2), in which most of the subject

imports are sold.116

Of lost sales allegations totaling $135.4 million, the Commission was able to confirm allegations

totaling $12.3 million.117 Of lost revenue allegations totaling $684,480, the Commission was able to

confirm allegations totaling $10,000.118 There also is some evidence in the record that certain purchasers

switched from U.S.-produced PC strand to the subject imports because of price and that U.S. producers

were perceived to have lowered their prices in order to compete with subject imports.119 Further evidence
 120 This importer testified that imports of PC strand from China were setting the price levels in the U.S. market

throughout the period examined and leading to a loss of sales by domestic producers, even as they lowered their

prices in an effort to be competitive with Chinese imports. The importer also testified that it is being offered

Chinese PC strand at prices well below domestic prices in 2009. Conference Transcript at 31-35 (Johnson). 

 121 CR/PR at Tables V-1 and V-2.

 122 CR/PR at V-1 and Figure V-1.

 123 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 124 Commissioners Lane and Pinkert find that the steady increase in the ratio of COGS to net sales indicates that

price suppression was significant during the period.

 125 The alleged subsidies that form the basis for Commerce’s initiation of the countervailing duty investigation are

summarized above and are set forth in detail at CR at I-9, PR at I-7. Commerce initiated the antidumping duty

investigation based on estimated dumping margins of 140.16 to 314.59 percent. CR at I-10, PR at I-8.

 126 Production was 673.2 million pounds in 2006, 601.7 million pounds in 2007, and 558.9 million pounds in

2008. Capacity utilization was 83.0 percent in 2006, 66.7 percent in 2007, and 61.8 percent in 2008. Domestic

shipments were 627.4 million pounds in 2006, 582.8 million pounds in 2007, and 530.0 million pounds in 2008. 

Production related workers totaled 385 in 2006, 357 in 2007, and 331 in 2008. Hours worked totaled 856,000 in

2006, 771,000 in 2007, and 694,000 in 2008. CR/PR at Table C-1.

 127 Operating profit was $48.9 million in 2006, $39.4 million in 2007, and $38.0 million in 2008. The domestic

industry’s ratio of operating income to net sales was 15.7 percent in 2006, 13.9 percent in 2007, and 10.7 percent in

2008. CR/PR at Table C-1.

20

of adverse price effects by subject imports throughout the period examined, and particularly in early

2009, was provided in testimony by a large U.S. importer of the subject merchandise.120

The prices of both the Chinese and domestic products fluctuated in a narrow range in 2006 and

2007, before increasing sharply in 2008 through the third quarter of that year.121 This increase in prices in

2008 coincided with a substantial spike in the price of steel wire rod from late 2007 through August

2008.122

There is some evidence of price suppression on the record of these preliminary phase

investigations. The ratio of the domestic industry’s cost of goods sold (“COGS”) to sales increased

steadily over the period examined. The COGS/sales ratio was 79.7 percent in 2006, 81.4 percent in 2007,

85.4 percent in 2008, and 109.0 percent in interim 2009 as compared with 83.1 percent in interim 2008,

indicating that the domestic industry was unable to raise prices sufficiently to offset rising steel wire rod

and other costs.123 124 We intend to examine, in any final phase investigations, the role of subject imports

in any price suppression.

As subject imports are likely to enter the U.S. market in significant volumes and hold significant

market share in the reasonably foreseeable future, this is likely to lead to adverse price effects that were

only nascent in the period examined, during most of which demand was more robust than is likely in the

imminent future. We intend to examine more closely the price effects of the subject imports in any final

phase investigations.

E. Likely Impact of the Subject Imports on the Domestic Industry125

Between 2006 and 2008, the domestic PC strand industry saw some declines in its performance

indicators. Production, capacity utilization, shipments, and employment all fell in this period.126 The

domestic industry’s financial results also weakened, although it recorded double-digit operating income

ratios throughout the 2006-08 period.127 The domestic industry’s market share remained fairly constant in
 128 U.S. producers’ share of apparent U.S. consumption was 56.4 percent in 2006, 59.4 percent in 2007, and 56.2

percent in 2008. CR/PR at Table C-1.

 129 Production capacity was 810.7 million pounds in 2006, 902.8 million pounds in 2007, and 903.8 million

pounds in 2008. Productivity (pounds per hours) was 786.7 in 2006, 780.0 in 2007, and 805.0 in 2008. CR/PR at

Table C-1.

 130 Production was 161.1 million pounds in interim 2008 and 80.8 million pounds in interim 2009. Capacity

utilization was 71.2 percent in interim 2008 and 35.7 percent in interim 2009. U.S. shipments were 160.8 million

pounds in interim 2008 and 80.7 million pounds in interim 2009. The number of production workers was 333 in

interim 2008 and 258 in interim 2009. Hours worked were 183,000 in interim 2008 and 120,000 in interim 2009. 

Productivity (pounds per hour) was 881.2 in interim 2008 and 674.7 in interim 2009. Operating income was $9.9

million in first quarter 2008 and a loss of 7.7 million in first quarter 2009. CR/PR at Table C-1. 

 131 We recognize that inventory write-down costs by one domestic producer (Insteel) were a significant

component of the domestic industry’s poor financial performance in interim 2009. It is unclear to what extent these

inventory losses are related to the effects of subject imports. We intend to explore this issue further in any final

phase of these investigations. We note, however, that, even without the effects of these inventory write-downs, the

domestic industry would still have suffered sharply lower operating income in interim 2009 as compared with

interim 2008. CR at VI–3 n.3, PR at VI-1 n.3.

 132 Chairman Aranoff, Vice Chairman Pearson, and Commissioner Okun find that, based on these data, and in

light of the current economic conditions, the domestic industry is unlikely to perform as well in the near term as it

did during the period examined. Nonetheless, given the industry’s performance, albeit with declines, throughout the

period, they do not find that the domestic industry is currently in a vulnerable state.

 133 Commissioners Lane, Pinkert, and Williamson find, based on these data, that the domestic industry is in a

weakened state and therefore vulnerable to the likely volume and price effects of subject imports.

21

this period.128 Production capacity and productivity registered gains, however.129 The data for the 2006-

08 period must be viewed in the light of the general decline in demand for PC strand in that period. As

noted above, apparent U.S. consumption of PC strand fell by 15.2 percent in the 2006-08 period. U.S.

market demand for PC strand then dropped precipitously in late 2008 and interim 2009. As a result,

many domestic industry indicators were substantially lower in the first quarter of 2009 than in the first

quarter of 2008. Domestic production was 49.9 percent lower, capacity utilization was 35.5 percentage

points lower, U.S. shipments were 49.8 percent lower, the number of production workers was 22.5

percent lower, hours worked were 34.5 percent lower, productivity was 23.4 percent lower, and operating

income was also drastically lower.130 131 132 133 For purposes of these preliminary phase determinations, we

find a reasonable indication that the continued or increased presence of subject imports at low prices will

likely result in material injury to the domestic industry unless antidumping and countervailing duty orders

are issued.

For purposes of these preliminary phase investigations, we find that there likely will be a causal

nexus between the subject imports and an imminent adverse impact on the domestic industry. This

conclusion is based on the declines in the industry’s trade and employment data discussed above, our

finding that the volume of subject imports is likely to increase substantially from its interim 2009 level in

an imminent time frame, and our conclusion that underselling by subject imports will likely continue and

have significant adverse effects on domestic prices. Significant volumes of subject imports at low prices

are likely to affect the industry’s sales volumes and prices negatively, thereby reducing the industry’s

levels of production, employment, and profitability.

 We have considered whether there are other factors that will likely have an imminent impact on

the domestic industry. We recognize that the decline in PC strand demand played a role in the downturn

in the domestic industry’s performance near the end of the period examined. Moreover, as discussed

above, demand is likely to remain at suppressed levels in the imminent future. In any final phase of these
 134 Nonsubject imports played only a minor, and generally declining, role in the U.S. market during the period

examined. The market share of nonsubject imports declined from 8.4 percent in 2006, to 4.5 percent in 2007, and to

3.3 percent in 2008. The market share of nonsubject imports was 3.2 percent in interim 2009, as compared with 4.3

percent in interim 2008. CR/PR at Table C-1.

22

investigations, we intend to explore further the role that any changes in demand would play in the

performance of the domestic industry in order to ensure that we do not attribute to subject imports the

effects of any future adverse demand conditions.134

We also recognize that Buy America(n) provisions may shield the domestic industry from direct

competition from subject imports in a part of the domestic PC strand market, even though a substantial

part of the market is not subject to such provisions. In any final phase of these investigations, we will

also explore this issue further.

Finally, in any final phase of these investigations, we will also examine the market dynamics

underlying sales for pre-tensioning and post-tensioning applications, and the reasons why most of the

subject imports were sold for post-tension applications, while the domestic product was sold mostly for

pre-tension applications.

Consequently, we conclude for purposes of the preliminary phase of these investigations that

there is a likely causal nexus between the subject imports and an imminent adverse impact on the

domestic industry, which demonstrates a reasonable indication that the domestic industry is threatened

with material injury by reason of subject imports.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, and based on the record in the preliminary phase of these

investigations, we find that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is

threatened with material injury by reason of subject imports of PC strand from China that are allegedly

sold in the United States at less than fair value and allegedly subsidized by the Government of China.
 1

 See the section entitled “The Subject Merchandise” in Part I of this report for a complete description of the

merchandise subject to these investigations.

 2 Federal Register notices cited in the tabulation are presented in app. A.

I-1

PART I: INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

These investigations result from a petition filed with the U.S. Department of Commerce

(“Commerce”) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (“USITC” or “Commission”) by counsel on

behalf of American Spring Wire Corp. (“American”) (Bedford Heights, OH); Insteel Wire Products Co.

(“Insteel”) (Mt. Airy, NC); and Sumiden Wire Products Corp. (“Sumiden”) (Dickson, TN), on May 27,

2009, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured and threatened with material

injury by reason of subsidized and less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) imports of prestressed concrete steel

wire strand (“PC strand”)1

 from China. Information relating to the background of the investigations is

provided below.2

Effective date Action

May 27, 2009 Petition filed with Commerce and the Commission; institution of Commission’s

investigations (74 FR 26731, June 3, 2009)

June 17, 2009 Commission’s conference1

June 16, 2009 Commerce’s notice of initiation of countervailing duty investigation (74 FR

29670, June 23, 2009)

June 23, 2009 Commerce’s notice of initiation of antidumping duty investigation (74 FR

29665)

July 10, 2009 Commission’s vote

July 13, 2009 Commission’s determinations transmitted to Commerce

July 20, 2009 Commission’s views transmitted to Commerce

 1 A list of witnesses that appeared at the conference is presented in app. B.

STATUTORY CRITERIA AND ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

Statutory Criteria

Section 771(7)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the “Act”) (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)) provides that in

making its determinations of injury to an industry in the United States, the Commission--

shall consider (I) the volume of imports of the subject merchandise, (II)

the effect of imports of that merchandise on prices in the United States

for domestic like products, and (III) the impact of imports of such

merchandise on domestic producers of domestic like products, but only

in the context of production operations within the United States; and . . .

may consider such other economic factors as are relevant to the

determination regarding whether there is material injury by reason of

imports.
I-2

Section 771(7)(C) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)) further provides that--

In evaluating the volume of imports of merchandise, the Commission

shall consider whether the volume of imports of the merchandise, or any

increase in that volume, either in absolute terms or relative to production

or consumption in the United States is significant.

. . .

In evaluating the effect of imports of such merchandise on prices, the

Commission shall consider whether . . . (I) there has been significant

price underselling by the imported merchandise as compared with the

price of domestic like products of the United States, and (II) the effect of

imports of such merchandise otherwise depresses prices to a significant

degree or prevents price increases, which otherwise would have

occurred, to a significant degree.

. . .

In examining the impact required to be considered under subparagraph

(B)(i)(III), the Commission shall evaluate (within the context of the

business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the

affected industry) all relevant economic factors which have a bearing on

the state of the industry in the United States, including, but not limited to

. . . 

(I) actual and potential declines in output, sales, market share, profits,

productivity, return on investments, and utilization of capacity, (II)

factors affecting domestic prices, (III) actual and potential negative

effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to

raise capital, and investment, (IV) actual and potential negative effects

on the existing development and production efforts of the domestic

industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced

version of the domestic like product, and (V) in {an antidumping

investigation}, the magnitude of the margin of dumping.

Organization of the Report

Part I of this report presents information on the subject merchandise, alleged subsidy and

dumping margins, and domestic like product. Part II of this report presents information on conditions of

competition and other relevant economic factors. Part III presents information on the condition of the

U.S. industry, including data on capacity, production, shipments, inventories, and employment. Parts IV

and V present the volume and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise, respectively. Part VI

presents information on the financial experience of U.S. producers. Part VII presents the statutory

requirements and information obtained for use in the Commission’s consideration of the question of threat

of material injury as well as information regarding nonsubject countries.
 3

 Rettco (the “toller” or “toll producer”) produces PC strand under a toll agreement with MMI (the “tollee”). 

MMI furnishes Rettco with the raw material (i.e., wire rod), pays Rettco a conversion fee for producing finished PC

strand, and sells the finished PC strand. The production, capacity, capacity utilization, and employment data

presented in this report were submitted by toller Rettco and the shipment, inventory, pricing, and primary financial

data were provided by MMI.

 4

 PCS of America (“PCS”) (Rosenberg, TX), formerly related to Mexican PC strand producer Aceros Camesa

S.A. de C.V. (“Camesa”), and EMC (Phoenix, AR), formerly owned by Mexican PC strand producer Cablesa S.A.

de C.V. (“Cablesa”), both produced PC strand in the United States during the early portion of the period for which

information was requested in these investigations. PCS ceased U.S. production of PC strand by *** and EMC

ceased production by ***. Email from *** to Mary Messer, June 26, 2009; and petition, pp. 3-4.

 5

 Petition, exh. General-4.

I-3

MARKET SUMMARY

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 stressrelieved. PC strand is used to compress concrete structural members to improve their ability to withstand

loads. The PC strand is tensioned 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. 

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 in which PC strand is

used include bridge decks, bridge girders, pilings, precast concrete panels and structural supports, roof

trusses, floor supports, and certain concrete foundations.

There are currently five U.S. producers of PC strand: American; Insteel; Rettco Steel, LLC

(“Rettco”)/MMI Products, Inc. (“MMI”);3

 Strand-Tech Martin (“Strand-Tech”); and Sumiden.4 *** is the

largest domestic PC strand producer, accounting for *** percent of production of PC strand in the United

States during 2008. The petitioners indicated that there are at least 22 producers of PC strand in China;5

the largest nonsubject sources of PC strand imported into the United States during 2008 include Canada

(Bekaert Canada Ltd. and Stelwire Ltd.); Italy (CB Trafilati Accial, Far SPA, Redaelli Tecnasud,

Siderurgica Latina Martin, and Trafilati SPA); Korea (Dong-Il Steel Mfg. Co. Ltd., Kiswire Ltd., Manho

Rope and Wire Ltd., and Youngheung Iron and Steel Co. Ltd.); and Portugal (Fapricela Industria de

Trefilaria SA). At least 18 firms have imported PC strand from China since 2006. The three largest

importers providing responses to the questionnaire in these investigations – *** – together accounted for

almost two-thirds of total subject U.S. imports from China in 2008 as measured by official Commerce

import statistics. The leading U.S. importer of PC strand from nonsubject countries (primarily Canada) is

***. U.S. purchasers of PC strand are firms that typically either pre-tension or post-tension concrete

structural components. Suncoast Post-Tension is reportedly the largest purchaser of PC strand in the

United States. Other leading U.S. purchasers include Coreslab Structures, Dywidag Systems, VSL,

Valmont Newmark, and Builders PT.

Apparent U.S. consumption of PC strand totaled 942.7 million pounds ($550.5 million) in 2008. 

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of PC strand totaled 530.0 million pounds ($334.4 million) in 2008, and

accounted for 56.2 percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and 60.8 percent by value. U.S.

imports from China totaled 381.7 million pounds ($194.3 million) in 2008 and accounted for 40.5 percent

of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and 35.3 percent by value. U.S. imports from nonsubject

sources totaled 31.1 million pounds ($21.8 million) in 2008 and accounted for 3.3 percent of apparent

U.S. consumption by quantity and 4.0 percent by value. Apparent U.S. consumption, on the basis of

quantity, declined by 15.2 percent from 2006 to 2008 and was 62.7 percent lower in the first quarter of

2009 relative to the first quarter of 2008.
 6

 Table C-1 presents apparent U.S. consumption calculated using U.S. imports compiled from official import

statistics. Table C-2 presents apparent U.S. consumption calculated using U.S. shipments of imports compiled from

Commission questionnaire responses. Although table C-1 incorporates full import coverage, table C-2 captures

shifts in inventory holdings by U.S. importers.

 7

 There are currently five U.S. producers of PC strand: American, Insteel, Rettco/MMI, Strand-Tech, and

Sumiden. The data presented in this report do not include the data of two U.S. PC strand producers (PCS and EMC)

that ceased production during 2006-07.

 8

 Data on U.S. shipments of imports based on Commission questionnaire responses are presented separately in

appendix C, table C-2.

 9 Response to Commission’s Notice of Institution of Domestic Interested Parties, Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire

Strand from Brazil, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand (Inv. Nos. 701-TA-432 and 73l-TA-1024-1028

(Review) and AA1921-188 (Third Review)), January 16, 2009, p. 24; Response to Commission’s Notice of

Institution of Dong-I1 Steel Mfg. Co., Ltd., Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Brazil, India, Japan, Korea,

Mexico, and Thailand (Inv. Nos. 701-TA-432 and 73l-TA-1024-1028 (Review) and AA1921-188 (Third Review)),

January 20, 2009, item (11); and Response to Commission’s Notice of Institution of Camesa and Deacero,

Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Brazil, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand (Inv. Nos.

701-TA-432 and 73l-TA-1024-1028 (Review) and AA1921-188 (Third Review)), January 21, 2009, p. 10.

I-4

SUMMARY DATA AND DATA SOURCES

A summary of data collected in these investigations is presented in appendix C, tables C-1 and 

C-2.6

 U.S. industry data are based on questionnaire responses of five firms that accounted for all U.S.

production of PC strand during 2008.7

 U.S. imports presented in the body of this report are based on

Commerce’s official import statistics.8

 Data regarding the Chinese industry are based on four foreign

producer questionnaire responses submitted in these investigations. Appendixes D and E present

additional price data and comments on the effects of imports, respectively.

PREVIOUS AND RELATED INVESTIGATIONS

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations and Reviews

The Commission has conducted several previous antidumping and countervailing duty

investigations and five-year reviews concerning PC strand from 9 different countries. The earliest

investigations concerning PC strand were conducted by the Commission in 1978. The Commission’s

domestic like product and domestic industry determinations in all PC strand investigations and reviews

are similar in that the Commission has consistently found one domestic like product consisting of PC

strand and one domestic industry consisting of all domestic producers of PC strand. Table I-1 presents

information on previous and related title VII investigations and five-year reviews concerning PC strand.

On December 1, 2008 (73 FR 72834), the Commission instituted its third five-year review of the

antidumping duty finding concerning PC strand from Japan and its initial five-year reviews of the orders

concerning PC strand from Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand. The Commission’s

determinations in those five-year reviews are scheduled to be transmitted to Commerce on November 24,

2009. The domestic and respondent interested parties indicated in their responses to the Commission’s

notice of institution in those reviews that they agree with the Commission’s definitions of the domestic

like product and domestic industry in the original investigations.9
Table I-1

PC strand: Previous Title VII investigations and five-year reviews

Investigations/Reviews Dates

Country Number Begin End Domestic Like Product/Domestic Industry Determination 

India

AA1921-182(Final) 06/02/1978 08/25/1978

Under the then-applicable statutory provisions, the Commission made no domes

like product determination per se in its original determinations, but it essentially

treated all PC strand as a single domestic like product. The Commission determ

that it "considered the relevant domestic industry to consist of facilities in the Uni

States devoted to the production of steel wire strand for prestressed concrete."

Japan

AA1921-188(Final) 08/29/1978 11/22/1978

The Commission’s domestic like product and domestic industry determinations in original final investigation concerning PC strand from Japan were the same as itsdeterminations in the final investigation concerning PC strand from India.

AA1921-188(First Review) 09/01/1998 02/02/1999

The Commission found that the appropriate definition of the domestic like producthe expedited initial five-year review was the same as Commerce's scope: all stewire strand, other than alloy steel, not galvanized, which has been stress-relievedand is suitable for use in prestressed concrete. It further determined that theappropriate domestic industry was all U.S. producers of PC strand.

AA1921-188(SecondReview) 01/02/2004 06/07/2004

The Commission’s domestic like product and domestic industry determinations in expedited second five-year review was the same as its determinations in theexpedited initial five-year review on PC strand from Japan.

Spain 

701-TA-164(Final) 04/26/1982 08/23/1982

The Commission defined the domestic like product as “all wire strand of steel forprestressing concrete” and it defined the domestic industry as the producers of thdomestic like product.

Brazil

701-TA-152(Final)

03/04/1982

03/14/1983

The Commission’s domestic like product and domestic industry determinations in original final investigations concerning PC strand from Brazil, France, and the UnKingdom were the same as its determinations in the final investigation concerninstrand from Spain.

France

701-TA-153(Final) 12/06/1982

UnitedKingdom

 731-TA-89(Final) 02/02/1983

Brazil 731-TA-1024

01/31/2003 01/21/2004

The Commission found the domestic like product to be all PC strand co-extensivwith Commerce's scope: steel strand produced from wire of non-stainless,non-galvanized steel that is suitable for use in prestressed concrete (bothpre-tensioned and post-tensioned) applications and that encompasses covered auncovered strand and all types, grades, and diameters of prestressed concrete swire strand. The Commission found the domestic industry to be all producers of 

strand. The Commission also determined that plastic coating did not constitutesufficient production-related activity to qualify coaters as members of the domestindustry producing PC strand. 

India

701-TA-432731-TA-1025

Korea 731-TA-1026Mexico 731-TA-1027Thailand 731-TA-1028Source: Various Commission publications and Federal Register notices.

I-5
 10 19 U.S.C. § 2252.

 11 Carbon and alloy (including stainless) steel strand, rope, cable, and cordage, a product category that included

PC strand, were found to be a single ‘like or directly competitive’ product by Chairman Stephen Koplan, Vice

Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun, and Commissioners Marcia E. Miller and Jennifer A. Hillman. Commissioner

Lynn M. Bragg included PC strand in a broader wire product grouping that also included carbon and alloy steel wire

as well as many downstream products. Commissioner Dennis M. Devaney included PC strand in an even broader

product grouping that included all carbon and alloy steel long products. See, e.g., Steel, Inv. No. TA-201-73, 

Volume I: Determinations and Views of Commissioners, USITC Publication 3479, December 2001, pp. 88-90, 273,

and 312.

 12 Institution and Scheduling of an Investigation under Section 202 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2252) (the

Act), 66 FR 35267, July 3, 2001.

 13 19 U.S.C. § 2251.

 14 Consolidation of Senate Finance Committee Resolution Requesting a Section 201 Investigation with the

Investigation Requested by the United States Trade Representative on June 22, 2001, 66 FR 44158, August 22,

2001.

 15 Steel; Import Investigations, 66 FR 67304, December 28, 2001. Specifically, Chairman Stephen Koplan, Vice

Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun, and Commissioners Marcia E. Miller and Jennifer A. Hillman made a negative

determination with respect to carbon and alloy steel strand, rope, cable, and cordage, while Commissioners Lynn M.

Bragg and Dennis M. Devaney dissented, having made affirmative determinations with respect to carbon and alloy

steel wire products (Commissioner Bragg) and carbon and alloy steel long products (Commissioner Devaney).

 16 Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand From the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing

Duty Investigation, 74 FR 29670, June 23, 2009.

I-6

Safeguard Investigations

Following receipt of a request from the Office of the United States Trade Representative on June

22, 2001, the Commission instituted investigation No. TA-201-73, Steel, under section 202 of the Trade

Act of 197410 to determine whether certain steel products, including PC strand,11 were being imported into

the United States in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of serious injury, or the threat

thereof, to the domestic industries producing articles like or directly competitive with the imported

article.12 On July 26, 2001, the Commission received a resolution adopted by the Committee on Finance

of the U.S. Senate (“Senate Finance Committee” or “Committee”) requesting that the Commission

investigate certain steel imports under section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974.13 Consistent with the Senate

Finance Committee’s resolution, the Commission consolidated the investigation requested by the

Committee with the Commission’s previously instituted investigation No. TA-201-73.14 On December

20, 2001, the Commission issued its determinations and remedy recommendations. The Commission

made a negative determination with respect to the product grouping that included PC strand.15

NATURE AND EXTENT OF ALLEGED SUBSIDIES AND SALES AT LTFV

Alleged Subsidies

On June 23, 2009, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register of the initiation of its

countervailing duty investigation on PC strand from China.16 Commerce indicated in its notice that it is

including in its investigation the following programs alleged in the petition to have provided

countervailable subsidies to producers and exporters of the subject merchandise in China:
I-7

A. Loan Programs

1. Policy Lending at the Federal Level to PC Strand Industry.

2. Policy Lending at the Provincial and Municipal Level.

3. Preferential Loans for State-Owned Enterprises.

4. Treasury Bond Loans.

5. Honorable Enterprises Program.

6. Preferential Loans for Key Projects and Technologies.

B. Government Provision of Goods and Services for Less Than Adequate Remuneration (“LTAR”)

1. Government Provision of Wire Rod for LTAR.

2. Provision of Land Use Rights for LTAR to Foreign Invested Enterprises/Entities (“FIEs”) in

Jiangxi and the City of Xinyu.

3. Federal Provision of Electricity for LTAR.

4. Provision of Electricity and Water at LTAR for FIEs and “Technologically Advanced”

Enterprises by Jiangsu Province.

C. Income and Other Direct Taxes

1. Income Tax Credits for Domestically Owned Companies Purchasing Domestically Produced

Equipment.

2. Income Tax Exemption for Investment in Domestic Technological Renovation.

3. Reduction in or exemption from Fixed Assets Investment Orientation Regulatory Tax.

D. Indirect Tax and Tariff Exemption Programs

1. Stamp Exemption on Share Transfers Under Non-Tradable Share Reform.

2. Deed Tax Exemption for State Owned Enterprises (“SOEs”) Undergoing Mergers or

Restructurings.

3. Export Incentive Payments Characterized as “VAT Rebates.”

4. Import Tariff and VAT Exemptions for FIEs and Certain Domestic Enterprises Using

Imported Equipment in Encouraged Industries.

5. Import Tariff and VAT Refunds to Promote the Development of Equipment Manufacturing in

China.

E. Grant Programs

1. The State Key Technology Project Fund.

2. Subsidies for Development of Famous Export Brands and China World Top Brands.

3. Sub-Central Government Programs to Promote Famous Export Brands and China World Top

Brands.

4. Exemptions for SOEs from Distributing Dividends to the State.

5. Grants to Loss-Making SOEs.

6. Program to Rebate Antidumping Fees.

F. Preferential Income Tax Subsidies for FIEs

1. Two Free, Three Half Program.

2. Income Tax Exemption Program for Export-Oriented FIEs.

3. Local Income Tax Exemption and Reduction Programs for “Productive” FIEs.

4. Preferential Tax Programs for FIEs Recognized as High or New Technology Enterprises.

5. Income Tax Subsidies for FIE’s Based on Geographic Location.

6. VAT Refunds for FIE’s Purchasing Domestically Produced Equipment.
 17 Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand From the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty

Investigation, 74 FR 29665, June 23, 2009.

 18 Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand From the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty

Investigation, 74 FR 29665, June 23, 2009; and Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand From the People’s Republic

of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation, 74 FR 29670, June 23, 2009.

I-8

In addition, Commerce reported that it is not including in its investigation the following programs

alleged by petitioners to benefit producers and exporters of the subject merchandise in China because of

insufficient evidence of such benefit: Export Loans; Stamp Tax Exemption and Waiver of Administrative

Charges for SOEs Undergoing Mergers or Restructurings; Export Assistance Grants; Provision of Land to

SOEs for Less Than Adequate Remuneration; Government Provision of Land at Less Than Adequate

Remuneration to Companies Located in Development Zones; Government Restraints on Exports of Wire

Rod; Tax Reduction for Enterprises Making Little Profit; and China’s Enforced Undervaluation of Its

Currency.

Alleged Sales at LTFV

On June 23, 2009, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register of the initiation of its

antidumping duty investigation on PC strand from China.17 Commerce has initiated an antidumping duty

investigation based on estimated dumping margins ranging from 140.16 percent to 314.59 percent for PC

strand from China.

THE SUBJECT MERCHANDISE

Commerce’s Scope

Commerce has defined the scope of these investigations as follows:

For purposes of this investigation, prestressed concrete steel wire strand (PC strand) is

steel wire strand, other than of stainless steel, which is suitable for use in, but not limited

to, prestressed concrete (both pre-tensioned and post-tensioned) applications. The scope

of this investigation encompasses all types and diameters of PC strand whether uncoated

(uncovered) or coated (covered) by any substance, including but not limited to, grease,

plastic sheath, or epoxy. This merchandise includes, but is not limited to, PC strand

produced to the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) A-416

specification, or comparable domestic or foreign specifications. PC strand made from

galvanized wire is excluded from the scope if the zinc and/or zinc oxide coating meets or

exceeds the 0.40 oz./ft2

 standard set forth in ASTM-A-475.18
I-9

Tariff Treatment

PC stand is classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTS”) under

subheading 7312.10.30 and reported for statistical purposes under statistical reporting numbers

7312.10.3010 and 7312.10.3012. Table I-2 presents current tariff rates for PC strand.

Table I-2

PC strand: Tariff treatment, 2009

HTS provision Article description

Column 1

Column 22 General1 Special

Rates (percent ad valorem)

7312

7312.10

.30

.10

.12

Stranded wire, ropes, cables, plaited bands, slings

and the like, of iron or steel, not electrically

insulated:

Stranded wire, ropes and cables:

Stranded wire:

Other {than of stainless steel} ........

For prestressing concrete:

Covered with textile or other 

nonmetallic material

Other

Free (3

) 35%

1

 Normal trade relations rate, formerly known as the most-favored-nation duty rate. 2

 Applies to imports from a small number of countries that do not enjoy normal trade relations duty status. 3

 Special rates not applicable when General rate is free. China is not eligible for any special tariff treatment.

Source: Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2009).
 19 Although the seven-wire PC strand is the most prevalent product in the industry, PC strand may also be

produced with as few as three wires. Shemenski, Robert M. et al (eds.), Ferrous Wire Handbook, Guilford, CT: 

The Wire Association, 2008, pp. 922-923. According to petitioners, “all types, grades, and diameters of PC strand

are produced in the United States.” Petition, vol. I, p. 9.

 20 Petition, vol. I, p. 11; conference transcript, p. 14 (Selhorst).

 21 PC strand grade designations (such as grades 250, 270, and 300) correspond to the minimum ultimate strength

of the product in thousands of pounds per square inch (“psi”) based on tensile strength and cross-sectional surface

area of the PC strand. For example, grade 270 PC strand has a minimum ultimate strength of 270,000 psi. 

According to petitioners, one-half inch diameter grade 270 is the predominant grade and size used in the U.S.

market. Petition, vol. I, pp. 9 and 14; conference transcript, p. 15 (Selhorst).

 22 Conference transcript, p. 15 (Selhorst).

 23 Prestressed concrete may also contain reinforcing wire or wire fabric. Lankford, William T. et al (eds.), The

Making, Shaping, and Treating of Steel, 10th Edition, Pittsburgh, PA: Association of Iron and Steel Engineers, 1984,

pp. 1014-1015.

 24 Petition, vol. I, p. 10.

 25 Portland Cement Association Web site, http://www.cement.org/basics/concreteproducts_prestressed.asp,

accessed June 10, 2009.

 26 According to Timothy Selhorst, President of American Spring Wire Corporation, “the same PC strand may be

sold to pre- and post-tensioners” and both types of PC strand have the same purpose–to impart compressive forces

into concrete so that it can withstand tensile forces without cracking. Conference transcript, p. 15 (Selhorst).

 27 Petition, vol. I, p. 11.

 28 Conference transcript, p. 73 (Woltz).

I-10

THE DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT

Description and Applications

PC strand consists of multiple steel wires wound together to produce a strong, flexible product

that is used to strengthen concrete structures. PC strand is commonly available in three grades, in covered

and uncovered form, and in several nominal diameters. The most common PC strand configuration

consists of six wires wound helically around a single wire core.19 Nominal diameters of PC strand

typically range from 0.25 to 0.70 inch 20 and generally have three grade designations, 250, 270, and 300.21

PC strand is used in the construction of prestressed concrete structural components to introduce

compression into the concrete.22 This compression offsets or neutralizes forces within the concrete that

occur when it is subjected to loads.23 Typical applications of prestressed concrete include bridge decks,

bridge girders, pilings, precast concrete panels and structural supports, roof trusses, floor supports, and

certain concrete foundations.24 One of the most widespread uses of prestressed concrete, however, is

parking garages.25

PC strand may be pre-tensioned or post-tensioned.26 Pre-tensioned PC strand is tensioned (pulled

tightly and slightly elongated) using a calibrated tensioning apparatus, and concrete is cured around the

PC strand.27 After the concrete has cured, the tension is released and the tensile force of the strand

induces a compressive force in the concrete. Pre-tensioned prestressed concrete depends upon the bond

created between the concrete and the PC strand to hold the concrete in compression. Most pre-tensioned

concrete elements are prefabricated in a factory and must be transported to the construction site.28

Pre-tensioned concrete components may be used in balconies, lintels, floor slabs, beams or foundation

piles.
 29 Petition, vol. I, p. 11.

 30 Conference transcript, p. 73 (Woltz).

 31 Portland Cement Association Web site, http://www.cement.org/buildings/post_tensioned_splash.asp, accessed

June 10, 2009. 

 32 Craig D. Olson and Laura N. Smith, “Building with Concrete: Post-tensioned Concrete for Today’s Market,”

The Seattle Daily Journal of Commerce, May 9, 1997, http://www.djc.com/special/concrete97/10024302.htm.

 33 Post-Tensioning Institute, “PTI Tonnage Report: Summary of Post-Tensioning Industry Shipments in North

America 1972-2007,” 2008, p. 1.

 34 Petition, vol. I, p. 11.

I-11

For post-tensioned PC strand, there is no bond between the PC strand and the cured concrete. 

Instead, the PC strand is tensioned using a calibrated tensioning apparatus after the concrete has cured.29

In post-tensioned prestressed concrete, tension is maintained by installing permanent mechanical anchors

that remain in place after the tensioning apparatus is removed. Unlike pre-tensioning, which is largely

performed at precast manufacturing facilities, post-tensioning takes place on the job site in cast-in-place

applications.30 The concrete component is cast in a way in which PC strand may be installed so that it is

protected from bonding with the concrete. Post-tensioning gives designers the flexibility to further

optimize material use by creating thinner concrete components.31 The predominant end uses of posttensioned PC strand are in slab-on-grade construction and in buildings for floors with moderate to long

spans and moderate floor loads such as in parking garages and residential buildings.32 Approximately ***

percent of total U.S. shipments of post-tensioned PC strand in 2007 were used in slab-on-grade (***

percent) and building (*** percent) construction applications.33

Depending on the application, PC strand will be either uncoated or coated (with plastic or epoxy). 

Plastic-coated PC strand is lubricated with grease and encased in a plastic tube, whereas epoxy-coated PC

strand is coated with epoxy. For pre-tensioning applications, where the bond between the cured concrete

and the PC strand holds the concrete in compression, the PC strand is installed uncoated. In contrast,

post-tensioning applications may require uncoated or coated PC strand.

There are two methods of post-tensioning PC strand in concrete members: internal and external. 

For internal post-tensioning applications, the PC strand is either (1) greased and plastic-coated (which

keeps the concrete from bonding to the PC strand during the curing process) and concrete is cured around

the coated PC strand or (2) plastic or metal ducts are cast into the concrete and uncoated PC strand is

passed through each duct. If the duct method is used, after tensioning and anchoring, the ducts containing

the PC strand are filled with grout to protect it from corrosion.34 For external post-tensioning

applications, coated PC strand or uncoated, galvanized PC strand may be used to protect against

corrosion. Whether it is used uncoated or coated, PC strand of various suppliers is interchangeable within

each physical size, physical configuration, and grade.
 35 The American Society for Testing and Materials (“ASTM”) specifies mechanical properties for finished PC

strand, but does not specify chemical composition of the wire used to make PC strand. ASTM Standard A416/A

416M-06, 2006, “Standard Specification for Steel Strand, Uncoated Seven-Wire for Prestressed Concrete,” ASTM

International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2009, Section 1, vol. 01.04, pp. 246-250; ASTM Standard A421/A 412M05, 2005, “Standard Specification for Uncoated Stress-Relieved Steel Wire for Prestressed Concrete,” West

Conshohoken, PA: ASTM, 2009, Section 1, vol. 01.04, pp. 251-254; and ASTM Standard A910/A 910M-05, 2005,

“Standard Specification for Uncoated, Weldless, 2- and 3-Wire Steel Strand for Prestressed Concrete,” West

Conshohoken, PA: ASTM, 2009, Section 1, vol. 01.04, pp. 514-517.

 36 Conference transcript, p. 72 (Selhorst).

 37 PC strand made from indented wire may be specified for certain pre-tensioning applications. The indentations

in the wire enhance the bond between the cured concrete and the PC strand.

 38 Low-relaxation strand is regarded as the standard type of PC strand and stress-relieved strand is not furnished

unless specifically requested by a customer. See ASTM Standard A416/A 416M-06, 2006, “Standard Specification

for Steel Strand, Uncoated Seven-Wire for Prestressed Concrete,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,

2009, Section 1, vol. 01.04, pp. 246-250; and ASTM Standard A910/A 910M-05, 2005, “Standard Specification for

Uncoated, Weldless, 2- and 3-Wire Steel Strand for Prestressed Concrete,” West Conshohoken, PA: ASTM, 2009,

Section 1, vol. 01.04, pp. 514-517.

 39 PC strand is coated or greased and covered to improve its resistance to corrosion. End users may purchase

epoxy-coated PC strand to further enhance the corrosion resistance of the strand in applications where there is an

abundance of moisture, such as in bridge and/or in other applications where the strand is exposed to the elements. 

Staff telephone notes, ***, June 29, 2009.

 40 Petition, vol. I, p. 10.

I-12

Manufacturing Process

PC strand is produced from hot-rolled, high-carbon steel wire rod35 through a production process

consisting of four distinct steps: drawing, stranding, stabilizing, and packaging.36 The drawing step

begins with cleaning and descaling to remove dirt and mill scale from the hot-rolled, high-carbon steel

wire rod before feeding it through the wire drawing dies. Cleaning and descaling can be accomplished

chemically, using a strong acid, or mechanically, using abrasive methods. The cleaned and descaled wire

rod is then coated with zinc phosphate and pulled through a series of wire drawing dies to reduce its size. 

Depending on the finished size required, the rod may be drawn through up to nine dies. If indented wire

is specified, the wire is indented, using carbide rollers, after the final size reduction.37

After drawing, the wire undergoes stranding. During the stranding process, the wires are wound

into a strand, helically and uniformly, by a stranding machine. The PC strand is then stabilized by

removing residual mechanical stresses through thermal and possibly mechanical treatments. The extent

of the stress relief determines the type of PC strand. Low-relaxation PC strand is subjected to

simultaneous thermal and mechanical treatment after stranding, while “normal”-relaxation PC strand

(commonly referred to as stressed-relieved PC strand) requires only thermal treatment.38 Finally, if

coating is required, the PC strand is either lubricated with grease and encased in a plastic tube, or coated

with epoxy.39

The finished product is wound onto a drum, strapped into place with steel bands, and packaged as

a coil. The coil may be covered with a protective material, such as plastic or burlap and is packaged such

that the end user can place the coil directly onto a strand dispenser.40
 41 In the 2003-04 original investigations concerning PC strand from Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand,

the petitioners and Mexican respondents disagreed as to the definition of the domestic like product. In those

investigations, the petitioners argued that the domestic like product definition should mirror the scope of the

investigations. They contended that an analysis of the six like product factors, as well as Commission precedent,

supported a finding of one domestic like product comprised of all PC strand. The petitioners further argued that the

domestic industry should exclude companies that simply coat the strand with grease and plastic coating, due to the

minor or incidental nature of such companies’ operations. The Mexican respondents, on the other hand, contended

that the Commission should find that “covered” (plastic-coated) and bare PC strand constituted two separate

domestic like products and that there were two separate domestic industries: one producing coated PC strand and

the second producing bare PC strand. They contended that bare PC strand was used by the pre-tensioned market and

that the plastic-coated PC strand was used by the post-tensioned market. They further contended that whether

applying the six-factor “like product analysis” or the “semifinished product analysis,” the Commission should find

that coated and bare PC strand constitute two separate domestic like products and industries. 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. 7-12. In the current five-year reviews of those

orders, the domestic and respondent interested parties (including the Mexican respondents) indicated in their

responses to the Commission’s notice of institution that they agree with the Commission’s definitions of the

domestic like product and domestic industry. Response to Commission’s Notice of Institution of Domestic Interested

Parties, Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Brazil, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand (Inv. Nos.

701-TA-432 and 73l-TA-1024-1028 (Review) and AA1921-188 (Third Review)), January 16, 2009, p. 24; Response

to Commission’s Notice of Institution of Dong-I1 Steel Mfg. Co., Ltd., Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from

Brazil, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand (Inv. Nos. 701-TA-432 and 73l-TA-1024-1028 (Review) and

AA1921-188 (Third Review)), January 20, 2009, item (11); and Response to Commission’s Notice of Institution of

Camesa and Deacero, Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Brazil, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and

Thailand (Inv. Nos. 701-TA-432 and 73l-TA-1024-1028 (Review) and AA1921-188 (Third Review)), January 21,

2009, p. 10.

 42 Conference transcript, pp. 12-13 (Cannon).

 43 Conference transcript, p. 137 (Levinson).

I-13

DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT ISSUES

No issues with respect to domestic like product and domestic industry have been raised in these

investigations concerning PC strand from China. In fact, the petitioners propose that the domestic like

product and domestic industry should continue to be defined in the same way as they were defined in the

Commission’s 2003-04 investigations concerning PC strand from Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and

Thailand: all PC strand co-extensive with Commerce’s scope and all U.S. producers of the domestic like

product, excluding firms that solely coat PC strand.41 Petitioners add that “no significant technological or

marketing changes have occurred in the production of PC strand since those earlier findings to alter that

result.”42 The respondent in these investigations indicated that it is in agreement with the petitioners with

regard to the definitions of the domestic like product and domestic industry.43
 
 1

 Conference transcript, p. 15 (Selhorst).

 2

 Conference transcript, p. 73 (Woltz).

 3

 Conference transcript, p. 73 (Woltz).

 4

 Craig D. Olson and Laura N. Smith, “Building with Concrete: Post-tensioned Concrete for Today’s Market,”

The Seattle Daily Journal of Commerce, May 9, 1997, http://www.djc.com/special/concrete97/10024302.htm. The

Post-Tensioning Institute reported that slab-on-grade construction (*** percent) and buildings (*** percent)

accounted for the largest shares of PTI member tonnages to post-tensioners in 2007. Post-Tensioning Institute, “PTI

Tonnage Report: Summary of Post-tensioning Industry Shipments in North America (1972-2007),” 2008, p. 1.

 5

 The post-tensioners/converters category includes end users and distributors that convert or post-tension PC

strand.

II-1

PART II: CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION IN THE U.S. MARKET

U.S. MARKET CHARACTERISTICS

PC strand is used in the construction of prestressed concrete structural members. PC strand

serves to compress concrete members to offset, or neutralize, forces which occur when the prestressed

concrete members are 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 is used to prestress concrete either by pre-tensioning or by post-tensioning. In pretensioning, the PC strand is tensioned before the concrete is cured, and in post-tensioning the PC strand is

tensioned after the concrete is cured.1

 Most pre-tensioned concrete elements are prefabricated in a factory

and must be transported to the construction site.2

 Pre-tensioned components may be used in balconies,

lintels, floor slabs, beams, or foundation piles. Unlike pre-tensioning, post-tensioning takes place on the

job site in cast-in-place applications.3

 The predominant end uses of post-tensioned PC strand are in slabon-grade construction and in buildings for floors with moderate to long spans and moderate floor loads

such as in parking garages and residential buildings.4

CHANNELS OF DISTRIBUTION

U.S. shipments of PC strand by U.S. producers and importers to post-tensioners/converters,5

 other

end users, and other distributors are shown in table II-1. U.S. producers sold PC strand primarily and

increasingly, to end users other than post-tensioners/converters. The vast majority of imported Chinese

PC strand was sold to post-tensioners/converters over the period, despite some growth in the share of

shipments to other end users. PC strand imported from all other countries was sold primarily to posttensioners/converters until the first quarter of 2009, when sales to other end users accounted for the

majority of total shipments of imported PC strand from all other countries.
II-2

Table II-1

PC strand: U.S. producers’ and importers’ U.S. shipments, by sources and channels of

distribution, 2006-08 and January-March 2009

Item

Period

2006 2007 2008

Jan.-Mar.

2009

 Share of quantity (in percent)

Domestic producers’ U.S. shipments of PC strand to:

 Post-tensioners/converters 46.7 40.6 36.7 34.6

 Other end users 53.3 59.4 63.3 65.4

 Other distributors 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of PC strand from China to:

 Post-tensioners/converters 97.4 98.0 97.8 92.4

 Other end users 0.7 2.1 2.2 7.6

 Other distributors 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of PC strand from all other countries to: 

 Post-tensioners/converters 83.6 79.2 86.8 30.1

 Other end users 9.5 15.2 13.1 69.9

 Other distributors 7.0 5.6 0.0 0.0

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS

Supply

U.S. Supply

Available information indicates that U.S. PC strand producers have the ability to respond to

changes in demand with relatively large changes in the quantity of shipments of U.S.-produced PC strand

to the U.S. market. The main contributing factors to the high degree of supply responsiveness are

relatively low industry capacity utilization rates and relatively large inventory levels.

Industry capacity

U.S. producers operated at relatively low levels of capacity utilization, particularly by the end of

the period. U.S. producers’ capacity to produce PC strand increased from 810.7 million pounds in 2006

to 903.8 million pounds in 2008, and was steady at 226.3 million pounds in January-March 2008 and

January-March 2009. At the same time, U.S. producers’ capacity utilization fell from 83.0 percent in

2006 to 61.8 percent in 2008, and was 35.7 percent in January-March 2009 compared to 71.2 percent in

January-March 2008.
 6

 Conference transcript, pp. 80-81 (Woltz). As reported in the trade press, Insteel, “faced with a major

maintenance outage by one of its rod suppliers last year after having been placed on controlled order entry by other

domestic suppliers, looked overseas for relief,” although the company reportedly paid “top-of-the-market” prices and

saw the wire rod market “collapse” by the time the wire rod arrived. AMM, “Insteel gets caught in import squeeze,”

January 15, 2009.

II-3

Alternative markets

U.S. producers’ export shipments accounted for a relatively small share of their total shipments

during January 2006-March 2009. U.S. producers’ export shipments, as a share of total shipments,

increased from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2008, but fell to *** percent in January-March 2009

compared to *** percent in January-March 2008.

Inventory levels

U.S. producers maintained relatively stable inventory levels, relative to shipments, until the end

of the period. The ratio of U.S. producers’ inventories to total shipments increased from *** percent in

2006 to *** percent in 2008. However, U.S. producers’ annualized inventory shares were substantially

higher in January-March 2009 (*** percent) than in January-March 2008 (*** percent).

Production alternatives

None of the responding U.S. producers reported that they were able to switch production between

PC strand and other products in response to a relative change in the price of PC strand, using the same

equipment and labor.

Supply constraints 

Insteel reported that there was a period of time when the supply of steel wire rod was tight for a

few months. Specifically, Insteel saw sharply escalating prices for steel scrap that were reflected in

increasing prices for steel wire rod, and Insteel’s steel wire rod supplier put them on allocation for a

period of time. However, Insteel reported that the wire rod supply shortage was resolved relatively

quickly, and that currently it has ample raw material supply.6

Subject Imports from China

Based on available information, Chinese producers have the ability to respond to changes in

demand with large changes in the quantity of shipments of PC strand to the U.S. market. The main

contributing factors to the high degree of supply responsiveness are Chinese producers’ demonstrated

ability to add production capacity and the existence of substantial alternate markets. However, Chinese

producers’ high rates of capacity utilization during most of the period reduce their ability to respond to

changes in U.S. demand. The information contained in this section is based on data provided by four

Chinese producers of PC strand; their reported exports to the United States accounted for 19.1 percent of

total U.S. imports of PC strand from China in 2008 (see Part VII for more information regarding the

industry in China).
 7

 Rob Hendricks of Global Steel Sales Corp. acknowledged that “{t}he Chinese have all the capacity they need to

supply all the strand that this market could possibly buy. That’s a true statement. So do the Europeans. The

Europeans are working at less than 50 percent. The whole world is in an economic crisis. Nobody is running their

facilities anywhere near capacity.” Conference transcript, p. 120 (Hendricks).

II-4

Industry capacity

The four Chinese producers reported an increase in capacity from 630.2 million pounds in 2006

to 908.3 million pounds in 2008. Reported capacity utilization was close to 100 percent during 2006-08

but was 74.0 percent in January-March 2008 and 84.5 percent in January-March 2009.7

Alternative markets

These four Chinese firms reported that more than two-thirds of their shipments were to the

Chinese home market during 2006-08. Exports to the United States, as a share of total shipments, fell

from 17.5 percent in 2006 to 8.6 percent in 2008, and accounted for only 0.9 percent of all shipments in

January-March 2009. These firms reported exporting to a large number of other markets; such exports, as

a share of total shipments, grew from 7.9 percent in 2006 to 20.9 percent in 2008. PC strand produced in

China is currently subject to antidumping duties in the European Union, effective May 5, 2009 (see Part

VII for more information regarding antidumping investigations in third-country markets). 

Inventory levels

Inventories of PC strand in China reported by the four responding Chinese firms ranged from 3.6

to 6.8 percent of total shipments during 2006 to 2008, and reached 7.8 percent by March 2009. U.S.

importers’ end-of-period inventories of Chinese PC strand were substantial, 52.4 million pounds (16.9

percent of U.S. shipments of imports) in December 2008 and 50.1 million pounds (95.4 percent of U.S.

shipments of imports) by March 2009. 

Production alternatives

*** of the responding Chinese firms reported production of other products in addition to PC

strand on the same equipment and machinery used in the production of PC strand in China.

Nonsubject Imports

There are at least 22 producers of PC strand in the countries that comprise the European Union. 

Overall European Union production was reported to be 2.1 billion pounds in 2007, and these facilities

reportedly operated at 79 percent capacity utilization. In addition, the total 2007 production of the four

firms in Korea that manufacture PC strand was estimated to be 182.1 million pounds and the total 2007

production of the two firms in Mexico that manufacture PC strand was estimated to be markedly smaller

than the Korea production (see Part VII for more information regarding the industry in nonsubject

countries).

Demand

Based on available information, the overall demand for PC strand is likely to change moderately

in response to changes in price. The relatively large cost share that PC strand accounts for in its end-use

products, particularly in post-tensioned applications such as slabs-on-grade, suggests a higher demand
 8

 Tim Johnson, of Suncoast Post-tensioners, reported that “I’m losing, on a single family house where we are

delivering a cable package, I’m losing business for $6 on a house. A house that you would buy for $200,000, I’m

losing business for $6 on that cable package that’s less than a half a cent a foot.” Conference transcript, p. 79

(Johnson).

 9

 *** reported that, from 2006 through mid-2008, demand for PC strand in China increased, as China rushed to

improve it’s infrastructure before the 2008 Olympic games. *** maintains that, since the middle of 2008 to the

present, demand for PC strand outside the United States has fallen significantly.

 10 In addition, the Architecture Billings Index (“ABI”), a leading indicator of U.S. non-residential construction,

held steady at 42.9 in May, suggesting that the U.S. economic recovery has stalled. The index has not crossed above

50–a level that indicates improving demand for design services–since January 2008. All four construction sectors

and all four geographic regions tracked the ABI remained below 50 in May, with the Northeast strongest at 48.3, its

fifth straight monthly increase. The ABI’s lowest reading was 33.3 in January 2009. Nick Zieminski, “Architecture

Billings Index Steady in May–AIA,” Reuters, June 24, 2009.

 11 Insteel reported in its 10-Q for the period ending March 28, 2009 that “Our visibility for business conditions

through the remainder of fiscal 2009 is clouded by the continued uncertainty regarding future global economic

conditions, the impact of the measures that have been undertaken to ease the tightening in the credit markets and the

(continued...)

II-5

elasticity.8

 However, the somewhat limited number of substitute products reduces the elasticity of

demand for PC strand.

 Available data indicate that apparent U.S. consumption of PC strand fell by 15.2 percent from 1.1

billion pounds in 2006 to 942.7 million pounds in 2008. Apparent U.S. consumption was only 97.0

million pounds in January-March 2009 compared to 260.3 million pounds in January-March 2008.

When asked how the U.S. demand for PC strand had changed since January 1, 2006, two U.S.

producers reported that U.S. demand had decreased and one reported that U.S. demand had fluctuated. 

Among the 20 responding importers, 13 reported that U.S. demand had fluctuated, five reported that U.S.

demand had decreased and two reported that U.S. demand had increased. Firms that reported fluctuating

U.S. demand for PC strand often cited increasing U.S. demand for commercial and residential

construction during 2006 to mid-2008, then sharply declining demand for commercial and residential

construction since then due to the economic conditions in the United States.

U.S. producers and importers were also asked how demand for PC strand outside the United

States had changed since January 1, 2006. Two U.S. producers reported that demand had decreased, and

one reported that demand had fluctuated. Among importers that responded, 8 reported that demand had

fluctuated, four reported that demand had increased, and one reported that demand had decreased. 

Responding firms that reported fluctuating or decreasing demand outside the United States generally

attributed these changes to the global economic conditions;9

 firms that reported increasing demand

outside the United States cited construction of high-rise buildings in the Middle East and Asia.

Demand Characteristics

PC strand is used in the construction of prestressed concrete structural members. Prestressed

concrete members are used in the construction of buildings, bridges, parking decks and garages,

highways, and slabs for residences. Therefore, demand for PC strand is derived from the demand for

construction, particularly infrastructure projects, commercial and institutional construction, large housing

projects, and single-family housing. Monthly values of public, private nonresidential, and private

residential construction are shown in figure II-1. Monthly values of private residential construction

trended sharply downward, whereas monthly values for public construction and private nonresidential

construction trended upward over the period.10 Private residential construction reportedly uses more

slabs-on-grade, a post-tensioned application, than public construction and private nonresidential

construction. This implies that the demand for post-tensioning applications has decreased since 2006.11
 11 (...continued)

timing and magnitude of the impact of the additional federal infrastructure-related funding provided for under the

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (“ARRA”). Although we expect nonresidential construction, our primary

demand driver, to decline from the levels of recent years, particularly for commercial projects which have been the

most severely impacted by the economic downturn, the additional infrastructure funding provided for under ARRA

should serve to at least partially mitigate this decline. We anticipate that residential construction will remain weak,

which would continue to adversely affect shipments to customers that have greater exposure to the housing sector.”

II-6

Figure II-1

Construction: Monthly values of construction put in place, by type, January 2006-February 2009

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.
 12 Conference transcript, pp. 56 (Selhorst) and 74 (Woltz).

 13 Conference transcript, p. 74 (Johnson and Woltz).

 14 Rebar is used to impart support, whereas PC strand imparts strength. In some cases, rebar and PC strand are

used in conjunction in the production of construction members. Since rebar and PC strand typically are used for

different purposes, they may not be direct substitutes.

II-7

Business Cycles

Demand for PC strand is cyclical because it is a construction material, and demand for residential

and non-residential construction is cyclical.12 Demand for PC strand is also seasonal because construction

sites are more active during warmer weather months than during winter months, as can be seen in figure

II-1. Therefore, U.S. demand for PC strand is generally higher during April-September than during

October-March.13

Substitute Products

No U.S. producers and only two of 21 responding importers reported substitutes for PC strand. 

The importers that reported substitute products cited rebar and structural steel as possible substitutes.14

Cost Share

U.S. producers reported that the cost of PC strand accounts for 75-80 percent of the cost of end

use products such as post-tensioned slabs and elevated slabs, compared to 10-20 percent for prestressed

bridge members and 15-20 percent for hollow core planks, piling, girders, and double tees. U.S.

importers of Chinese PC strand reported that PC strand accounts for 50-100 percent of the cost of end use

products for post-tensioning applications such as residential slabs, versus 25-30 percent for prestressed

applications such as hollow core planks. 

SUBSTITUTABILITY ISSUES

The degree of substitution between domestic and imported PC strand depends upon such factors

as quality (e.g., meeting or exceeding ASTM specifications, defect rates, etc.), and conditions of sale

(e.g., “Buy America(n)” provisions, lead times between order and delivery dates, reliability of supply,

availability, payment terms, product services, etc.). Based on available information, staff believes that,

for PC strand made to the same ASTM specifications, there is a high degree of substitution between

domestic PC strand and subject imports sold for end uses not subject to “Buy America(n)” provisions.
 15 “Buy America” requirements apply to iron and steel products and their coatings that are purchased for the

Federal-aid highway construction program (highways, bridges, transit systems, and terminals). Under “Buy

America,” Federal-aid funds may not be obligated for a project unless iron and steel products used in such projects

are manufactured in the United States (with limited exceptions based on the product cost or its share of the original

contract value). In addition, under an alternate-bid procedure, foreign-source materials may be used if the total

project bid using foreign-source materials is 25 percent less than the lowest total bid using domestic materials. “Buy

American” is a separate and distinct program from “Buy America,” and has completely different rules. The Buy

American Act, which covers specified products, requires the Federal Government to purchase domestic goods and

services unless the head of the agency involved in the procurement has determined that the prices of the domestic

suppliers are “unreasonable” or that their purchase would be “inconsistent with the public interest.” U.S.

Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Web site, “Construction Program Guide: Buy

America,” http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/cqit/buyam.cfm (accessed July 6, 2009) and U.S. Department of

Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Memorandum, “Buy America Requirements (HHO-32),” dated,

July 6, 1989, last modified July 27, 2007, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/contracts/070689.cfm (accessed

July 6, 2009).

 16 Conference transcript, pp. 11 (Wisla), 15 (Selhorst), 21 (Woltz), and 32 (Johnson).

 17 Conference transcript, p. 11 (Wisla).

 18 Conference transcript, pp. 57-59 (Feitler, Woltz, and Cornelius). See also Insteel’s “Investor Presentation,”

June 2009, p. 7 (“Estimated 30 percent of our PC strand sales go into public construction projects subject to ‘Buy

America’ requirements which must be sourced domestically.”). 

 19 Conference transcript, pp. 59-60 (Feitler, Woltz, and Cornelius).

 20 Conference transcript, pp. 66-67 (Selhorst, Woltz, and Johnson).

 21 Conference transcript, pp. 75-76 (Feitler and Selhorst).

II-8

However, the existence of substantial end-use markets subject to “Buy America(n)” provisions reduces

that substitutability.

15

Factors Affecting Purchasing Decisions

U.S. producers and importers agree that PC strand is a commodity product built to strict ASTM

specifications.16 However, respondents maintain that the presence of mandatory “Buy America(n)”

provisions greatly attenuates competition between the domestic industry and imported PC strand. 

Respondents estimate that “Buy America(n)” provisions now cover over 50 percent of U.S. consumption

of PC strand, and are expected to cover an even greater percentage of U.S. consumption as a result of

increased federal spending on infrastructure projects through the American Recovery and Reinvestment

Act.17

Petitioners maintain that the “Buy America(n)” provisions are a mixture of “Buy America(n)”

requirements and “Buy America(n)” preferences, and that strict “Buy America(n)” requirements may

cover less than 30 percent of the U.S. market.18 Petitioners also maintain that the Federal stimulus

spending will have no impact on the DOT-related “Buy America(n)” part of the U.S. market.19 Petitioners

further argue that prices for imported Chinese PC strand affect prices for U.S. PC strand sold for projects

covered by strict “Buy America(n)” requirements because purchasers buy PC strand both for projects

subject to and not subject to “Buy America(n)” provisions.20 Petitioners maintain that “Buy America(n)”

provisions cover about the same share of the pre-tension market for PC strand as they cover in the posttensioning market.21

U.S. producers reported that 58.3 percent of their U.S. shipments for pre-tensioned applications

were subject to “Buy America(n)” restrictions, while 35.7 percent of their U.S. shipments for posttensioned applications were subject to “Buy America(n)” restrictions in 2008. Overall, U.S. producers
 22 See tables III-5 (U.S. producers’ “Buy America(n)” sales) and C-3 (share of “Buy America(n) sales relative to

apparent U.S. consumption).

 23 Conference transcript, p. 32 (Johnson).

II-9

and importers reported that 33.7 percent of total U.S. shipments of PC strand were subject to “Buy

America(n)” restrictions in 2008.22

Comparison of U.S.-Produced and Imported PC Strand

In order to determine whether U.S.-produced PC strand can generally be used in the same

applications as imports from China, U.S. producers and importers were asked whether the products can

“always,” “frequently,” “sometimes,” or “never” be used interchangeably (table II-2). All four

responding U.S. producers reported that PC strand from each of the country pairs was always

interchangeable. Most responding importers also reported that PC strand from each of the country pairs

was always interchangeable, and nearly all responding importers reported that PC strand from each of the

country pairs was always or frequently interchangeable.

At the Commission’s conference, Tim Johnson of Suncoast Post-tension (the largest purchaser of

PC strand in the United States) testified that “Suncoast can buy identical PC strand from a number of

importers of Chinese strand and use it interchangeably with domestic strand. As a result, as long as a

producer or importer can deliver the PC strand on the schedule I want, the most important factor in the

purchasing decision is going to be price.”23

Table II-2

PC strand: Perceived interchangeability between PC strand produced in the United States and in

other countries, by country pairs

Country pair

Number of U.S. producers

reporting

Number of U.S. importers

reporting

AF S N A F S N

U.S. vs. subject countries:

 U.S. vs. China 4 0 0 0 13 6 1 0

U.S. vs. nonsubject countries:

 U.S. vs. Canada 4 0 0 0 12 3 1 0

 U.S. vs. Other 4 0 0 0 11 4 1 0

Subject vs. nonsubject countries:

 China vs. Canada 4 0 0 0 13 1 1 0

 China vs. Other 4 0 0 0 12 2 1 0

Nonsubject country comparisons:

 Canada vs. Other 4 0 0 0 12 2 1 0

Note.--A = Always, F = Frequently, S = Sometimes, N = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
II-10

U.S. producers and importers were requested to provide information regarding the significance of

differences other than price for domestic, Chinese, and other PC strand (table II-3). All four responding

U.S. producers reported that there were never significant non-price differences for any of the specified

country comparisons. Most responding importers reported that there were either sometimes or never

significant non-price differences for all of the country comparisons, although four importers reported that

there were always significant non-price differences between U.S. and Chinese PC strand.

Table II-3

PC strand: Perceived importance of differences in factors other than price between PC strand

produced in the United States and in other countries, by country pairs

Country pair

Number of U.S. producers

reporting

Number of U.S. importers

reporting

AF S N A F S N

U.S. vs. subject countries:

 U.S. vs. China 0 0 0 4 4 2 8 5

U.S. vs. nonsubject countries:

 U.S. vs. Canada 0 0 0 4 1 2 3 6

 U.S. vs. Other 0 0 0 4 2 2 3 5

Subject vs. nonsubject countries:

 China vs. Canada 0 0 0 4 1 2 3 6

 China vs. Other 0 0 0 4 2 1 3 5

Nonsubject country comparisons:

 Canada vs. Other 0 0 0 4 2 1 2 5

Note.--A = Always, F = Frequently, S = Sometimes, N = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 1

 As indicated earlier in Part I, toll producer Rettco produces PC strand under a toll agreement with tollee MMI,

whereas MMI furnishes Rettco with the raw material, pays Rettco a conversion fee for producing finished PC strand,

and sells the finished PC strand.

 2 Emails from *** to Mary Messer, June 26, 2009 and June 30, 2009.

 3

 Camesa Web site, http://www.camesa.com.mx/indexi.htm, accessed June 30, 2009; and WireCo World Group

Web site, http://www.wirecoworldgroup.com/Company/History-of-Growth, accessed June 30, 2009.

 4 Emails from *** to Mary Messer, June 26, 2009 and June 30, 2009.

 5

 Cablesa has since been acquired by Deacero. Petition, exh. INJURY-4.

 6 Emails from *** to Mary Messer, June 26, 2009 and June 30, 2009; petition, exh. INJURY-4; and conference

transcript, p. 90 (Woltz, Johnson).

III-1

PART III: U.S. PRODUCERS’ PRODUCTION, SHIPMENTS, AND

EMPLOYMENT

The Commission analyzes a number of factors in making injury determinations (see 19 U.S.C. §§

1677(7)(B) and 1677(7)(C)). Information on the nature of the alleged subsidies and the alleged margin of

dumping was presented earlier in this report and information on the volume and pricing of imports of the

subject merchandise is presented in Part IV and Part V. Information on the other factors specified is

presented in this section and/or Part VI and (except as noted) is based on the questionnaire responses of

domestic producers that accounted for all U.S. production of PC strand during 2008.

U.S. PRODUCERS

The Commission sent producer questionnaires to the petitioners (American, Insteel, and Sumiden)

and to three additional firms (MMI, Rettco,1

 and Strand-Tech). Completed questionnaire responses were

received from all domestic firms currently in operation. Two domestic firms–PCS (Rosenberg, TX) and

EMC (Phoenix, AR)–produced PC strand in the United States during the early portion of the period for

which information was collected in these investigations. Although producer questionnaire responses were

not completed by these two firms, certain information was provided to the Commission by related PC

strand producers in Mexico. 

PCS, formerly owned by *** and related to Mexican PC strand producer Camesa, began

production of PC strand at the Rosenberg, TX, site in ***. Production and shipments at that facility

ceased by ***. In 2007, the PC strand production equipment from the PCS Texas site was shipped to the

related PC strand producer in Mexico (Camesa).2

 Camesa, owned by WireCo World Group, currently

operates a wire rope production facility at that former Rosenberg PC strand site.3

 Production and

shipments in 2006 were estimated for PCS by Camesa as totalling *** pounds. There were no reported

production and shipments of PC strand by PCS subsequent to 2006.4

 

EMC’s Arizona facility, formerly owned by Mexican PC strand producer Cablesa,5

 began

production of PC strand in ***. Production and shipments in 2006 were estimated for EMC by Deacero

as ranging from approximately *** pounds. Production and shipments for 2007 were estimated as

ranging from *** pounds. Production at that facility ceased in *** 2007 and the production equipment

was ***. The final disposition of that equipment ***.6

 Presented in table III-1 is a list of current domestic producers of PC strand and each company’s

position on the petition, production location(s), related and/or affiliated firm(s), and share of 2008 PC

strand production. As indicated in table III-1, the current U.S. producers are not related to any foreign

producers or U.S. importers of PC strand from China. However, two U.S. producers reported being

related to foreign producers in nonsubject countries: ***. In addition, as discussed in greater detail

below, one U.S. producer (Insteel) directly imported the subject merchandise from China during the 
 7

 Conference transcript, pp. 79-80 (Woltz); and AMM, “Insteel nixes pilot program to import wire products from

China,” October 22, 2007.

 8

 The aggregate data presented for capacity, production, and capacity utilization are for toll producer Rettco and

producers American, Insteel, Strand-Tech, and Sumiden.

III-2

Table III-1

PC strand: U.S. producers, positions on the petition, U.S. production locations, related and/or

affiliated firms, and shares of 2008 U.S. production

Firm

Position on

petition

U.S. production

location(s)

Related and/or affiliated

firms

Share of

production

(percent)

American Petitioner

Bedford Heights, OH

Houston, TX *** ***

Insteel Petitioner

Gallatin, TN

Sanderson, FL

Wholly owned by Insteel

Industries, Inc. (US) ***

MMI1 Support Houston, TX *** (2

)

Rettco1 Support Newnan, GA *** ***

Strand-Tech Support Summerville, SC *** ***

Sumiden Petitioner

Dickson, TN

Stockton, CA *** ***

 1 Tollee MMI has a contractual agreement with toll producer Rettco in which MMI supplies the raw materials,

the conversion fee, and the sales force and Rettco converts the raw material to finished PC strand. *** of Rettco’s

production of PC strand is produced for MMI under this tolling arrangement.

 2

 Not applicable.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires; petition, p. 4; conference

transcript, pp. 14 (Selhorst) and 25 (Cornelius).

period for which data were collected in these investigations7 and *** purchased the subject merchandise

from U.S. importers. None of the domestic producers reported having produced PC strand in a foreign

trade zone.

U.S. CAPACITY, PRODUCTION, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION

U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization data for PC strand are presented in

table III-2.8

 These data show an overall 11.5-percent increase in capacity during 2006-08. A

17.0-percent decline in production was reported by U.S. producers during 2006-08 and capacity

utilization reported by the U.S. producers of PC strand fell by 21.2 percentage points over the same

period. U.S. producers’ aggregate capacity to produce PC strand was the same during the first quarter of

2008 and the first quarter of 2009; however, U.S. producers’ aggregate production and capacity

utilization were substantially lower during January-March 2009 than in the comparable period of 2008.

Two domestic PC strand producers (***) reported an increase in capacity to produce PC strand in

2007 and one producer (***) reported increases in its capacity to produce during 2007 and 2008. ***. 

Insteel’s capacity increase of 70 million pounds is explained by the company’s expansion of its 
 9

 Conference transcript, pp. 84-85 (Woltz).

 10 Petition, pp. 3-4 and exh. INJURY-4.

 11 Emails from *** to Mary Messer, June 26, 2009, and June 30, 2009.

III-3

Table III-2

PC strand: U.S. capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and

January-March 20091

Item

Calendar year January-March--

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Capacity (1,000 pounds) 810,653 902,782 903,795 226,334 226,334

Production (1,000 pounds) 673,195 601,717 558,885 161,089 80,750

Capacity utilization (percent) 83.0 66.7 61.8 71.2 35.7

 1 Capacity (production capability) data is based on operating 168 hours per week and 48.6 to 52 weeks per year. 

Note.--The aggregate data presented in the table are for toll producer Rettco and producers American, Insteel,

Strand-Tech, and Sumiden. The data presented do not include the following estimated data for the two domestic

PC strand facilities that were shuttered during late 2006-early 2007: *** pounds of capacity during 2006, *** pounds

of capacity in 2007, *** pounds of production in 2006, and *** pounds of production in 2007.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires; petition, pp. 3-4 and exh.

INJURY-4; emails from *** to Mary Messer, June 26, 2009, and June 30, 2009.

Tennessee PC strand facility during 2006 and 2007. The company indicated that it added a production

line and it incorporated new technology into its production process.9

 ***.

The 2006 and 2007 capacity and production data presented in table III-2, however, do not include

the data of the two domestic PC strand facilities that were closed in late 2006 to early 2007 (i.e., PCS and

EMC). Estimated combined capacity of these two firms to produce PC strand was approximately ***

pounds during 2006 and *** pounds in 200710 and the combined annual production was approximately

*** pounds in 2006 and *** pounds during 2007.11 If these estimates are included in the aggregate data,

the capacity data would show an overall ***-percent increase in capacity during 2006-08, a ***-percent

decline in production, and a *** percentage point decline in capacity utilization.

The domestic PC strand producers were asked in Commission questionnaires to describe the

constraints that set the limit on their production capacity for PC strand. Four of the five producers

indicated that the stranding operations machinery was the production constraint at their facilities. One

producer indicated that it was specifically the cleaning/pickling operation that was the production

constraint for its production facility. None of the U.S. producers of PC strand reported the production of

other products on the same equipment and machinery and using the same production and related workers

employed in the production of PC strand. Likewise, no U.S. producer reported the ability to switch

production between PC strand and other products in response to a relative change in the price of PC

strand vis-a-vis the price of other products, using the same equipment and labor.

In the Commission’s questionnaire, U.S. producers were asked if they had experienced any plant

openings, relocations, expansions, acquisitions, consolidations, closures, or prolonged shutdowns because

of strikes or equipment failure; curtailment of production because of shortages of materials; or any other

change in the character of their operations or organization relating to the production of PC strand since

January 1, 2006. *** reported such changes; their responses to this inquiry are presented in table III-3.

Two domestic producers, Insteel and Sumiden, reported that they epoxy-coat bare PC strand at

their U.S. PC strand facilities. These two U.S. producers are the only domestic firms that manufacture the 
 12 Conference transcript, pp. 54-55 (Woltz and Cornelius).

 13 Conference transcript, p. 54 (Woltz).

 14 Conference transcript, p. 91 (Selhorst).

 15 Conference transcript, pp. 61 and 92 (Johnson).

 16 PC strand made from indented wire may be specified for certain pre-tensioning applications. The indentations

in the wire enhance the bond between the cured concrete and the PC strand.

 17 American Iron and Steel Institute, “Shipments of Steel Mill Products, Carbon (AIS-10C),” Monthly report,

January 2007-September 2007; American Iron and Steel Institute, “Net Shipments of Steel Mill Products, All Grades

Including Carbon, Alloy, and Stainless (AIS-10),” Monthly report, October 2007-March 2009.

 18 AMM, “ArcelorMittal halting S.C. rod mill, buyers warn of shortage,” May 13, 2009; AMM, “Output cuts

widen as mills react to slowdown,” October 3, 2008; AMM, “Raw material costs, tight supply driving long products

market,” April 28, 2008; AMM, “Sivaco slates $150/ton hike, complains of allocations,” April 15, 2008; and AMM,

“Wire rod tightness hints at mart ‘allocation’ shift,” January 31, 2008.

III-4

Table III-3

PC strand: U.S. producers’ comments concerning changes in the character of operations

* * * * * * *

epoxy-coated PC strand, using an epoxy-coating process technology for which Insteel holds the patent. 

The epoxy-coating line uses a proprietary technology that is technically sophisticated. These firms

indicated that bare PC strand accounts for approximately *** percent of the total value of this highly

specialized epoxy-coated strand product. Insteel and Sumiden indicated that the epoxy-coated strand

accounts for a very small share of the companies’ overall sales.12 

Insteel also reported that it periodically will *** cover bare PC strand with grease and plastic for

unbonded post-tensioned applications but that this strand product accounts for a very small share of the

company’s overall sales.13 Otherwise, none of the domestic PC strand producers grease and cover bare

PC strand in-house and none perform post-tensioning services. In fact, conference testimony revealed

that these services are largely performed by domestic purchasers of bare strand.14 Insteel indicated in its

questionnaire response that bare PC strand accounts for approximately *** percent of the total value of

the polyethylene-covered strand product. Suncoast, a domestic purchaser of PC strand that greases and

covers bare PC strand with plastic, indicated that the incremental cost of the greased and plastic-covered

strand is approximately 4 to 4.5 cents per foot, which at the current low price of bare PC strand, amounts

to about 20 percent of the total cost to produce the covered strand.15 

Insteel was the only domestic PC strand producer that reported the production of indented PC

strand.16 The company indicated that it produces the indented PC strand by mechanically deforming the

wire during the cold drawing process prior to stranding. Following the production of the indented wire, it

is stranded, stabilized, and packaged using the same processes and equipment that are used to produce

smooth PC strand. Insteel indicated that since the indented strand is not produced from “unprocessed” PC

strand, the percentage of value represented by unprocessed PC strand is not relevant.

U.S. PRODUCERS’ RAW MATERIAL SUPPLY

Wire rod is the primary raw material input into the production of PC strand. U.S. shipments of

wire rod (by volume) peaked in July 2008, but had decreased by 74 percent by December 2008. 

Shipments in the first quarter of 2009 remained 50 percent below first quarter 2008 levels.17 Moreover,

citing worsening demand in the first quarter of 2009, U.S. wire rod producers reportedly are cutting

production capacity and shuttering production facilities.18
 19 Timothy Selhorst, President, American Spring Wire Corporation, reported that the supply of high-carbon wire

rod during 2008 and 2009 has been “plentiful.” Conference transcript, p. 81 (Selhorst). Howard Woltz, President,

Insteel Wire Products Co., reported, however, that “there certainly was a period of time in Insteel’s experience where

wire rod was tight for a few months. We did see sharply escalating prices in scrap that flowed through to rod. We

were on allocation from our suppliers for a period of time. That situation resolved itself relatively quickly...The

condition today is obvious ample internal capacity and ample raw material supply.” Conference transcript, pp. 80-81

(Woltz). As reported in the trade press, Insteel, “faced with a major maintenance outage by one of its rod suppliers

last year after having been placed on controlled order entry by other domestic suppliers, looked oversease for relief,”

although the company reportedly paid “top-of-the-market” prices and saw the wire rod market “collapse” by the time

the wire rod arrived. AMM, “Insteel gets caught in import squeeze,” January 15, 2009.

 20 AMM, “ArcelorMittal halting S.C. rod mill, buyers warn of shortage,” May 13, 2009; AMM, “Output cuts

widen as mills react to slowdown,” October 3, 2008; AMM, “Raw material costs, tight supply driving long products

market,” April 28, 2008; AMM, “Sivaco slates $150/ton hike, complains of allocations,” April 15, 2008; and AMM,

“Wire rod tightness hints at mart ‘allocation’ shift,” January 31, 2008.

 21 Conference transcript, p. 81 (Woltz).

 22 AMM, “ArcelorMittal halting S.C. rod mill, buyers warn of shortage,” May 13, 2009; AMM, “Output cuts

widen as mills react to slowdown,” October 3, 2008.

 23 The aggregate data presented for U.S. producers’ shipments are for tollee MMI and producers American,

Insteel, Strand-Tech, and Sumiden.

III-5

PC strand producers reported that there were some wire rod supply constraints in 2008 but that

there is now ample wire rod available for their operations.19 Other downstream producers, however,

claim that decreases in wire rod production may limit the availability of high-carbon wire rod and cause

some wire rod producers to put their customers on allocation or controlled order entry.20 Controlled order

entry was last reported in 2008.21 Downstream products producers further claim that an extended

shutdown, limiting the supply of this important raw material, may cause greater strain in an industry that

consumes wire rod faster than it is produced.22

U.S. PRODUCERS’ SHIPMENTS

Data on U.S. producers’ shipments of PC strand are presented in table III-4.23 The domestic

commercial market accounted for all of the U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of PC strand and for more

than 95 percent of the U.S. producers’ total shipments of PC strand throughout the period for which data

were collected in these investigations. Export shipments, which accounted for less than *** percent of

the U.S. producers’ total shipments of PC strand throughout the entire period, were made by ***. The

U.S. producers’ export markets were ***. Domestic producers’ U.S. shipments of PC strand fell, in terms

of quantity, in each year from 2006 to 2008, while export shipments increased overall during the same

time period. The unit value of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments fell from $476 per 1,000 pounds in 2006

to $461 per 1,000 pounds in 2007, but climbed to $631 per 1,000 pounds in 2008. The unit value of

exports increased from 2006 to 2008. In comparing the partial-year periods, U.S. producers’ U.S.

shipments and exports were lower during the first quarter of 2009 than they were during the comparable

period in 2008. However, the unit values of U.S. shipments were higher in the first quarter of 2009 than

they were in the first quarter of 2008.

Presented in table III-5 are data provided by domestic PC strand producers on their U.S.

shipments, by type of application (i.e., bare/coated and pre-tensioned/post-tensioned) and restriction (i.e.,

“Buy America(n)”). These data reveal that, during January 2006-March 2009, more than three-fourths of

U.S. producers’ total U.S. shipments of PC strand were for pre-tensioned applications on the basis of

quantity, slightly more than half of which were subject to “Buy America(n)” restrictions. Of the less than

one-fourth of U.S. producers’ total U.S. shipments that were destined for post-tensioned applications
III-6

Table III-4

PC strand: U.S. producers’ shipments, by types, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and January-March

20091

Item

Calendar year January-March--

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

U.S. commercial shipments 627,436 582,780 529,973 160,799 80,651

Export shipments2 *** *** *** *** ***

Total shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Value (1,000 dollars)

U.S. commercial shipments 298,841 268,784 334,404 75,696 46,653

Export shipments2 *** *** *** *** ***

Total shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value (per 1,000 pounds)

U.S. commercial shipments $476 $461 $631 $471 $578

Export shipments2 *** *** *** *** ***

Total shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Share of quantity (percent)

U.S. commercial shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Export shipments2 *** *** *** *** ***

Total shipments 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1 U.S. producers reported no transfers to related firms and no internal consumption of the PC strand they

produced.

 2

 Principal export markets include ***.

Note.--The aggregate data presented are for tollee MMI and producers American, Insteel, Strand-Tech, and

Sumiden.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Table III-5

PC strand: U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, by type of application and restriction, 2006-08,

January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *
 24 Insteel Industries Inc., “Investor Presentation,” June 2009, p. 8.

 25 Conference transcript, pp. 23 and 76-77 (Woltz).

 26 Conference transcript, p. 79 (Napoli).

 27 Conference transcript, p. 78 (Wagner).

 28 Conference transcript, p. 56 (Selhorst).

 29 The aggregate data presented for U.S. producers’ inventories are for tollee MMI and producers American,

Insteel, Strand-Tech, and Sumiden.

III-7

during January 2006-March 2009, almost one-quarter were subject to “Buy America(n)” restrictions. In

the aggregate, approximately one-half of the quantity of U.S. producers’ total U.S. shipments were

subject to “Buy America(n)” restrictions during January 2006-March 2009. 

The U.S. producers’ data provided also show a shift away from serving customers using the PC

strand in post-tensioned applications in favor of pre-tensioning customers. In 2006, *** percent of the

domestic producers’ U.S. shipments were for pre-tensioned applications. By 2008, this share increased to

*** percent of total U.S. shipments by domestic producers. This shift is highlighted by the corporate

decision in the third quarter of 2007 by Insteel, ***, to “minimize {its} participation in slab-on-grade

posttension market due to pricing deterioration resulting from low-priced Chinese import competition and

ongoing weakness in housing-related demand.”24 Insteel explained that, in the past, its post-tensioner

customers had traditionally been some of the company’s largest customers but that it had “lost a

tremendous amount of business with post-tensioners over the last three years, virtually all of it to Chinese

strand.”25 Domestic producer American also indicated that it has had difficulty making sales of PC strand

to the large post-tensioned customers because of stiff price competition with the Chinese product.26

Regardless, Insteel noted that it continues to monitor the environment for post-tensioned applications and

wants to “do business with Suncoast and with the other customers in the post-tensioned business from

which we had been forced out.”27

U.S. PRODUCERS’ INVENTORIES

Due to the seasonality of PC strand sales in the U.S. market, a substantial portion of domestic PC

strand is manufactured by U.S. producers to particular specifications for stocking in inventory during the

winter months when demand is lower in order to support anticipated sales in excess of capacity during the

summer months. Oftentimes, however, domestic PC strand producers manufacture PC strand in response

to a particular customer’s order during the summer months when demand for the product is higher. The

petitioners add that their PC strand inventory is not distinguished between that destined for post-tensioned

or pre-tensioned applications.28 

Data collected in these investigations on domestic producers’ end-of-period inventories of PC

strand are presented in table III-6.29 U.S. producers’ inventories, which were equivalent to between ***

and *** percent of U.S. producers’ total shipments during 2006-08, fell in terms of quantity by 9.9

percent in 2007, but increased by 9.5 percent in 2008 to a level below that which was reported in 2006. 

U.S. producers’ inventories at the end of the first quarter of 2009 were 18.9 percent higher than

inventories reported for the comparable period in 2008. End-of-period inventories as a percentage of total

shipments were markedly higher at the end of the first quarter of 2009, equivalent to *** percent of U.S.

producers’ total annualized shipments. *** alone accounted for *** of the inventories held at the end of

the first quarter of 2009 and *** together accounted for *** of the inventories held at that time. 
 30 Conference transcript, pp. 77-80 (Woltz).

III-8

Table III-6

PC strand: U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and JanuaryMarch 2009

Item

Calendar year January-March--

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Inventories (1,000 pounds) 68,014 61,262 67,081 54,954 65,324

Ratio to production (percent) 10.1 10.2 12.0 8.5 20.2

Ratio to U.S. shipments (percent) 10.8 10.5 12.7 8.5 20.2

Ratio to total shipments (percent) *** *** *** *** ***

 1 Partial-year ratios are based on annualized production and shipments.

Note.--The aggregate inventory data and aggregate shipment data used in the calculations of ratios to U.S. and total

shipments are for tollee MMI and producers American, Insteel, Strand-Tech, and Sumiden. The aggregate

production data used in the calculations of ratios to production are for toller Rettco and producers American, Insteel,

Strand-Tech, and Sumiden.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. PRODUCERS’ IMPORTS AND PURCHASES

U.S. producers’ imports and purchases of PC strand are presented in table III-7. As shown, one

U.S. producer (Insteel) directly imported the subject merchandise from China during the period for which

information was collected in these investigations. Domestic producer *** directly imported PC strand

from *** and domestically purchased *** PC strand from U.S. importers. Domestic producer ***

reported direct imports of PC strand from ***. 

Table III-7

PC strand: U.S. producers’ imports and purchases, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and JanuaryMarch 2009

* * * * * * *

Insteel’s direct imports of PC strand from China accounted for *** of the firm’s U.S. production

of PC strand during ***. Insteel indicated that it made the decision to import PC strand from China

beginning in *** when it found that it could not compete with the low-priced Chinese imports. The

company developed a pilot program to determine whether it could import PC strand from China and

profitably distribute the product to its longstanding customer base. However, Insteel indicated that the

pilot program was abandoned after only a couple of import deliveries because Chinese PC strand prices

continued to fall and the imported material in transit was worth less when it arrived in the United States

than it was when it was initially purchased.30 In direct conference testimony, Insteel explained that 

in fact the pilot program wound up being about half the size that we originally envisioned

it just due to the mess that was in the market and our quick realization that we couldn’t
 31 Conference transcript, p. 80 (Woltz).

 32 The aggregate data presented for U.S. producers’ employment-related indicators are for toller Rettco and

producers American, Insteel, Strand-Tech, and Sumiden.

III-9

add value and we couldn’t reduce prices fast enough to keep up with what was happening

from the real Chinese importers.31

* * * * * * *

U.S. EMPLOYMENT, WAGES, AND PRODUCTIVITY

The U.S. producers’ aggregate employment data for PC strand are presented in table III-8.32 In

the aggregate, U.S. PC strand producers reported a decline of 14.0 percent in the number of production

and related workers employed in the manufacture of PC strand during 2006-08. Likewise, the number of

hours worked by these employees, as well as the total and hourly wages paid and unit labor costs, fell

overall during the same time period. In contrast, productivity fell by 0.9 percent from 2006 to 2007 but

increased by 3.2 percent in 2008 to a level higher than that reported in 2006. All employment indicators,

with the exception of unit labor costs during the first quarter of 2009 were lower than the comparable

period in 2008. Unit labor costs were 29.4 percent higher during January-March 2009 than reported for

January-March 2008. 

Table III-8

PC strand: U.S. producers’ employment-related data, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and JanuaryMarch 2009

Item

Calendar year January-March--

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Production and related workers (PRWs) 385 357 331 333 258

Hours worked by PRWs (1,000 hours) 856 771 694 183 120

Hours worked per PRW 2,223 2,161 2,098 549 464

Wages paid to PRWs (1,000 dollars) 16,963 14,145 13,264 3,366 2,184

Hourly wages $19.82 $18.34 $19.11 $18.41 $18.25

Productivity (pounds produced per hour) 786.7 780.0 805.0 881.2 674.7

Unit labor costs (per 1,000 pounds) $25.20 $23.51 $23.73 $20.90 $27.05

Note.--The aggregate data presented are for toller Rettco and producers American, Insteel, Strand-Tech, and

Sumiden.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 33 Conference transcript, pp. 26, 31 (Cornelius), and 40 (Beck).

 34 AMM, “Insteel laying off 15 at PC strand plant,” November 13, 2008; and conference transcript, pp. 84-85

(Woltz).

 35 Conference transcript, p. 85 (Selhorst and Cornelius).

III-10

The domestic producers testified that the decline in their sales and shipments and the resulting

reductions in production led to the permanent layoff of many U.S. workers manufacturing PC strand. The

petitioners further argued that these declines in sales and shipments were due to “imports from China that

consistently undercut our prices.”33 In addition, press reports indicate and conference testimony confirms

that certain job losses in the PC strand industry were explained by investments in technology

improvements by the domestic producers and the general downturn in the economy. In particular, 15 jobs

were eliminated at Insteel’s PC strand operations in Sanderson, FL in November 2008, as that facility

underwent a substantial investment program to upgrade its 1970s production technology. Such

improvements in the process technology led to a less labor-intensive manufacturing process. Insteel

reported that those jobs were originally scheduled for elimination in 2009 but the layoffs were accelerated

because of the immediate downturn in the market conditions. Insteel also carried out the expansion and

the total upgrade of its Gallatin, TN facility with internally developed proprietary technology. Insteel

reported that capital investment projects at both facilities resulted in significant gains in productivity and

labor utilization. The company further indicated that it expected the increase in the number of jobs at its

Tennessee facility to offset the job losses at its Florida facility; however, the company explained that by

the time the new investments were operational, the company was forced to cut back on production and

employment at both facilities. Insteel added that the two capital investment projects at its Florida and

Tennessee facilities represented approximately $20 million and increased its PC strand capacity by

approximately 35,000 tons per year.34 Domestic producers American and Sumiden also reported capital

investments for equipment upgrades but neither firm reported significant changes in their work force as a

result of any of the capital improvements.35
 1

 The Commission sent questionnaires to those firms identified in the petition, along with firms that, based on a

review of data provided by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”), may have imported at least 50 metric

tons under HTS statistical reporting numbers 7312.10.3010 and 7312.10.3012 in any one year since 2006.

IV-1

PART IV: U.S. IMPORTS, APPARENT CONSUMPTION, AND

MARKET SHARES

U.S. IMPORTERS

Importer questionnaires were sent to 58 firms believed to be importers of subject PC strand, as

well as to all U.S. producers of PC strand.1

 Usable questionnaire responses were received from

26 companies, representing 86.7 percent of total imports from China and 58.7 percent of total imports

from all other countries combined during 2008 under HTS statistical reporting numbers 7312.10.3010 and

7312.10.3012. Table IV-1 lists all responding U.S. importers of PC strand from China and other sources,

their locations, and their shares of U.S. imports in 2008. As the table illustrates, ***, the three largest

importers providing responses to the Commission’s questionnaire in these investigations, accounted for

*** percent of total subject U.S. imports from China in 2008 and *** percent of total U.S. imports from

all countries as measured by official Commerce import statistics. 

Table IV-1

PC strand: U.S. importers, source(s) of imports, U.S. locations, and shares of official imports in

2008

* * * * * * *

U.S. IMPORTS

During 2001, there were no reported U.S. imports of PC strand from China. By 2003 (i.e., the

year before antidumping and countervailing duty orders concerning PC strand from Brazil, India, Korea,

Mexico, and Thailand entered into effect), U.S. imports of PC strand from China amounted to 38.5

million pounds and accounted for 15.9 percent of total U.S. PC strand imports on the basis of quantity. In

the following year, when imports from Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand declined by almost

100 million pounds in the aggregate, U.S. imports from China increased further by more than 100 million

pounds. By that time, China accounted for almost one-half of the total quantity of U.S. imports of PC

strand. The second largest supplier of PC strand to the U.S. market during 2004 was Taiwan,

representing 8.4 percent of total U.S. imports in that year. PC strand imports from China continued to

increase in terms of quantity from 2004 levels to a historical high of 391.4 million pounds in 2006. China

accounted for 80.7 percent of total U.S. imports during 2006.

Table IV-2 presents data for U.S. imports of PC strand from China, primary nonsubject sources,

and all other sources combined. Because Commission questionnaire import data coverage from subject

and nonsubject sources was less than complete, the import data presented in this report are based on

official import statistics of Commerce.

U.S. imports from China accounted for a relatively large and increasing share of the total quantity

of U.S. imports of PC strand from 2006 to 2008. By 2008, China accounted for over 90 percent of total

U.S. PC strand imports. However, in the first quarter of 2009, China accounted for only about threefourths of total U.S. imports. The quantity of U.S. imports from China fell by 9.6 percent from 2006 to

2007 but increased in 2008 to a level 2.5 percent below that reported in 2006. The quantity of U.S.

imports of PC strand from China during the first quarter of 2009 was 86.7 percent lower than the quantity

reported in the comparable period of 2008. The unit values of PC strand imports from China, which 
IV-2

Table IV-2

PC strand: U.S. imports, by sources, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

Source

Calendar year January-March

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

China 391,367 353,937 381,652 91,269 12,183

Nonsubject sources:

 Canada 14,459 15,725 11,312 2,644 2,836

 Indonesia 2,5490000

 Italy 11,785 5,245 3,574 322 171

 Japan 1,580 1,952 1,380 410 0

 Korea 3,958 2,831 3,325 662 86

 Mexico 1,526 2,283 1,514 398 692

 Portugal 7,835 3,864 7,223 3,642 0

 Taiwan 15,261 1,659 0 0 0

 Other nonsubject sources1 34,458 10,206 2,759 147 370

 Total nonsubject sources 93,412 43,766 31,089 8,225 4,154

Total U.S. imports 484,778 397,703 412,741 99,494 16,337

Value (1,000 dollars)

2

China 127,617 115,843 194,276 36,157 5,251

Nonsubject sources:

 Canada 8,271 9,023 8,365 1,585 2,002

 Indonesia 8620000

 Italy 5,904 3,345 2,668 233 141

 Japan 1,100 1,343 916 294 0

 Korea 1,506 1,399 2,201 416 54

 Mexico 729 1,036 885 202 319

 Portugal 3,718 1,776 4,166 1,764 0

 Taiwan 5,316 731 0 0 0

 Other nonsubject sources1 12,670 4,329 2,571 182 409

 Total nonsubject sources 40,085 22,982 21,771 4,675 2,924

Total U.S. imports 167,702 138,825 216,047 40,832 8,176

Table continued on following page.
IV-3

Table IV-2--Continued

PC strand: U.S. imports, by sources, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

Source

Calendar year January-March

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Unit value (per 1,000 pounds)

2

China $326 $327 $509 $396 $431

Nonsubject sources:

 Canada 572 574 739 600 706

 Indonesia 338 (3

) (3) (3) (3)

 Italy 501 638 746 724 826

 Japan 696 688 663 716 (3

)

 Korea 380 494 662 628 624

 Mexico 478 454 584 507 462

 Portugal 475 460 577 484 (3

)

 Taiwan 348 441 (3

) (3) (3)

 Other nonsubject sources1 368 424 932 1,237 1,105

 Average, nonsubject sources 429 525 700 568 704

Average, all U.S. imports 346 349 523 410 500

Share of quantity (percent)

China 80.7 89.0 92.5 91.7 74.6

Nonsubject sources:

 Canada 3.0 4.0 2.7 2.7 17.4

 Indonesia 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Italy 2.4 1.3 0.9 0.3 1.0

 Japan 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.0

 Korea 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.5

 Mexico 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.4 4.2

 Portugal 1.6 1.0 1.8 3.7 0.0

 Taiwan 3.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Other nonsubject sources1 7.1 2.6 0.7 0.1 2.3

 Total nonsubject sources 19.3 11.0 7.5 8.3 25.4

Total U.S. imports 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table continued on following page.
 2

 Conference transcript, p. 23 (Woltz)

 3

 Conference transcript, p. 23 (Cornelius).

IV-4

Table IV-2--Continued

PC strand: U.S. imports, by sources, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

Source

Calendar year January-March

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Share of value (percent)

China 76.1 83.4 89.9 88.6 64.2

Nonsubject sources:

 Canada 4.9 6.5 3.9 3.9 24.5

 Indonesia 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Italy 3.5 2.4 1.2 0.6 1.7

 Japan 0.7 1.0 0.4 0.7 0.0

 Korea 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.7

 Mexico 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.5 3.9

 Portugal 2.2 1.3 1.9 4.3 0.0

 Taiwan 3.2 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Other nonsubject sources1 7.6 3.1 1.2 0.4 5.0

 Total nonsubject sources 23.9 16.6 10.1 11.4 35.8

Total U.S. imports 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

1

 Other nonsubject sources include Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Ecuador, Germany, Hungary, India, Ireland,

Malaysia, Netherlands, Panama, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, and the United Kingdom. 2

 Landed, U.S. port of entry, duty-paid.

 3

 Not applicable.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

increased throughout the period for which data were collected in these reviews, ranged from $326 to $509

per 1,000 pounds.

The domestic producers argued that a large build up of inventories of the Chinese product by

purchasers in the United States in 2008 and the general downturn in demand for PC strand led to the

decline in U.S. imports from China during the first quarter of 2009. They asserted that U.S. purchasers

“simply stopped buying strand, domestic or import, in order to consume the dumped Chinese strand they

had previously purchased.”2

 The petitioners further argued that the decline in U.S. imports from China

“reflected a temporary excess inventory situation, and is not an indication that Chinese producers are

reducing the huge volumes of PC strand they have exported in the past three years.”3

By contrast, U.S. imports from nonsubject sources accounted for a relatively small and declining

share of the total quantity of U.S. imports of PC strand from 2006 to 2008. By 2008, nonsubject sources

accounted for only 7.5 percent of total U.S. PC strand imports. However, by the first quarter of 2009,

nonsubject sources accounted for about one-quarter of the total quantity. Canada was, by far, the largest

nonsubject source of U.S. imports of PC strand during the latter periods for which the Commission
IV-5

collected information in these investigations. In fact, during the first quarter of 2009, Canada accounted

for 17.4 percent of the total quantity of U.S. PC strand imports. The quantity of U.S. imports from

countries other than China (primarily Canada) fell by 66.7 percent from 2006 to 2008. The quantity of

U.S. imports of PC strand from all other sources during the first quarter of 2009 were 63.0 percent lower

than the quantity reported in the comparable period of 2008. The unit values of PC strand imports from

nonsubject sources, which increased overall throughout the period for which data were requested in these

reviews, were consistently higher than the unit values of PC strand imported from China. Nonsubject

imports ranged from $429 to $704 per 1,000 pounds.

U.S. importers provided data concerning their U.S. shipments of PC strand by type of application

(i.e., bare/coated and pre-tensioned/post-tensioned). These data, presented in tables IV-3 (China) and IV4 (nonsubject countries), reveal that, during 2008, *** percent of the quantity of subject importers’ total

U.S. shipments of PC strand was for post-tensioned applications and *** percent was bare strand for pretensioned applications. The data provided by nonsubject importers indicate that, during 2008, *** of the

quantity of nonsubject importers’ total U.S. shipments of PC strand was bare strand for post-tensioned

applications and *** was bare strand for pre-tensioned applications. The data also show that very little

coated PC strand is imported into the United States.

Table IV-3

PC strand: U.S. shipments of U.S. imports from China, by application, 2006-08, January-March

2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table IV-4

PC strand: U.S. shipments of U.S. imports from nonsubject sources, by application, 2006-08,

January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

A review of monthly import data for January 2006 through April 2009 indicates that imports of

PC strand from China and Canada entered the United States in each month of the entire period for which

data are presented (table IV-5). These data also illustrate the seasonality of the product–that is, lower

quantities of PC strand were imported into the United States during the off-peak months from November

to February of each calendar year.
Table IV-5

PC strand: Monthly U.S. imports, by sources, January 2006-April 2009

Country

2006

Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. 

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Argentina 761 229 886 0 229 0 931 1,329 1,415 665 Austria 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Belgium 0 0 0 0 256 0 0 0 0 0 Canada 1,106 1,388 1,406 1,430 1,389 1,180 952 1,262 894 1,172 1,2

China 17,611 21,536 30,004 45,003 34,586 31,940 31,356 46,152 43,838 37,104 34,7

Ecuador 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Germany 1,077 903 344 0 43 474 0 0 0 0 Hungary 0 1,594 926 399 0 0 0 0 0 0 India 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Indonesia 0 0 0 446 440 1,184 479 0 0 0 Ireland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Italy 84 356 766 560 2,259 1,345 1,323 1,257 963 197 1,4Japan 333 0 325 0 163 0 0 0 149 407 Korea 0 103 0 66 87 66 131 84 210 2,897 2Malaysia 458 0 0 454 2,845 1,558 458 46 320 1,538 Mexico 0 0 0 0 0 0 241 228 753 0 3Netherlands 126 0 0 174 430 86 0 0 0 0 Panama 0000000000Portugal 1,174 877 829 264 1,911 871 490 887 424 109 South Africa 709 103 905 160 618 964 1,986 439 1,836 698 Spain 676 2,702 0 342 792 0 0 0 0 0 Switzerland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 33 Taiwan 1,753 1,441 1,271 1,694 1,711 1,483 1,590 780 2,975 344 

Thailand 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 United Kingdom 0 0 0 0 36 72 0 0 0 71  Total 25,878 31,231 37,662 50,995 47,795 41,222 39,938 52,464 53,815 45,280 38,0Table continued on following page.

IV-6
Table IV-5--Continued

PC strand: Monthly U.S. imports, by sources, January 2006-April 2009

Country

2007

Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. 

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Argentina 0 0 0 0 0 0 220 0 220 0 Austria 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Belgium 0 0 81 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Canada 1,198 1,081 1,408 1,063 1,540 1,330 1,519 1,160 1,441 1,422 1,0

China 20,206 13,086 28,911 30,822 53,950 38,256 50,968 20,140 28,688 34,986 15,9

Ecuador 0000000000Germany 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3Hungary 0000000000India 0 235 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Indonesia 0000000000Ireland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Italy 1,607 663 383 683 118 86 246 747 204 115 3Japan 325 0 0 244 407 0 0 488 163 163 1Korea 164 207 0 1,103 0 88 522 44 138 126 2Malaysia 0 863 0 451 1,022 1,320 540 0 0 0 Mexico 369 0 0 0 180 357 81 262 42 131 2Netherlands 0000000000Panama 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 Portugal 871 317 753 0 542 105 108 112 0 411 5South Africa 281 39 0 477 567 0 487 476 0 0 4Spain 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Switzerland 0 1 1,349 0 24 0 48 0 0 23 Taiwan 468 253 0 0 526 0 123 83 206 0 Thailand 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 United Kingdom 36 35 0 0 70 0 0 107 34 0 1 Total 25,526 16,781 32,885 34,843 58,947 41,542 54,863 23,618 31,136 37,471 19,4Table continued on following page.

IV-7
Table IV-5--Continued

PC strand: Monthly U.S. imports, by sources, January 2006-April 2009

Country

2008

Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. 

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Argentina 0000000000Austria 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Belgium 0 0 0 0 0 0 577 0 0 0 Canada 759 989 895 1,018 1,193 830 1,055 1,001 1,017 1,244 2

China 30,644 23,502 37,123 31,574 41,874 50,736 38,649 49,660 23,818 39,644 9,5

Ecuador 0000000000Germany 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 Hungary 0000000000India 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 0 0 Indonesia 0000000000Ireland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Italy 0 322 0 776 915 227 238 669 172 0 Japan 407 4 0 407 203 203 157 0 0 0 Korea 138 120 404 506 122 372 169 226 435 111 5Malaysia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mexico 0 117 281 361 0 0 0 0 0 0 3Netherlands 0000000000Panama 0000000000Portugal 324 1,273 2,046 1,094 270 112 1,505 104 342 155 South Africa 0 0 0 0 0 0 479 0 0 0 Spain 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 193 0 1Switzerland 0 0 42 0 40 0 0 40 42 18 Taiwan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Thailand 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 United Kingdom 0 0 105 0 0 0 0 6 0 181 1 Total 32,271 26,326 40,896 35,736 44,616 52,480 42,836 51,753 26,019 41,353 10,9Table continued on following page.

IV-8
Table IV-5--Continued

PC strand: Monthly U.S. imports, by sources, January 2006-April 2009

Country

2009

Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. 

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Argentina 0 0 0 0(1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) 

Austria 0 0 0 0 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) Belgium 0 0 0 0 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) Canada 671 1,008 1,157 1,544 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) China 6,094 2,924 3,165 1,861 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) Ecuador 0 0 0 0(1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) Germany 0 0 2 0 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) Hungary 0 0 0 0(1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) India 0 0 0 0 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) Indonesia 0 0 0 0(1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) Ireland 0 0 0 0 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) Italy 43 85 43 342 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) Japan 0 0 0 0(1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) Korea 0 86 0 0 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) Malaysia 0 0 0 0 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) Mexico 0 158 534 156 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) Netherlands 35 252 0 302 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) Panama 0 0 0 0(1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) Portugal 0 0 0 851 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) South Africa 0 0 0 0 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) Spain 0 0 0 294 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) Switzerland 39 0 41 72 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) Taiwan 0 0 0 0 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) Thailand 0 0 0 0 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) United Kingdom 0 0 1 0(1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)  Total 6,883 4,513 4,942 5,424 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) 

1 Not available.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

IV-9
 4

 Sections 703(a)(1), 705(b)(1), 733(a)(1), and 735(b)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a)(1), 1671d(b)(1),

1673b(a)(1), and 1673d(b)(1)).

 5

 Section 771(24) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(24)).

 6

 Conference transcript, pp. 96-97 (Selhorst and Feitler).

IV-10

CRITICAL CIRCUMSTANCES

No “critical circumstances” were alleged by the petitioners in these investigations.

NEGLIGIBILITY

The statute requires that an investigation be terminated without an injury determination if imports

of the subject merchandise are found to be negligible.4

 Negligible imports are generally defined in the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, as imports from a country of merchandise corresponding to a domestic

like product where such imports account for less than 3 percent of the volume of all such merchandise

imported into the United States in the most recent 12-month period for which data are available that

precedes the filing of the petition or the initiation of the investigation. However, if there 

are imports of such merchandise from a number of countries subject to investigations initiated on the

same day that individually account for less than 3 percent of the total volume of the subject merchandise,

and if the imports from those countries collectively account for more than 7 percent of the volume of all

such merchandise imported into the United States during the applicable 12-month period, then imports

from such countries are deemed not to be negligible.5

 The petition in these investigations was filed on 

May 27, 2009. For the most recent 12-month period for which data are available that precedes the filing

of the petition (May 2008-April 2009), imports of PC strand from China accounted for 91.2 percent of

total imports of PC strand by quantity.

APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION

Data concerning apparent U.S. consumption of PC strand during the period for which information

was requested in the preliminary phase of these investigations are shown in table IV-6 and figure IV-1. 

Apparent U.S. consumption of PC strand, as shown in the body of this report at table IV-6, is based on

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of PC strand and subject imports as compiled from official U.S. import

statistics of Commerce. Apparent U.S. consumption of PC strand, as calculated based on U.S. producers’

U.S. shipments of PC strand and subject importers’ U.S. shipments of PC strand from responses to

Commission questionnaires are presented separately in appendix C, table C-2. U.S. importers and

producers also provided data concerning their U.S. shipments of uncovered and bare PC strand for preand post-tensioned applications and U.S. shipments subject to “Buy America(n)” restrictions. These

shipments and their shares of total reported shipments are presented separately in appendix C, 

table C-3.

The demand for PC strand is derived from demand for prestressed concrete which, in turn, is

derived from demand in the construction industry. In terms of quantity, apparent U.S. consumption of PC

strand fell by 15.2 percent from 2006 to 2008. Apparent U.S. consumption was lower on the basis of

quantity and value during the first quarter of 2009 than in the comparable period of 2008. Conference

testimony indicated that, in particular, slab-on-grade fabrication connected to residential construction has

declined and the use and need for PC strand associated with it has likewise declined since 2006, which

was the peak year for U.S. residential construction. The demand for other end uses of PC strand have

reportedly remained relatively steady since 2006, but have been most recently affected by the downturn in

the global economy.6
IV-11

Table IV-6

PC strand: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. imports, and apparent U.S. consumption,

2006-08, January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

Item

Calendar year January-March

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 627,436 582,780 529,973 160,799 80,651

U.S. imports from–

China 391,367 353,937 381,652 91,269 12,183

Nonsubject countries1 93,412 43,766 31,089 8,225 4,154

Total U.S. imports 484,778 397,703 412,741 99,494 16,337

Apparent U.S. consumption 1,112,214 980,483 942,714 260,293 96,988

Value (1,000 dollars)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 298,841 268,784 334,404 75,696 46,653

U.S. imports from--

China 127,617 115,843 194,276 36,157 5,251

Nonsubject countries1 40,085 22,982 21,771 4,675 2,924

Total U.S. imports 167,702 138,825 216,047 40,832 8,176

Apparent U.S. consumption 466,543 407,609 550,451 116,528 54,829

1

 Major nonsubject countries include Canada, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and Portugal.

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official import statistics

of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
IV-12

Figure IV-1

PC strand: Apparent U.S. consumption, by sources, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and JanuaryMarch 2009

Source: Table IV-6.
 7

 Conference transcript, pp. 69-70 (Selhorst).

IV-13

In terms of value, apparent U.S. consumption increased by 18.0 percent during 2006 to 2008,

which reflects the increasing unit values of imported and domestically produced PC strand during the

same time period. These increases are somewhat reflective of the increase in the cost of the primary raw

material (wire rod), which accounts for the vast majority of the cost of producing the product. In fact, the

cost of wire rod for the domestic producers of PC strand doubled from late 2007 to August 2008.7

 

U.S. MARKET SHARES

U.S. market share data are presented in table IV-7. The share of the U.S. market held by subject

imports of PC strand from China increased from 35.2 percent in 2006 to 40.5 percent in 2008. However,

the share of the U.S. market held by U.S. imports from China during the first quarter of 2009 (12.6

percent) was much lower than the 35.1-percent share held in the comparable period of 2008. The U.S.

producers’ share of the domestic market remained relatively steady from 2006 to 2008, increasing by 3.0

percentage points from 2006 to 2007 and falling by 3.2 percentage points in 2008. The share of the

domestic market held by U.S. producers during the first quarter of 2009 (83.2 percent) was much higher

than the 61.8 percent share held in the comparable period of 2008. 

RATIO OF IMPORTS TO U.S. PRODUCTION

Information concerning the ratio of imports to U.S. production of PC strand is presented in table

IV-8. Subject imports were equivalent to 58.1 percent of U.S. production during 2006. This level

increased to 68.3 percent during 2008. However, U.S. imports of PC strand from China were equivalent

to only 15.1 percent of production during January-March 2009 compared with 56.7 percent reported for

the comparable period in 2008.
IV-14

Table IV-7

PC strand: U.S. consumption and market shares, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and JanuaryMarch 2009

Item

Calendar year January-March

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Apparent U.S. consumption 1,112,214 980,483 942,714 260,293 96,988

Value (1,000 dollars)

Apparent U.S. consumption 466,543 407,609 550,451 116,528 54,829

Share of quantity (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 56.4 59.4 56.2 61.8 83.2

U.S. imports from--

China 35.2 36.1 40.5 35.1 12.6

Nonsubject countries1 8.4 4.5 3.3 3.2 4.3

All countries 43.6 40.6 43.8 38.2 16.8

Share of value (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 64.1 65.9 60.8 65.0 85.1

U.S. imports from--

China 27.4 28.4 35.3 31.0 9.6

Nonsubject countries1 8.6 5.6 4.0 4.0 5.3

All countries 35.9 34.1 39.2 35.0 14.9

 1 Major nonsubject countries include Canada, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and Portugal.

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official import statistics

of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
IV-15

Table IV-8

PC strand: U.S. production, U.S. imports, and ratios of imports to U.S. production, 2006-08,

January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

Item

Calendar year January-March

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

U.S. production 673,195 601,717 558,885 161,089 80,750

Imports from:

China 391,367 353,937 381,652 91,269 12,183

Nonsubject countries1 93,412 43,766 31,089 8,225 4,154

Total imports 484,778 397,703 412,741 99,494 16,337

Ratio of U.S. imports to production (percent)

Imports from:

China 58.1 58.8 68.3 56.7 15.1

Nonsubject countries1 13.9 7.3 5.6 5.1 5.1

Total imports 72.0 66.1 73.9 61.8 20.2

 1 Major nonsubject countries include Canada, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico,and Portugal.

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce and data submitted in response to

Commission questionnaires.
 
 1

 Conference transcript, pp. 69 and 82 (Selhorst).

V-1

PART V: PRICING AND RELATED INFORMATION

FACTORS AFFECTING PRICES

Raw Material Costs

Raw materials costs accounted for between 77 and 81 percent of U.S. producers’ costs of goods

sold during 2006-08. The cost of steel wire rod in turn accounts for a substantial share of the total cost of

producing PC strand.1

 U.S. producers reported in their questionnaires that steel wire rod prices have been

volatile, and have impacted the price of PC strand in the U.S. market. As shown in figure V-1, high

carbon steel wire rod prices nearly doubled from the latter part of 2007 through August 2008, then

dropped to close to their 2007 levels in 2009.

Figure V-1

High carbon steel wire rod: Average wholesale spot price, by month, March 2007-June 2009

Source: American Metal Market, www.amm.com, retrieved June 8, 2009.
 2

 ***. Also, one firm reported both transaction-by-transaction and contract sales. 

V-2

U.S. Inland Transportation Costs

U.S. producers reported that U.S. inland transportation costs ranged from 4.8 to 6.5 percent of the

total delivered cost of PC strand, while importers reported that the average cost was 4.0 percent. All U.S.

producers and 15 of 20 responding importers reported selling on a delivered basis, and all U.S. producers

and most responding importers also reported arranging transportation to their customers’ locations. Three

U.S. producers reported that 90 to 95 percent of their sales were within 101 to 1,000 miles of their storage

or production facilities; the other producer reported selling 30 percent within 100 miles and 65 percent

within 101 to 1,000 miles. Nearly all imports are reportedly sold within 1,000 miles of the importers’

storage facilities with 15 of 20 importers reporting that at least 50 percent of shipments were within 100

miles of their storage facilities. Firms reported selling to the following regions:

Regions U.S. producers Importers (China)

Number of firms

Northeast 4 6

Midwest 4 7

Southeast 4 11

Central Southwest 4 13

Mountains 3 9

Pacific Coast 2 12

Other 2 2

PRICING PRACTICES

Pricing Methods

While all U.S. producers reported selling on a transaction-by-transaction basis, two producers

also use set price lists and two also use contracts. Three producers reported that most (85 to 100 percent)

of their 2008 sales were on a short-term contract basis, while one reported that nearly all (92 percent) of

its sales were on a spot basis. U.S. producers’ short term contracts range from one to three months; three

of the four producers reported that prices and quantities are fixed while one reported that prices can be

renegotiated during the contract. One of the four responding U.S. producers reported that its short-term

contracts have a meet-or-release provision. 

Most importers (17 of 20) reported transaction-by-transaction sales, although 4 reported contract

sales, and one reported another method.2

 Importers’ contracts were generally reported to be for 3 months,

although a few firms reported contracts up to 6 or even 12 months. Most firms reported that contracts fix

both price and quantity and are not renegotiated. 
 3

 ***.

 4

 At the Commission conference, Tim Johnson of Suncoast Post-tensioners testified that “...I would like pricing

that’s commensurate with my volume. You know, if I go to buy 10 cars instead of one car, I expect a better price. 

So me being the biggest purchaser in the market, I expect to have a price commensurate with that.” Conference

transcript, p. 44 (Johnson).

 5

 Data for product 3 were reported only for 2 quarters. In the third quarter of 2008, one U.S. producer reported

sales of *** feet of PC strand priced at *** per 1,000 feet, and two importers reported sales of *** feet priced at ***;

the margin of underselling was *** percent. In the fourth quarter of 2008, two importers reported sales of *** feet

of PC strand priced at ***; no sales were reported by U.S. producers. 

V-3

Sales Terms and Discounts

Two U.S. producers reported quantity discounts and annual total volume discounts while the

other two U.S. producers reported no discount policy.3

 Eighteen of 20 importers reported no discount

policy. However, Suncoast Post-tensioners reported that, as the largest purchaser in the United States, it

expects prices commensurate with its purchase volumes.4 Most firms sell net 30 days although a few

offer a small discount such as one-half percent for early payment.

PRICE DATA

The Commission requested U.S. producers and importers of PC strand to provide quarterly data

for the total quantity and value of PC strand shipped to unrelated customers in the U.S. market. Data

were requested for the period January 2006-March 2009. The products for which pricing data were

requested are as follows:

Product 1.--1⁄2 inch, grade 270 (270,000 PSI), low relaxation, uncovered prestressed concrete

stand sold for pre-tensioned applications.

Product 2.--1⁄2 inch, grade 270 (270,000 PSI), low relaxation, uncovered prestressed concrete

stand sold for post-tensioned applications.

Product 3.--1⁄2 inch, grade 270 (270,000 PSI), low relaxation, covered prestressed concrete stand

that is greased and covered in a polyethylene wrap sold for post-tensioned applications.

Four U.S. producers and 18 importers of PC strand from China provided usable pricing data for

sales of the requested products, although not all firms reported pricing for all products for all quarters. 

One firm reported price data for Canada (appendix D). Pricing data reported by these firms accounted for

approximately 47.4 percent of U.S. producers’ shipments of PC strand and virtually all U.S. shipments of

subject imports from China in 2008.

Price Trends

Price data for products 1 and 2 are shown in tables V-1 to V-2 and figure V-2.5

 A summary of

price trends is shown in table V-3. U.S.-produced and imported Chinese products 1 and 2 showed

generally similar trends during the period for which data were collected, with prices relatively stable

during 2006 and 2007, increasing substantially during the beginning of 2008, and falling at the end of

2008 and during the first quarter of 2009. Prices for U.S. product 1 tended to be more volatile than prices

for imported Chinese product 1 during 2008, and price declines for U.S. product 2 in the fourth quarter of

2008 were followed by price declines by imported Chinese product 2 in the first quarter of 2009. The
 6

 The price trend for aggregated product 1 and product 2 price data was similar to price trends for the separate

product 1 and product 2 price series (appendix D). Prices for aggregated U.S. products 1 and 2 were higher than 

prices for aggregated imported Chinese products 1 and 2 in all 13 quarters, by margins ranging from less than 0.1

percent to 23.6 percent.

V-4

substantial price increases for U.S.-produced and imported Chinese products 1 and 2 in 2008 coincided

with substantial increases in steel wire rod prices, as shown earlier in figure V-1.6

Table V-1

PC strand: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 11 and

margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2006-March 2009

United States China

Price 

(per lineal foot)

Quantity

(1,000 lineal feet)

Price 

(per lineal foot)

Quantity

(1,000 lineal feet)

Margin

(percent)

2006:

 Jan.-Mar. $263 117,031 *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 259 121,556 $202 16,686 21.9

 July-Sept. 265 103,956 212 18,934 20.1

 Oct.-Dec. 260 96,080 193 15,044 25.8

2007:

 Jan.-Mar. 254 94,410 199 15,914 21.7

 Apr.-June 251 105,364 195 25,366 22.3

 July-Sept. 246 98,136 *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 240 103,096 207 13,676 13.9

2008:

 Jan.-Mar. 250 116,938 *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 348 121,686 306 23,330 12.0

 July-Sept. 418 100,688 *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 382 54,374 326 6,741 14.7

2009:

 Jan.-Mar. 304 61,813 255 6,528 16.3

 1 Product 1: 1⁄2 inch, grade 270 (270,000 PSI), low relaxation, uncovered prestressed concrete stand sold for pre-tensioned

applications.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-5

Table V-2

PC strand: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 21 and

margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2006-March 2009

United States China

Price 

(per lineal foot)

Quantity

(1,000 lineal feet)

Price 

(per lineal foot)

Quantity

(1,000 lineal feet)

Margin

(percent)

2006:

 Jan.-Mar. $190 71,479 $196 103,575 (2.9)

 Apr.-June 181 73,845 191 147,292 (5.9)

 July-Sept. *** *** 192 144,044 ***

 Oct.-Dec. 190 40,918 190 114,738 (0.4)

2007:

 Jan.-Mar. 181 47,632 186 111,658 (2.8)

 Apr.-June 180 61,028 187 155,465 (3.8)

 July-Sept. 182 51,890 186 144,615 (2.2)

 Oct.-Dec. 187 39,243 195 74,539 (4.2)

2008:

 Jan.-Mar. 226 52,327 239 160,094 (5.9)

 Apr.-June 302 25,304 276 176,163 8.7

 July-Sept. 317 10,431 311 137,946 1.9

 Oct.-Dec. 238 5,243 317 52,702 (33.4)

2009:

 Jan.-Mar. *** *** 242 19,088 ***

 1 Product 2: 1⁄2 inch, grade 270 (270,000 PSI), low relaxation, uncovered prestressed concrete stand sold for post-tensioned

applications.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Figure V-2

PC strand: Weighted-average prices and quantities of domestic and imported products 1 and 2, by

quarters, January 2006-March 2009

* * * * * * *
 7

 ***.

 8

 ***.

V-6

Table V-3

PC strand: Summary of weighted-average f.o.b. prices for products 1-2 from the United States and

China

Item Number of

quarters

Low price 

(per 1,000 ft)

High price

(per 1,000 ft)

Change in price1

(percent)

Product 1 

United States 13 $240 $418 15.7

China 13 193 326 ***

Product 2

United States 13 180 317 ***

China 13 186 317 23.6

 1 Percentage change from the first quarter in which price data were available to the last quarter in which price data

were available, based on unrounded data.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Price Comparisons

Margins of underselling and overselling for the period are presented in table V-4. As can be seen

from the table, prices for imported Chinese product 1 were below those for U.S. product 1 in 12 of 13

instances, and margins of underselling ranged from 12.0 to 25.8 percent. Alternatively, prices for

imported Chinese product 2 were priced below those for U.S. product 2 in only 2 of 13 instances, with

margins of underselling ranging from 1.9 to 8.7 percent. In the remaining 11 instances, prices for

imported Chinese product 2 were between 0.4 and 33.4 percent above prices for U.S. product 2.7

 Overall,

prices for PC strand imported from China were below those for U.S.-produced PC strand in 15 of 27

instances and margins of underselling ranged from 1.9 to 27.6 percent. In the remaining 12 instances,

prices for PC strand from China were between 0.4 and 33.4 percent above prices for the domestic

product.8

Table V-4

PC strand: Instances of underselling/overselling and the range and average of margins, January

2006-March 2009

Underselling Overselling

Number of

instances

Range

(percent)

Average

margin

(percent)

Number of

instances

Range

(percent)

Average

margin

(percent)

Product 1 12 12.0 to 25.8 18.9 1 - ***

Product 2 2 1.9 to 8.7 5.3 11 0.4 to 33.4 6.1

Product 3 1 - 27.6 0 -

Total 15 1.9 to 27.6 17.7 12 0.4 to 33.4 6.5

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 9

 ***. 

 10 A number of the allegations involved multiple locations for a given purchaser.

V-7

LOST SALES AND LOST REVENUES

The Commission requested U.S. producers of PC strand to report any instances of lost sales or

revenues they experienced due to competition from imports of PC strand from China during January

2006-March 2009. In the petition, the three petitioning firms provided 99 lost sales allegations totaling 

$135.4 million and involving 35.7 million lineal feet of PC strand and 20 lost revenues allegations

totaling $684,480 and involving 49.6 million lineal feet of PC strand.9

 Staff contacted all 37 purchasers

listed in the allegations.10 A summary of the information obtained follows (tables V-5 and V-6).

Table V-5

PC strand: U.S. producers’ lost sales allegations

* * * * * * *

Table V-6

PC strand: U.S. producers’ lost revenue allegations

* * * * * * *

In addition to questions regarding the specific allegations, these purchasers were also asked if

their firm had switched from U.S. produced to Chinese PC strand since January 2006, and if so, if price

was the reason. Seven of 18 responding firms reported that they had switched from U.S.-produced PC

strand to Chinese PC strand because of price, one reported that it switched for reasons other than price,

and 11 reported that they had not switched to Chinese PC strand. When asked if, since January 2006, 

U.S. producers had reduced their prices of PC strand to compete with prices of PC strand imported from

China, 8 responded “yes” and 7 responded “no.”

* * * * * * *
 
 1

 The U.S. firms are American, Insteel, MMI, RettCo, Strand-Tech, and Sumiden. 

 2

 MMI’s financial data are included in this section of the report to present industry profitability for the PC strand

produced and sold through the Rettco/MMI tolling arrangement. MMI’s net sales quantities and values align with

the shipment data reported in table III-4 and in appendix C, and MMI’s reported operating costs include all costs

associated with the reported sales, including raw material costs and selling expenses, as well as Rettco’s production

costs which are captured in MMI’s reported tolling fees. Consolidated operating income margins are presented as a

companion calculation in the statistical note of table VI-1.

 3

 ***. E-mail correspondence from ***, June 19, 2009. Such inventory adjustments correspond to information

on Insteel’s overall operations. In the firm’s most recent 10-Q filing, Insteel reported a pre-tax charge for inventory

write-downs “to reduce the carrying value of inventory to the lower of cost or market resulting from the decline in

selling prices for certain products during the quarter relative to higher raw material costs under the first-in, first-out

(“FIFO”) method of accounting.” See Insteel’s Form 10-Q, May 5, 2009, p.18. 

 4

 E-mail correspondence from ***, July 1, 2009.

VI-1

PART VI: FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE OF THE U.S. PRODUCERS

Background

Six U.S. firms provided usable financial data on their operations on PC strand.1

 These data are

believed to account for the vast majority of U.S. operations on PC strand since 2006. No firms reported

internal consumption or transfers to related firms. MMI and Rettco reported a tolling arrangement in

which MMI is the tollee and Rettco is the toller for all of MMI’s sales of PC strand.2

 All firms reported a

fiscal year end of December 31 except American, which reported a fiscal year end of September 30, and

Insteel, which reported a fiscal year end of the last Saturday closest to the end of September.

Operations on PC Strand

Income-and-loss data for U.S. firms on their operations on PC strand are presented in table VI-1,

while selected financial data, by firm, are presented in table VI-2. The domestic industry experienced

decreasing operating income from 2006 to 2008, followed by an operating loss in January-March 2009. 

Total net sales quantity declined from 2006 to 2008, while total net sales value increased irregularly

during this time. In January-March 2009, both net sales quantity and value were lower than in JanuaryMarch 2008, although the reduction in net sales quantity was greater than the reduction in net sales value. 

Thus, the per-unit net sales value increased from 2006 to 2008, and was higher in January-March 2009 as

compared to January-March 2008 (although lower than in full year 2008). The per-unit cost of goods

sold (“COGS”) increased from 2006 to 2008 due to increased raw material costs, rising at a somewhat

greater rate than per-unit revenue during this time. In January-March 2009, reported per-unit raw

material costs declined slightly from the full year 2008 level, but were still higher than raw material costs

for the comparable interim period in 2008. Other factory costs showed a marked increase in JanuaryMarch 2009, and was the primary contributor to the reported operating loss in that period.

While the overall industry reported consistently lower operating margins from 2006 to 2008 and

an operating loss in January-March 2009, several firms had a relatively larger impact on the aggregate

results presented in table VI-1. Insteel, which represented approximately *** percent of aggregate net

sales quantities and values in 2008 and January-March 2009, reported inventory adjustments ***. While

such adjustments ***, the *** adjustment in January-March 2009 represented *** percent of the firm’s

reported COGS in that period and was ***.3

* * * * * * *4
VI-2

Table VI-1

PC strand: Results of operations of U.S. producers, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

Item

Fiscal year January-March

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Total net sales 661,469 613,704 589,793 167,186 82,775

Value ($1,000)

Total net sales 312,046 283,088 354,083 78,761 47,764

COGS 248,545 230,394 302,334 65,434 52,054

Gross profit/(loss) 63,501 52,694 51,749 13,327 (4,290)

SG&A expenses 14,648 13,317 13,795 3,449 3,430

Operating income/(loss) 48,853 39,377 37,954 9,878 (7,720)

Interest expense 2,037 3,193 1,820 575 463

Other income/(expense) 1,322 821 1,389 310 16

Net income/(loss) 48,138 37,005 37,523 9,613 (8,167)

Depreciation 6,612 7,602 8,550 2,193 2,141

Cash flow 54,750 44,607 46,073 11,806 (6,026)

Ratio to net sales (percent)

 COGS:

 Raw materials 60.9 62.1 70.9 66.3 71.1

 Direct labor 4.4 4.5 3.5 4.1 4.6

 Other factory costs 14.4 14.7 10.9 12.6 33.2

 Total COGS 79.7 81.4 85.4 83.1 109.0

Gross profit/(loss) 20.4 18.6 14.6 16.9 (9.0)

SG&A expenses 4.7 4.7 3.9 4.4 7.2

Operating income/(loss) 15.7 13.9 10.7 12.5 (16.2)

Net income/(loss) 15.4 13.1 10.6 12.2 (17.1)

Unit value (per 1,000 pounds)

Total net sales $472 $461 $600 $471 $577

 COGS:

 Raw materials 287 287 426 312 410

 Direct labor 21 21 21 19 27

 Other factory costs 68 68 65 60 192

 Total COGS 376 375 513 391 629

Gross profit/(loss) 96 86 88 80 (52)

SG&A expenses 22 22 23 21 41

Operating income/(loss) 74 64 64 59 (93)

Net income/(loss) 73 60 64 57 (99)

Number of firms reporting

Operating losses 1 0 1 0 3

Data 5 5 5 5 5

Table continued on next page.
 5

 A variance analysis is calculated in three parts, sales variance, cost of sales variance, and SG&A expense

variance. Each part consists of a price variance (in the case of the sales variance) or a cost variance (in the case of

the cost of sales and SG&A expense variance) and a volume variance. The sales or cost variance is calculated as the

change in unit price times the new volume, while the volume variance is calculated as the change in volume times

the old unit price. Summarized at the bottom of the table, the price variance is from sales; the cost/expense variance

is the sum of those items from COGS and SG&A variances, respectively; and the volume variance is the sum of the

volume variance lines under price and cost/expense variance. The net volume component is generally smaller than

the price variance and the net cost/expense variance. In this case, the volume variance is relatively low despite the

large decrease in sales volume during the period for which data were collected because the negative volume variance

for sales is moderated by the positive volume variance for costs and expenses (in other words, a decline in volume

leads to overall lower costs and expenses, and thus a positive volume variance for costs and expenses). 

VI-3

Table VI-1-- Continued

PC strand: Results of operations of U.S. producers, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

Note.-- MMI’s financial data are included in this section of the report to present industry profitability for the PC strand produced

and sold through the Rettco/MMI tolling arrangement. MMI’s net sales quantities and values align with the shipment data reported

in table III-4 and appendix C, and MMI’s reported operating costs include all costs associated with the reported sales, including

raw material costs and selling expenses, as well as Rettco’s production costs which are captured in MMI’s reported tolling fees. If

COGS are adjusted by the amount of operating income reported for Rettco’s toller operations, operating income margins for 2006-

08 would be ***, ***, and *** percent, respectively, and operating income margins for January-March 2008 and January-March

2009 would be *** and negative *** percent, respectively. This adjustment removes reported toller profitability from the overall

operations on PC strand and presents industry profitability on a consolidated basis. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Table VI-2

PC strand: Results of operations of U.S. producers, by firm, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and JanuaryMarch 2009

* * * * * * *

Variance Analysis

A variance analysis for PC strand is presented in table VI-3. The information for the variance

analysis is derived from table VI-1. The analysis shows that the decline in operating income from 2006 to

2008, as well as between the comparable interim periods, is primarily attributable to the higher

unfavorable net cost/expense variance despite a favorable price variance (that is, costs/expenses rose to a

greater extent than prices).5

Capital Expenditures and Research and Development Expenses

The responding firms’ aggregate data on capital expenditures and research and development

(“R&D”) expenses are shown in table VI-4. Four firms provided capital expenditure data, while only two

firms provided data on R&D expenses. 
VI-4

Table VI-3

PC strand: Variance analysis on operations of U.S. producers, 2006-08, and January-March 2008-09

Item

Between fiscal years Jan.-March

2006-08 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

Value ($1,000)

 Total net sales:

 Price variance 75,850 (6,425) 82,025 8,769

 Volume variance (33,813) (22,533) (11,030) (39,766)

 Total net sales variance 42,037 (28,958) 70,995 (30,997)

Cost of sales:

 Cost variance (80,721) 203 (80,917) (19,657)

 Volume variance 26,932 17,948 8,977 33,037

 Total cost variance (53,789) 18,151 (71,940) 13,380

Gross profit variance (11,752) (10,807) (945) (17,617)

SG&A expenses:

 Expense variance (734) 273 (997) (1,722)

 Volume variance 1,587 1,058 519 1,741

 Total SG&A variance 853 1,331 (478) 19

Operating income variance (10,899) (9,476) (1,423) (17,598)

Summarized as:

 Price variance 75,850 (6,425) 82,025 8,769

 Net cost/expense variance (81,455) 477 (81,913) (21,380)

 Net volume variance (5,294) (3,528) (1,534) (4,987)

Note.-- Unfavorable variances are shown in parentheses; all others are favorable.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Table VI-4

PC strand: Capital expenditures and research and development expenses of U.S. producers, 2006-08,

January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *
 6

 E-mail correspondence from ***, June 22 and 23, 2009. See also conference transcript, p. 84 (Woltz). In the

firm’s most recent annual report, Insteel reported the completion of a capital investment program in 2008 and stated

the following. “During 2008, we completed extensive upgrades at our Florida PC strand facility, including the

installation of new wire drawing and stranding equipment together with the reconfiguration of the operation. This

project represents the last component of our three-year, $45.4 million capital investment program under which we

have added two new engineered structural mesh (“ESM”) production lines, reconfigured and expanded our PC strand

facilities, and upgraded and expanded our standard welded wire reinforcing capabilities. We anticipate that these

projects will generate dual benefits in the form of reducing operating costs and additional capacity to satisfy future

growth in demand. Although the weakening market environment has precluded us from ramping up our expanded

PC strand capacity, we are beginning to realize a portion of the expected returns on these investments through their

favorable impact on labor productivity and increased sales of ESM. With the completion of the program behind us,

we expect a significant drop-off in capital expenditures, with maintenance-related outlays expected to total less than

$5.0 million in 2009.” Insteel’s 2008 annual report, p. 2. 

 7

 E-mail correspondence from ***, June 22 and 23, 2009.

VI-5

Capital expenditures for PC strand irregularly declined from 2006 to 2008, and was lower in

January-March 2009 than in January-March 2008. Insteel accounted for over *** percent of total capital

expenditures ***, and Sumiden accounted for over *** percent of total reported R&D expenses ***. 

According to Insteel, capital expenditures primarily reflect ***.6

 According to Sumiden, R&D expenses

primarily reflect ***.7

 

Assets and Return on Investment

The Commission’s questionnaire requested data on assets used in the production, warehousing,

and sale of PC strand to compute return on investment (“ROI”). Data on the U.S. producers’ total assets

and their ROI are presented in table VI-5. From 2006 to 2008, the total assets for PC strand irregularly

increased from $175.2 million in 2006 to $204.4 million in 2008, and the ROI declined from 27.9 percent

in 2006 to 18.6 percent in 2008. Much of the increase in current assets relates to increases in the selling

prices and inventory values for PC strand. 
VI-6

Table VI-5

PC strand: Asset values and return on investment of U.S. producers, 2006-08

Item

Fiscal year

2006 2007 2008

Value of assets: Value ($1,000)

Current assets:

 Cash and equivalents 12,135 8,154 15,262

 Accounts receivable, net 35,693 35,722 44,876

 Inventories 60,209 41,047 69,538

 Other 1,466 2,166 1,729

 Total current assets 109,503 87,089 131,406

Property, plant and equipment:

Original cost 122,719 133,761 144,790

Less: accumulated depreciation 60,783 64,151 74,102

Equals: book value 61,935 69,611 70,687

Other non-current assets 3,725 2,526 2,287

 Total assets 175,163 159,226 204,380

Operating income or (loss) 48,853 39,377 37,954

Share (percent)

Return on investment 27.9 24.7 18.6

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

CAPITAL AND INVESTMENT

The Commission requested U.S. producers of PC strand to describe any actual or potential

negative effects of imports of PC strand from China on their firms’ growth, investment, ability to raise

capital, development and production efforts, or the scale of capital investments. Their responses are

shown in appendix E.
 1

 The global trade balance data presented are derived from Global Trade Atlas, HTS 7312.10. The products

covered under this six-digit HTS classification include all stranded wire, ropes, cables, and cordage, of iron or steel,

which have not been electrically insulated. The subject PC strand is included in the data presented, as are many

other products. Other products included in the data are stranded wire, ropes, cables, and cordage (including tire

cord), of stainless steel or which have been brass plated or galvanized. The Global Trade Atlas data presented

exclude the data for Malaysia because these data are not consistent with other data reported.

 2

 In the petition, the petitioners provided the names and contact information for 22 producers of PC strand in

China. Petition, exh. General-4.

 3

 There are currently antidumping and/or countervailing duty orders in place in the United States concerning PC

strand producers in six of the countries listed (Brazil, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand). These countries

currently ship little or no PC strand to the United States. According to official import statistics, there were no

imports of PC strand into the United States from Brazil and Thailand during 2008 and U.S. imports of PC strand

from India, Japan, Korea, and Mexico combined during 2008 accounted for only 1.6 percent of total U.S. imports of

PC strand.

VII-1

PART VII: THREAT CONSIDERATIONS AND INFORMATION ON

NONSUBJECT COUNTRIES

The Commission analyzes a number of factors in making threat determinations (see 19 U.S.C. §

1677(7)(F)(i)). Information on the alleged dumping margins and the nature of the alleged subsidies was

presented earlier in this report; information on the volume and pricing of imports of the subject

merchandise is presented in Part IV and Part V; and information on the effects of imports of the subject

merchandise on U.S. producers’ existing development and production efforts is presented in Part VI. 

Information on inventories of the subject merchandise; foreign producers’ operations, including the

potential for “product-shifting;” any other threat indicators, if applicable; and any dumping in

third-country markets, follows. Also presented in this section of the report is information obtained for

consideration by the Commission on nonsubject countries.

OVERVIEW

According to Global Trade Atlas, the United States was the world’s largest importer of stranded

wire, ropes, cables, and cordage, of iron or steel, during 2006-08, attracting about one-fifth of total global

exports (table VII-1).1

 In contrast, China was the world’s leading exporter during that same time period. 

China’s exports increased by over 70 percent from 2006 to 2008, exceeding 2.3 billion pounds in 2008. 

China’s exports accounted for more than one-third of the world’s exports by 2008 and its net trade

surplus increased by over 80 percent to nearly 2.2 billion pounds in 2008.

There are five producers of PC strand in the United States and dozens of producers of PC strand

in China.2

 Other sizeable producers of PC strand in other countries include the following: Austria

(Voestalpine Austria Draht GMBH); Brazil (ArcelorMittal Belgo); Canada (Bekaert and Stelwire Ltd.);

Germany (DWK Drahtwerk Koln GmbH); India (Tata Steel, Usha Martin Industries, Indore Wire Co.,

and Ramsarup Lohh Udyog Ltd.); Italy (CB Trafilati Accial, Far SPA, Italcables SPA, Redaelli Tecnasud,

Siderurgica Latina Martin, and Trafilati SPA); Japan (Shinko Wire Co., Suzuki Metal Co., Tokyo Rope

Mfg. Co., and Tesac Corp.); Korea (Dong-Il Steel Mfg. Co., Kiswire, Manho Rope and Wire, and

Youngheung Iron and Steel Co.); Mexico (Camesa and Deacero); Netherlands (Nedri Spanstaal, BV);

Portugal (Fapricela Industria de Trefilaria SA and Tycsa–Trenzas y Cables de Acero PSC SL); Russia

(Severstal Metiz); Spain (Emesa Trefileria and Tycsa); Thailand (Bangkok Steel Wire Co., Siam Wire

Industry Co., Thai Wire Products Public Co., The Siam Industrial Wire Co., and Thai Special Wire Co.);

Turkey (Celik Halat ve Tel Sanayii AS); and the United Kingdom (Carrington Wire Ltd.).3

 
VII-2

Table VII-1

PC strand and related products: World exports, imports, and trade balance of stranded wire,

ropes, cables, and cordage, of iron or steel, by country, 2006-08

Country Calendar year

2006 2007 2008

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Exports from:

 China 1,363,994 1,823,793 2,323,358

 South Korea 625,690 657,297 638,859

 Spain 262,720 425,508 430,554

 Italy 346,129 349,605 366,028

 Germany 243,117 245,491 256,000

 Thailand 172,279 200,227 211,702

 United States 138,765 156,586 180,970

 Japan 190,774 195,795 168,022

 France 201,518 202,561 165,894

 Hungary 160,513 141,696 138,299

 All other countries 1,597,172 1,587,548 1,594,780

 Total 5,302,670 5,986,107 6,474,466

Imports into:

 China 148,970 131,359 130,610

 South Korea 149,474 258,201 285,735

 Spain 242,993 225,938 226,091

 Italy 146,421 133,850 143,010

 Germany 316,301 367,707 381,352

 Thailand 35,593 36,451 53,347

 United States 1,115,881 1,045,989 1,064,161

 Japan 153,119 160,082 166,403

 France 205,742 222,925 222,083

 Hungary 38,338 19,083 17,985

 All other countries 2,357,881 2,636,410 2,691,231

 Total 4,910,713 5,237,997 5,382,007

Trade balance:

 China 1,215,023 1,692,433 2,192,747

 South Korea 476,216 399,095 353,124

 Spain 19,727 199,569 204,463

 Italy 199,708 215,755 223,017

 Germany (73,184) (122,216) (125,351)

 Thailand 136,686 163,777 158,355

 United States (977,115) (889,403) (883,191)

 Japan 37,655 35,713 1,620

 France (4,224) (20,364) (56,189)

 Hungary 122,175 122,613 120,314

 All other countries (760,709) (1,048,862) (1,096,451)

Note.--Positive numbers presented for “trade balance” show net exports and numbers in parentheses presented for “trade

balance” show net imports. Countries presented separately are based on the top ten exporting countries to the world in 2008.

Source: Global Trade Atlas, HTS 7312.10 (all stranded wire, ropes, cables, and cordage, of iron or steel, which have not been

electrically insulated), excluding data for Malaysia, retrieved June 25, 2009. 
 4

 Petition, exh. General-4.

 5

 Commission Regulation (EC) No 1129/2008 of 14 November 2008, Official Journal of the European Union,

November 15, 2008, L 306/5.

 6 Supplemental Response to Commission’s Notice of Institution of Dong-I1 Steel Mfg. Co., Ltd., Prestressed

Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Brazil, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand (Inv. Nos. 701-TA-432 and

73l-TA-1024-1028 (Review) and AA1921-188 (Third Review)), February 5, 2009.

 7

 See, e.g., Response to Commission’s Notice of Institution of Camesa and Deacero, Prestressed Concrete Steel

Wire Strand from Brazil, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand (Inv. Nos. 701-TA-432 and 73l-TA-1024-1028

(Review) and AA1921-188 (Third Review)), January 21, 2009.

 8

 Petition, exh. General-4.

 9

 A second effort to elicit questionnaire responses from an unspecified number of producers of PC strand in China

was made after the conference with the assistance of respondent importing firm Global Steel Sales. Transcript, pp.

129-130 (Hendricks and Levinson).

VII-3

There is no comprehensive source for capacity and/or production data for all countries producing

PC strand throughout the world; however, such data for China and several nonsubject sources have been

submitted into the record of these investigations and are presented, as follows. There are at least 22

producers of PC strand in China.4

 According to estimates provided in the questionnaire responses of

Chinese PC strand producers, total 2008 production of PC strand in China is believed to be approximately

5.1 billion pounds. To compare, there are a total of at least 22 producers of PC strand in the countries that

comprise the European Union. Overall European Union production was reported to be 2.1 billion pounds

in 2007. With aggregate reported capacity for European Union PC strand producers at approximately 2.7

billion pounds, these facilities were reported to be operating at 79 percent capacity utilization.5

 In

addition, available data for Korea and Mexico reveal that PC strand production in these two countries is

substantially smaller than by the production of PC strand in China. The total 2007 production of the four

firms in Korea that manufacture PC strand was estimated to be 182.1 million pounds6

 and the total 2007

production of the two firms in Mexico that manufacture PC strand was estimated to be markedly smaller

than the Korea production.7

THE INDUSTRY IN CHINA

The petitioners indicated that there are at least 22 producers of PC strand in China.8

 The

Commission sent foreign producer questionnaires to all firms identified by petitioners as possible

producers/exporters of PC strand in China.9

 Four PC strand producers in China provided responses to the

Commission’s request for information. The names of these firms, along with their shares of reported

production and subject exports to the United States (by quantity), are presented in table VII-2. According

to estimates provided in the questionnaire responses, the responding Chinese producers believe that total

production of PC strand in China amounted to about 5.1 billion pounds during 2008, of which they

accounted for about 17 percent in the aggregate. The four responding Chinese producers also reported

that together they exported 72.2 million pounds of PC strand to the United States, which accounted for

19.1 percent of official Commerce import statistics (381.7 million pounds) in 2008.

Table VII-2

PC strand: Reporting manufacturers/exporters in China, and quantities and shares of reported

production and exports to the United States, 2008

* * * * * * *
VII-4

The Commission asked the Chinese producers to indicate whether they or any related firm

producers, have the capability to produce, or have any plans to produce PC strand in the United States or

other countries. ***.

The Commission also asked the Chinese firms to estimate the shares of their total sales that were

represented by sales of PC strand; firms’ estimates ranged from *** percent to *** percent of total

company sales in their most recent fiscal year. *** of the firms reported production of other products in

addition to PC strand on the same equipment and machinery used in the production of PC strand in China. 

In response to a question concerning changes in the character of operations concerning the

production of PC strand since January 1, 2006, *** of the responding producers in China reported ***

plant openings or closings, relocations, acquisitions, changes in ownership, consolidations, prolonged

shutdowns, importation curtailments, or revised labor agreements. *** of the responding Chinese

producers reported plant expansions in relation to their production of PC strand. Company responses

concerning the changes in the character of their PC strand operations in China are presented in 

table VII-3.

Table VII-3

PC strand: Chinese producers’ comments concerning changes in the character of operations

* * * * * * *

Data provided by the four Chinese PC strand producers responding to the Commission’s

questionnaire concerning capacity, production, inventories, and shipments are presented in table VII-4.

The reported aggregate capacity of these four firms to produce PC strand in China increased throughout

the period for which data were requested in these investigations. During 2006-08, the Chinese producers

reportedly ran their PC strand operations at levels close to or at full capacity. However, during the first

quarter of 2009, capacity utilization reported at 84.5 percent was substantially lower than calendar year

2008 but higher than the first quarter of that same year. 

Producers of PC strand in China reported no internal consumption of the product throughout the

period for which data were requested in these investigations. The Chinese producers’ largest commercial

market for PC strand was the home market, accounting for almost three-fourths of total shipments during

2006 and slightly more than two-thirds of total shipments during 2007-08. Such shipments were

noticeably higher during the first quarter of 2009 than in the first quarter of 2008. PC strand exports to

the United States, which was the largest export market for the Chinese PC strand during 2006, fell

throughout the entire period for which actual data were collected in these investigations. Exports to the

United States accounted for 17.5 percent of total shipments during 2006, 12.8 percent during 2007, and

8.6 percent during 2008. During the first quarter of 2009, the Chinese producers’ exports to the United

States were only 0.9 percent of their total company shipments. 

Three of the four responding Chinese producers provided projected capacity data for calendar

years 2009 and 2010. Two of those producers (***) reported no capacity changes and one (***) reported

a ***-percent *** in capacity of *** pounds from 2008 to 2010. One of the four responding Chinese

producers (***) also provided projected home market shipment data and export shipment data for exports

to countries other than the United States and the European Union for calendar year 2009. This company

projected an increase in sales to the home market and a decline in exports to these other markets. Another

of the four responding Chinese producers (***) provided complete projections for calendar years 2009-

10. *** projected a ***-percent decline in production of *** pounds from 2008 to 2009 and a ***percent

increase of *** pounds in 2010. The company’s projected home market shipments are expected to

increase overall by *** percent from *** pounds in 2008 to *** pounds in 2010 and exports to the United

States are expected to fall by *** percent from *** pounds in 2008 to *** pounds in 2009 but climb by

*** percent to *** pounds in 2010. The company, which reported shipments of *** pounds of PC strand 
VII-5

Table VII-4

PC strand: China production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2006-08, JanuaryMarch 2008, and January-March 2009

2006 2007 2008

January-March

2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Capacity1 630,219 768,246 908,336 218,816 240,863

Production 614,377 769,354 878,650 162,011 203,628

End of period inventories 31,504 27,974 57,857 31,278 63,538

Shipments:

Internal consumption 0 0 0 0 0

Home market 441,801 524,502 577,378 104,427 173,091

Exports to--

The United States 106,839 99,032 72,735 23,998 1,714

European Union2 14,646 20,712 21,121 5,321 2,000

All other markets3 48,567 128,639 177,532 24,959 21,141

Total exports 170,052 248,383 271,388 54,279 24,855

Total shipments 611,853 772,884 848,766 158,706 197,947

Ratios and shares (percent)

Capacity utilization 97.5 100.1 96.7 74.0 84.5

Inventories to production 5.1 3.6 6.6 4.8 7.8

Inventories to total shipments 5.1 3.6 6.8 4.9 8.0

Share of total quantity of shipments:

Internal consumption 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Home market 72.2 67.9 68.0 65.8 87.4

Exports to--

The United States2 17.5 12.8 8.6 15.1 0.9

European Union3 2.4 2.7 2.5 3.4 1.0

All other markets 7.9 16.6 20.9 15.7 10.7

All export markets 27.8 32.1 32.0 34.2 12.6

1

 Reported capacity is based on operating from 156 to 168 hours per week, 49 to 50 weeks per year. 2

 Principal European Union export markets include Austria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania,

Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. 3

 Principal other export markets include Africa, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Cuba, Hong Kong, Israel, Korea, Japan,

Malaysia, Middle East, Central and South America, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Singapore, Southeast Asia, Thailand, United

Arab Emirates, and Vietnam.

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 10 *** of the four responding PC strand producers in China reported maintaining inventories of PC strand in the

United States.

 11 Conference transcript, p. 23 (Woltz and Cornelius).

VII-6

to the European Union in 2008, reported that it *** PC strand to the European Union during 2009-10. 

Inventories held by *** are expected to increase by *** percent from *** pounds in 2008 to *** pounds

in 2010. 

The producers in China provided explanations for their reported projections. Their explanations

are presented in table VII-5.

Table VII-5

PC strand: Chinese producers’ explanations for reported projections

* * * * * * *

U.S. INVENTORIES OF PC STRAND FROM CHINA

Data collected in these investigations on U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of PC strand

are presented in table VII-6.10 Eleven U.S. importers reported holding inventories of PC strand imported

from China during the period for which data were collected in these investigations. U.S. importers’

inventories of Chinese PC strand (based on quantity and as a share of imports and U.S. shipments of

imports) fell from 2006 to 2007, but increased in 2008 to a level lower than that reported in 2006. The

quantity of inventories of the imported Chinese product were more than five times higher during the first

quarter of 2009 compared with the comparable period in 2008. The inventories of PC strand imports

from nonsubject sources followed the same general trend as the imports from China but were much

smaller in magnitude. The domestic producers contended that there was a large build up of inventories of

the Chinese product in the United States in 2008. They argued that this excess inventory, coupled with

the downturn in demand, led to a decline in U.S. imports from China during the first quarter of 2009. The

petitioners further argued that the decline in U.S. imports from China was nonetheless temporary and

suggested that PC strand imports from China are again on the rise.11

U.S. IMPORTERS’ CURRENT ORDERS

The Commission requested importers to indicate whether they imported or arranged for the

importation of PC strand from China for delivery after March 31, 2009. The following seven U.S.

importers reported that they had placed orders for PC strand from China for delivery into the United

States after September 30, 2008: ***. Six of the seven U.S. importers reported such imports for delivery

during the second quarter of 2009 and four of the seven reported imports for delivery during the third

quarter of 2009. No U.S. importer reported imports for delivery after the third quarter of 2009. 

Aggregate data reported by these U.S. importers concerning their orders of PC strand are presented in

table VII-7.
VII-7

Table VII-6

PC strand: U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of imports, by source, 2006-08, January-March 2008,

and January-March 2009

Item

Calendar year Jan.-Mar.

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

China:

Inventories (1,000 pounds) 62,149 31,037 52,426 8,989 50,097

Ratio of inventories to imports (percent) 18.2 10.1 15.8 2.9 109.2

Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports (percent) 20.0 9.2 16.9 2.3 95.4

Other sources:

Inventories (1,000 pounds) *** *** *** *** ***

Ratio of inventories to imports (percent) *** *** *** *** ***

Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports (percent) *** *** *** *** ***

All sources:

Inventories (1,000 pounds) *** *** *** *** ***

Ratio of inventories to imports (percent) *** *** *** *** ***

Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports (percent) *** *** *** *** ***

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Table VII-7

PC strand: U.S. importers’ orders for PC strand imports from China after March 31, 2009

Firm

2009

AprilJuneJuly-September OctoberDecember

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

*** *** *** ***

*** *** *** ***

*** *** *** ***

*** *** *** ***

*** *** *** ***

*** *** *** ***

*** *** *** ***

Total 19,804 9,181 0

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 12 Council Regulation (EC) No 383/2009 of 5 May 2009, Official Journal of the European Union, May 13, 2009,

L 118/1.

 13 Petition, p. 32. 

VII-8

ANTIDUMPING INVESTIGATIONS IN THIRD-COUNTRY MARKETS

PC strand produced in China is currently subject to antidumping duties in the European Union. 

On May 5, 2009, the Council of the European Union imposed definitive antidumping duties on imports of

pre- and post-stressing wires and wire strands of non-alloy steel from China.12 The weighted average

dumping margins are presented in table VII-8.

Table VII-8

PC strand: European Union antidumping duties on PC strand from China

Company

Dumping

margin (in

percent)

Injury

elimination 

margin (in

percent)

Definitive antidumping

duties rate (in

percent)

Kiswire Qingdao. Ltd. (Qingdao) 26.8 0.0 0.0

Ossen MaanShan Steel Wire and Cable Co. Ltd

(Maanshan) and Ossen Liujiang Steel Wire

Cable Co. Ltd. (Liujiang) 49.8 31.1 31.1

Country-wide level 50.0 46.2 46.2

Source: Council Regulation (EC) No 383/2009 of 5 May 2009, Official Journal of the European Union, May 13,

2009, L 118/1.

The petitioners argued that the imposition of the European Union antidumping duty order will

essentially encourage the Chinese producers of PC strand to redirect the exports of their product from the

European Union to the United States. They further argued that this redirection to the U.S. market “would

have a large and devastating impact on the domestic industry.”13
A-1

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 3, 2009 / Notices 26731 

Dated: February 11, 2009. 

George J. Turnbull, 

Acting Regional Director, Pacific West Region. 

Editorial Note: This document was 

received in the Office of the Federal Register 

on May 28, 2009. 

[FR Doc. E9–12726 Filed 6–2–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–FY–M 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[LLIDB00000 L11500000.CB0000 

LXSS024D0000: 4500007706] 

Notice of Public Meeting: Resource 

Advisory Council to the Boise District, 

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. 

Department of the Interior 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

U.S. Department of the Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) Boise District 

Resource Advisory Council (RAC), will 

hold a meeting as indicated below. 

DATES: The meeting will be held July 8, 

2009, at the Boise District Offices 

beginning at 9 a.m. and adjourning at 4 

p.m. Members of the public are invited 

to attend, and comment periods will be 

held during the course of the day. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MJ 

Byrne, Public Affairs Officer and RAC 

Coordinator, BLM Boise District, 3948 

Development Ave., Boise, ID 83705, 

Telephone (208) 384–3393. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 15- 

member Council advises the Secretary 

of the Interior, through the BLM, on a 

variety of planning and management 

issues associated with public land 

management in southwestern Idaho. 

Items on the agenda will include update 

on development of the Gateway West 

Electrical Transmission Lines, and 

accompanying Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS); an update on the status 

of Economic Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) 

projects in the Boise District; 

discussions with RAC Members about 

how they could be involved in 

implementation of the Owyhee Public 

Lands Management Act of 2009, and in 

review of Alternatives for the EIS for the 

Four Rivers Field Office Resource 

Management Plan (RMP). Discussions 

will also be held about existing 

subgroups and the charters. Hot Topics 

will be discussed by the District 

Manager. Field Office managers will 

provide highlights for discussion on 

activities in their offices. Agenda items 

and location may change due to 

changing circumstances. All RAC 

meetings are open to the public. The 

public may present written or oral 

comments to members of the Council. 

At each full RAC meeting time is 

provided in the agenda for hearing 

public comments. Depending on the 

number of persons wishing to comment 

and time available, the time for 

individual oral comments may be 

limited. Individuals who plan to attend 

and need special assistance, such as 

sign language interpretation, or other 

reasonable accommodations, should 

contact the BLM Coordinator as 

provided above. 

Dated: May 26, 2009. 

Aden L. Seidlitz, 

District Manager. 

[FR Doc. E9–12899 Filed 6–2–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–GG–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–464 and 731– 

TA–1160 (Preliminary)] 

Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire 

Strand From China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of antidumping and 

countervailing duty investigations and 

scheduling of preliminary phase 

investigations. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the institution of investigations 

and commencement of preliminary 

phase countervailing duty investigation 

No. 701–TA–464 (Preliminary) and 

antidumping duty investigation No. 

731–TA–1160 (Preliminary) under 

sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 

1673b(a)) (the Act) to determine 

whether there is a reasonable indication 

that an industry in the United States is 

materially injured or threatened with 

material injury, or the establishment of 

an industry in the United States is 

materially retarded, by reason of 

imports from China of prestressed 

concrete steel wire strand (‘‘PC strand’’), 

provided for in subheading 7312.10.30 

of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 

the United States, that are alleged to be 

sold in the United States at less than fair 

value and that are alleged to be 

subsidized by the Government of China. 

Unless the Department of Commerce 

extends the time for initiation pursuant 

to sections 702(c)(1)(B) and 732(c)(1)(B) 

of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671a(c)(1)(B) and 

1673a(c)(1)(B)), the Commission must 

reach a preliminary determination in 

antidumping and countervailing duty 

investigations in 45 days, or in this case 

by July 13, 2009. The Commission’s 

views are due at Commerce within five 

business days thereafter, or by July 20, 

2009. 

For further information concerning 

the conduct of these investigations 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 and B (19 CFR part 207). 

DATES: Effective Date: May 27, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these investigations may be viewed on 

the Commission’s electronic docket 

(EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background. These investigations are 

being instituted in response to a petition 

filed on May 27, 2009, by American 

Spring Wire Corp. (Bedford Heights, 

OH); Insteel Wire Products Co. (Mt. 

Airy, NC); and Sumiden Wire Products 

Corp. (Dickson, TN). 

Participation in the investigations and 

public service list. Persons (other than 

petitioners) wishing to participate in the 

investigations as parties must file an 

entry of appearance with the Secretary 

to the Commission, as provided in 

sections 201.11 and 207.10 of the 

Commission’s rules, not later than seven 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. Industrial users 

and (if the merchandise under 

investigation is sold at the retail level) 

representative consumer organizations 

have the right to appear as parties in 

Commission antidumping and 

countervailing duty investigations. The 

Secretary will prepare a public service 

list containing the names and addresses 

of all persons, or their representatives, 

who are parties to these investigations 

upon the expiration of the period for 

filing entries of appearance. 


PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
26732 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 3, 2009 / Notices 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and BPI service list. Pursuant to section 

207.7(a) of the Commission’s rules, the 

Secretary will make BPI gathered in 

these investigations available to 

authorized applicants representing 

interested parties (as defined in 19 

U.S.C. 1677(9)) who are parties to the 

investigations under the APO issued in 

the investigations, provided that the 

application is made not later than seven 

days after the publication of this notice 

in the Federal Register. A separate 

service list will be maintained by the 

Secretary for those parties authorized to 

receive BPI under the APO. 

Conference. The Commission’s 

Director of Operations has scheduled a 

conference in connection with these 

investigations for 9:30 a.m. on June 17, 

2009, at the U.S. International Trade 

Commission Building, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC. Parties wishing to 

participate in the conference should 

contact Mary Messer (202–205–3193) 

not later than June 12, 2009, to arrange 

for their appearance. Parties in support 

of the imposition of antidumping and 

countervailing duties in these 

investigations and parties in opposition 

to the imposition of such duties will 

each be collectively allocated one hour 

within which to make an oral 

presentation at the conference. A 

nonparty who has testimony that may 

aid the Commission’s deliberations may 

request permission to present a short 

statement at the conference. 

Written submissions. As provided in 

sections 201.8 and 207.15 of the 

Commission’s rules, any person may 

submit to the Commission on or before 

June 22, 2009, a written brief containing 

information and arguments pertinent to 

the subject matter of the investigations. 

Parties may file written testimony in 

connection with their presentation at 

the conference no later than three days 

before the conference. If briefs or 

written testimony contain 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). Even 

where electronic filing of a document is 

permitted, certain documents must also 

be filed in paper form, as specified in II 

(C) of the Commission’s Handbook on 

Electronic Filing Procedures, 67 FR 

68168, 68173 (November 8, 2002). 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the rules, each document 

filed by a party to the investigations 

must be served on all other parties to 

the investigations (as identified by 

either the public or BPI service list), and 

a certificate of service must be timely 

filed. The Secretary will not accept a 

document for filing without a certificate 

of service. 

Authority: These investigations are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.12 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Issued: May 28, 2009. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–12835 Filed 6–2–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–662] 

In the Matter of Certain Tunable Laser 

Chips, Assemblies, and Products 

Containing Same; Notice of a 

Commission Determination To 

Terminate the Investigation 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has terminated the abovecaptioned investigation under section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1337). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Clint Gerdine, Esq., Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

708–2310. Copies of non-confidential 

documents filed in connection with this 

investigation are or will be available for 

inspection during official business 

hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the 

Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, 

telephone (202) 205–2000. General 

information concerning the Commission 

may also be obtained by accessing its 

Internet server at http://www.usitc.gov. 

The public record for this investigation 

may be viewed on the Commission’s 

electronic docket (EDIS) at http:// 

edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired 

persons are advised that information on 

this matter can be obtained by 

contacting the Commission’s TDD 

terminal on (202) 205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission instituted this investigation 

on December 19, 2008 based on a 

complaint filed on November 7, 2008, 

by JDS Uniphase Corporation (‘‘JDSU’’) 

of Milpitas, California. 73 FR 77839–40 

(December 19, 2008). The complaint 

alleges violations of section 337 of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 

U.S.C. 1337, in the importation into the 

United States, the sale for importation, 

and the sale within the United States 

after importation of certain tunable laser 

chips, assemblies, and products 

containing same by reason of 

infringement of certain claims of U.S. 

Patent Nos. 6,658,035 and 6,687,278. 

The complaint named numerous 

respondents and further alleged that an 

industry in the United States exists as 

required by subsection (a)(2) of section 

337. 

On May 19, 2009, the Commission 

issued notice of its determination not to 

review an initial determination (Order 

No. 15) terminating the last remaining 

respondent on the basis of a settlement 

agreement. Accordingly, the 

Commission has determined to 

terminate the investigation. 

The authority for the Commission’s 

determination is contained in section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and in section 

210.21(b)(2) of the Commission’s Rules 

of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 

210.21(b)(2). 

Issued: May 29, 2009. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–12932 Filed 6–2–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree 

Under the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act 

Notice is hereby given that on May 18, 

2009, a proposed Consent Decree in 

United States of America v. Georgia 

Pacific LLC, Civil Action No. 1:09-cv429, was lodged with the United States 

District Court for the Western District of 

Michigan. 

In this action the United States sought 

to recover from Georgia Pacific 

environmental response costs in 

connection with a disposal area (known 

as ‘‘OU2’’) at the Allied Paper/Portage 

Creek/Kalamazoo River Superfund Site 

in Kalamazoo and Portage Counties, 

Michigan (the ‘‘Site’’). In addition, the 

United States sought a judgment 

declaring that the Defendant is liable for 

any further response costs that the 


PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Notices 29665 

1 See Petitions for the Imposition of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duties: 

Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand From the 

People’s Republic of China, dated May 27, 2009 (the 

Petition). 

Average Yarn Number: 38/IMC–40/IMC; 61/IMC 

Thread Count: 77 warp ends x 20 filling picks per 

square centimeter 

Weave Type: Stretch Dobby 

Weight: 208.17–254.43 grams/m2 

Width: 124.46 to 132.08 centimeters 

Finish: Piece Dyed 

Variance allowance of up to three percent for content, ten percent for yarn size, ten percent for 

thread count, ten percent for fabric weight, and 

ten percent for fabric width. 

Kim-Bang Nguyen, 

Acting Chairman, Committee for the 

Implementation of Textile Agreements. 

[FR Doc. E9–14754 Filed 6–22–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–945] 

Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire 

Strand From the People’s Republic of 

China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigation 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: June 23, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alex 

Villanueva, AD/CVD Operations, Office 

9, International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–3208. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petition 

On May 27, 2009, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) received 

an antidumping duty (‘‘AD’’) petition 

concerning imports of prestressed 

concrete steel wire strand (‘‘PC strand’’) 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(‘‘PRC’’) filed in proper form by 

American Spring Wire Corp., Insteel 

Wire Products Company, and Sumiden 

Wire Products Corp., (collectively, 

‘‘Petitioners’’).1 On June 1, 2009, the 

Department issued a request for 

additional information and clarification 

of certain areas of the Petition. Based on 

the Department’s request, Petitioners 

filed supplements to the Petition on 

June 4, 2009 (‘‘Supplement to the AD 

Petition’’ and ‘‘Supplement to the AD/ 

CVD Petitions). On June 8, 2009, the 

Department requested further 

clarifications of industry support and 

producers/exporters identified in the 

Petitions. Based on the Department’s 

request, Petitioners filed supplements to 

the Petition on June 9, 2009 (‘‘Second 

Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions’’). 

On June 12, 2009 the Department again 

asked for clarification regarding the 

scope. Based on the Department’s 

request, Petitioners filed an additional 

supplement to the Petition on June 15, 

2009 (‘‘Third Supplement to the AD/ 

CVD Petitions’’). 

In accordance with section 732(b) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’), Petitioners allege that imports of 

PC strand from the PRC are being, or are 

likely to be, sold in the United States at 

less than fair value, within the meaning 

of section 731 of the Act, and that such 

imports materially injure, or threaten 

material injury to, an industry in the 

United States. 

The Department finds that Petitioners 

filed the Petition on behalf of the 

domestic industry because Petitioners 

are interested parties as defined in 

section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and that 

they have demonstrated sufficient 

industry support with respect to the 

investigation that they are requesting 

the Department to initiate (see 

‘‘Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petition’’ below). 

Scope of Investigation 

The products covered by this 

investigation are PC strand from the 

PRC. For a full description of the scope 

of the investigation, please see the 

‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ in Appendix I 

of this notice. 

Comments on Scope of Investigation 

During our review of the Petition, we 

discussed the scope with Petitioners to 

ensure that it is an accurate reflection of 

the products for which the domestic 

industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as 

discussed in the preamble to the 

regulations (Antidumping Duties; 

Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 

27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), we are 

setting aside a period for interested 

parties to raise issues regarding product 

coverage. The Department encourages 

all interested parties to submit such 

comments by July 6, 2009, twenty 

calendar days from the signature date of 

this notice. Comments should be 

addressed to Import Administration’s 

APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230. The period of 

scope consultations is intended to 

provide the Department with ample 

opportunity to consider all comments 

and to consult with parties prior to the 

issuance of the preliminary 

determinations. 

Comments on Product Characteristics 

for Antidumping Duty Questionnaires 

We are requesting comments from 

interested parties regarding the 

appropriate physical characteristics of 

PC strand to be reported in response to 

the Department’s antidumping 

questionnaires. This information will be 

used to identify the key physical 

characteristics of the subject 

merchandise in order to more accurately 

report the relevant factors and costs of 

production, as well as to develop 

appropriate product comparison 

criteria. 

Interested parties may provide any 

information or comments that they feel 

are relevant to the development of an 

accurate listing of physical 

characteristics. Specifically, they may 

provide comments as to which 

characteristics are appropriate to use as 

(1) general product characteristics and 

(2) the product comparison criteria. We 

note that it is not always appropriate to 

use all product characteristics as 

product comparison criteria. We base 

product comparison criteria on 

meaningful commercial differences 

among products. In other words, while 

there may be some physical product 

characteristics utilized by 

manufacturers to describe PC strand, it 

may be that only a select few product 

characteristics take into account 

commercially meaningful physical 

characteristics. In addition, interested 

parties may comment on the order in 

which the physical characteristics 

should be used in product matching. 

Generally, the Department attempts to 

list the most important physical 

characteristics first and the least 

important characteristics last. 

In order to consider the suggestions of 

interested parties in developing and 

issuing the antidumping duty 

questionnaires, we must receive 

comments at the above-referenced 

address by July 6, 2009. Additionally, 

rebuttal comments must be received by 

July 13, 2009. 

Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petition 

Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires 

that a petition be filed on behalf of the 

domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) 

of the Act provides that a petition meets 

this requirement if the domestic 

producers or workers who support the 

petition account for: (i) At least 25 

percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product; and (ii) more 

than 50 percent of the production of the 

domestic like product produced by that 

portion of the industry expressing 

support for, or opposition to, the 

29666 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Notices 

2See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 

2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001), citing Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd. 

v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), 

aff’d 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied 492 

U.S. 919 (1989). 

3For a discussion of the domestic like product 

analysis in this case, see Antidumping Duty 

Investigation Initiation Checklist: PC Strand from 

the PRC (‘‘Initiation Checklist’’) at Attachment II 

(‘‘Industry Support’’), dated concurrently with this 

notice and on file in the Central Records Unit 

(‘‘CRU’’), Room 1117 of the main Department of 

Commerce building. 

4See Volume I of the Petition, at 4, and Exhibit 

General-1. 

5See Volume I of the Petition, at Exhibit General1, and Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions, at 5– 

6, and Attachment 3, and Second Supplement to 

the AD/CVD Petitions, at 5, and Attachment 1; see 

also Initiation Checklist as Attachment II, Industry 

Support. 

6See Section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act, and 

Initiation Checklist at Attachment 2. 

7See Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. 

8See id. 

9See id. 

10See Initiation Checklist at Attachment 3. 

petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) 

of the Act provides that, if the petition 

does not establish support of domestic 

producers or workers accounting for 

more than 50 percent of the total 

production of the domestic like product, 

the Department shall: (i) Poll the 

industry or rely on other information in 

order to determine if there is support for 

the petition, as required by 

subparagraph (A), or (ii) determine 

industry support using a statistically 

valid sampling method to poll the 

industry. 

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

the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers as a 

whole of a domestic like product. Thus, 

to determine whether a petition has the 

requisite industry support, the statute 

directs the Department to look to 

producers and workers who produce the 

domestic like product. The International 

Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’), which is 

responsible for determining whether 

‘‘the domestic industry’’ has been 

injured, must also determine what 

constitutes a domestic like product in 

order to define the industry. While both 

the Department and the ITC must apply 

the same statutory definition regarding 

the domestic like product (See section 

771(10) of the Act), they do so for 

different purposes and pursuant to a 

separate and distinct authority. In 

addition, the Department’s 

determination is subject to limitations of 

time and information. Although this 

may result in different definitions of the 

like product, such differences do not 

render the decision of either agency 

contrary to law.2

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the 

domestic like product as ‘‘a product 

which is like, or in the absence of like, 

most similar in characteristics and uses 

with, the article subject to an 

investigation under this subtitle.’’ Thus, 

the reference point from which the 

domestic like product analysis begins is 

‘‘the article subject to an investigation,’’ 

(i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to 

be investigated, which normally will be 

the scope as defined in the petition). 

With regard to the domestic like 

product, Petitioners do not offer a 

definition of domestic like product 

distinct from the scope of the 

investigation. Based on our analysis of 

the information submitted on the 

record, we have determined that PC 

strand constitutes a single domestic like 

product and we have analyzed industry 

support in terms of that domestic like 

product.3

In determining whether Petitioners 

have standing under section 

732(c)(4)(A), we considered the industry 

support data contained in the Petition 

with reference to the domestic like 

product as defined in the ‘‘Scope of 

Investigation’’ section above. To 

establish industry support, Petitioners 

provided their production of the 

domestic like product for the year 2008, 

and compared this to total production of 

the domestic like product for the entire 

domestic industry.4 Petitioners 

calculated total domestic production 

based on their own production plus 

information provided by the two other 

non-petitioning companies that produce 

the domestic like product in the United 

States, who are supporters of the 

Petition.5

Our review of the data provided in the 

Petition, supplemental submissions, and 

other information readily available to 

the Department indicates that 

Petitioners have established industry 

support. First, the Petition established 

support from domestic producers (or 

workers) accounting for more than 50 

percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product and, as such, the 

Department is not required to take 

further action in order to evaluate 

industry support (e.g., polling).6

Second, the domestic producers (or 

workers) have met the statutory criteria 

for industry support under section 

732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the 

domestic producers (or workers) who 

support the Petitions account for at least 

25 percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product.7 Finally, the 

domestic producers (or workers) have 

met the statutory criteria for industry 

support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of 

the Act because the domestic producers 

(or workers) who support the Petition 

account for more than 50 percent of the 

production of the domestic like product 

produced by that portion of the industry 

expressing support for, or opposition to, 

the Petition. Accordingly, the 

Department determines that the Petition 

was filed on behalf of the domestic 

industry within the meaning of section 

732(b)(1) of the Act.8

The Department finds that Petitioners 

filed the Petition on behalf of the 

domestic industry because they are 

interested parties as defined in section 

771(9)(C) of the Act and they have 

demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the antidumping 

investigation that they are requesting 

the Department initiate.9

Allegations and Evidence of Material 

Injury and Causation 

Petitioners allege that the U.S. 

industry producing the domestic like 

product is being materially injured, or is 

threatened with material injury, by 

reason of the imports of the subject 

merchandise sold at less than normal 

value (‘‘NV’’). In addition, Petitioners 

allege that subject imports exceed the 

negligibility threshold provided for 

under section 771(24)(A) of the Act. 

Petitioners contend that the industry’s 

injured condition is illustrated by 

reduced market share, increased import 

penetration, underselling and price 

depressing and suppressing effects, lost 

sales and revenue, reduced production, 

capacity, and capacity utilization, 

reduced employment, and an overall 

decline in financial performance. We 

have assessed the allegations and 

supporting evidence regarding material 

injury, threat of material injury, and 

causation, and we have determined that 

these allegations are properly supported 

by adequate evidence and meet the 

statutory requirements for initiation.10

Period of Investigation 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.204(b)(1), because this Petition was 

filed on May 27, 2009, the anticipated 

period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is 

October 1, 2008, through March 31, 

2009. 

Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value 

The following is a description of the 

allegations of sales at less than fair value 

upon which the Department has based 

its decision to initiate an investigation 

with respect to the PRC. The sources of 

data for the deductions and adjustments 

relating to U.S. price and normal value 

(‘‘NV’’) are discussed in the Initiation 

Checklist. Should the need arise to use 

any of this information as facts available 

under section 776 of the Act, we may 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Notices 29667 

11See Initiation Checklist for further discussion. 

12See Memorandum from Katie Marksberry to 

The File, regarding Investigation of Certain Kitchen 

Appliance Shelving and Racks from the People’s 

Republic of China: Surrogate Value Determination, 

dated February 26, 2009, at 17. 

13See Initiation Checklist for further discussion. 

14See Volume II–A of the Petition, at 47. 

15See Memorandum from the Office of Policy to 

David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, regarding The People’s Republic of 

China Status as a Non-Market Economy, dated May 

15, 2006. This document is available online at 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/download/prc-nme-status/prcnme-status-memo.pdf. 

16See Certain Circular Welded Carbon Quality 

Steel Line Pipe from the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value, 74 FR 14514 (March 31, 2009); Frontseating 

Service Valves from the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value and Final Negative Determination of Critical 

Circumstances, 74 FR 10886 (March 13, 2009); 1– 

Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1–Diphosphonic Acid From 

the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 74 FR 10545 

(March 11, 2009). 

17See Volume II–A of the Petition, at 47–49. 

18See id. 

19See id. 

20See Volume II–A of the Petition, at 51–54. 

21See Volume II–A of the Petition, at 49–50, and 

Exhibit AD–6. 

22See Volume II–A of the Petition, at 52, and 

Supplement to the AD Petition, at 5. 

23See Volume II–A of the Petition, at 53, and 

Exhibit AD–7. 

24See Volume II–A of the Petition, at 52, and 

Exhibits AD–6 and AD–7. 

25See Volume II–A of the Petition, at 53, and 

Exhibit AD–7. 

26See Volume II–A of the Petition, at 51, and 

Exhibit AD–7. 

27See id. 

reexamine the information and revise 

the margin calculations, if appropriate. 

Export Price 

Petitioners calculated export prices 

(‘‘EPs’’) for PC strand of various 

diameters: 3⁄8 ′′ diameter, 1⁄2 ′′ diameter 

and 0.6 ′′ diameter. These were based on 

price quotes obtained through offers of 

sale. Petitioner presented affidavits for 

the offers for sale attesting that the offers 

were made during the POI.11

To calculate the net U.S. EP, 

Petitioners deducted from the starting 

U.S. prices ocean freight and insurance 

charges, U.S. port fees, foreign brokerage 

and, as appropriate, a re-seller mark-up. 

U.S. inland freight costs were also 

deducted when such information was 

available. We have not made any 

additional deductions. 

Petitioners calculated per-unit ocean 

freight and insurance using import 

statistics reported by the U.S. 

International Trade Commission 

Dataweb. As for U.S. port fees, 

Petitioners included the 0.21 percent ad 

valorem harbor maintenance fee as well 

as the 0.125 percent merchandise 

processing fee. Foreign brokerage was 

calculated using the Department’s 

methodology in Certain Kitchen 

Appliance Shelving and Racks from the 

People’s Republic of China and then 

converted to the appropriate unit.12

Petitioners calculated re-seller mark-ups 

based on industry knowledge, choosing 

a lower value in order to produce a 

conservative estimate. Lastly, U.S. 

inland freight was calculated based on 

Petitioners’ experience delivering PC 

strand inside the United States and the 

number of miles from the closest U.S. 

port to the location of the U.S. 

customer.13

Normal Value 

Petitioners state that in every previous 

less-than-fair value investigation 

involving merchandise from the PRC, 

the Department has concluded that the 

PRC is a non-market economy country 

(‘‘NME’’) and, as the Department has not 

revoked this determination, its NME 

status remains in effect today.14 The 

Department has previously examined 

the PRC’s market status and determined 

that NME status should continue for the 

PRC.15 In addition, in recent 

antidumping duty investigations, the 

Department has continued to determine 

that the PRC is an NME country.16

In accordance with section 

771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the 

presumption of NME status remains in 

effect until revoked by the Department. 

The presumption of NME status for the 

PRC has not been revoked by the 

Department and, therefore, remains in 

effect for purposes of the initiation of 

this investigation. Accordingly, the NV 

of the product is appropriately based on 

factors of production valued in a 

surrogate market economy country, in 

accordance with section 773(c) of the 

Act. In the course of this investigation, 

all parties will have the opportunity to 

provide relevant information related to 

the issues of the PRC’s NME status and 

the granting of separate rates to 

individual exporters. 

Petitioners argue that India is the 

appropriate surrogate country for the 

PRC because it is at a comparable level 

of economic development and it has two 

major producers of PC strand.17

Petitioners state that the Department has 

determined in previous antidumping 

duty investigations and administrative 

reviews that India is at a level of 

development comparable to the PRC.18

Petitioners also assert that there are two 

major producers of the subject 

merchandise in India, the Tata Steel 

Group and the Usha Martin Group.19

Based on the information provided by 

Petitioners, the Department believes that 

the use of India as a surrogate country 

is appropriate for purposes of initiation. 

However, after initiation of the 

investigation, interested parties will 

have the opportunity to submit 

comments regarding surrogate country 

selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an 

opportunity to submit publicly available 

information to value factors of 

production within 40 days after the date 

of publication of the preliminary 

determination. 

Petitioners provided dumping margin 

calculations using the Department’s 

NME methodology as required by 19 

CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C) and 19 CFR 

351.408. Petitioners calculated three 

NVs for PC strand, including diameters 

of 3⁄8 ′′, 1⁄2 ′′, and 0.6 ′′. 

Petitioners valued the factors of 

production using reasonably available, 

public surrogate country data, including 

India import data from the Monthly 

Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India 

(‘‘MSFTI’’) as compiled by the World 

Trade Atlas (WTA) from the period May 

2008 through October 2008, the most 

current data available, information 

regarding labor costs on the 

Department’s Web site, the International 

Energy Agency Statistics, and 

information from the 2007/2008 

unconsolidated financial reports of the 

Tata Steel Group and the Usha Martin 

Group.20 To calculate the consumption 

rates, the Petitioners used the 

consumption rates for U.S. producers 

during the POI.21

Petitioners state that they valued hotrolled, high-carbon steel wire rod using 

the WTA data, which was then 

converted to the appropriate unit.22

Petitioners valued electricity using 

Indian electricity rates disseminated by 

the International Energy Agency.23

Petitioners valued labor using the wage 

rate data published on the Department’s 

Web site, at http://ia.ita.doc.gov.24

Petitioners valued natural gas according 

to Indian import data compiled by the 

WTA.25

Where Petitioners were unable to find 

input prices contemporaneous with the 

POI, Petitioners adjusted for inflation 

using the wholesale price index for 

India, as published by the International 

Monetary Fund.26 Petitioners used 

exchange rates, as reported by the 

Federal Reserve, to convert Indian 

Rupees to U.S. Dollars.27

Petitioners based factory overhead, 

selling, general and administrative 

expenses (‘‘SG&A’’), and profit, on the 

financial ratios of the Tata Steel Group 

and the Usha Martin Group as both 

companies are significant producers of 

29668 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Notices 

28See Volume II–A of the Petition, at 48–49; see 

also Supplement to the AD Petition, dated June 4, 

2009, at 2–5. 

29See Volume II–A of the Petition, at 53–54, and 

Exhibit AD–8; see also Supplement to the AD 

Petition, dated June 4, 2009, at 6. 

30See Supplement to the AD Petition, at Exhibit 

Supp. AD–1. 

31See Withdrawal of the Regulatory Provisions 

Governing Targeted Dumping in Antidumping Duty 

Investigations, 73 FR 74930 (December 10, 2008). 

32 Id. at 74931. 

33See Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless 

Pressure Pipe from the People’s Republic of China: 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 73 FR 

10221, 10225 (February 26, 2008); and Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Artist 

Canvas From the People’s Republic of China, 70 FR 

21996, 21999 (April 28, 2005). 

34See Certain Circular Welded Carbon Quality 

Steel Line Pipe from the Republic of Korea and the 

People’s Republic of China: Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Investigations, 73 FR 23188, 

23193 (April 29, 2008). (‘‘Certain Circular Welded 

Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe from the PRC’’). 

35See Import Administration Policy Bulletin, 

Number: 05.1, ‘‘Separate-Rates Practice and 

Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping 

Investigations involving Non-Market Economy 

Countries,’’ dated April 5, 2005, available on the 

Department’s Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ 

policy/bull05-1.pdf; See also Certain Circular 

Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe from the 

PRC, 73 FR 23188, 23193. 

36Where the deadline falls on a weekend/ 

holiday, the appropriate date is the next business 

day. 

PC strand.28 The ratios were obtained 

from each respective company’s 2007/ 

2008 unconsolidated financial reports 

and then averaged together.29

Fair-Value Comparisons 

Based on the data provided by 

Petitioners, there is reason to believe 

that imports of PC strand from the PRC 

are being, or are likely to be, sold in the 

United States at less than fair value. 

Based on comparisons of EP to NV as 

revised above, the estimated dumping 

margins for the PRC range from 140.16 

percent to 314.59 percent.30

Initiation of Antidumping Investigation 

Based upon the examination of the 

Petition concerning PC strand from the 

PRC and other information reasonably 

available to the Department, the 

Department finds that the Petition meets 

the requirements of section 732 of the 

Act. Therefore, we are initiating an 

antidumping duty investigation to 

determine whether imports of PC strand 

from the PRC are being, or are likely to 

be, sold in the United States at less than 

fair value. In accordance with section 

733(b)(1)(A) of the Act, unless 

postponed, we will make our 

preliminary determinations no later 

than 140 days after the date of this 

initiation. 

Targeted-Dumping Allegations 

On December 10, 2008, the 

Department issued an interim final rule 

for the purpose of withdrawing 19 CFR 

351.414(f) and (g), the regulatory 

provisions governing the targeteddumping analysis in antidumping duty 

investigations, and the corresponding 

regulation governing the deadline for 

targeted-dumping allegations, 19 CFR 

351.301(d)(5).31 The Department stated 

that ‘‘{w}ithdrawal will allow the 

Department to exercise the discretion 

intended by the statute and, thereby, 

develop a practice that will allow 

interested parties to pursue all statutory 

avenues of relief in this area.’’ 32

In order to accomplish this objective, 

if any interested party wishes to make 

a targeted-dumping allegation in this 

investigation pursuant to section 

777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act, such allegation 

is due no later than 45 days before the 

scheduled date of the preliminary 

determination. 

Respondent Selection 

The Department will request quantity 

and value information from the 

exporters and producers identified in 

the Petition with complete contact 

information. The quantity and value 

data received from NME exporters/ 

producers will be used as the basis to 

select the mandatory respondents. 

The Department requires that the 

respondents submit a response to both 

the quantity and value questionnaire 

and the separate-rate application by the 

respective deadlines in order to receive 

consideration for separate-rate status.33

Appendix II of this notice contains the 

quantity and value questionnaire that 

must be submitted by all NME 

exporters/producers no later than July 7, 

2009. In addition, the Department will 

post the quantity and value 

questionnaire along with the filing 

instructions on the Department’s Web 

site, at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/iahighlights-and-news.html. 

Separate Rates 

In order to obtain separate-rate status 

in an NME investigation, exporters and 

producers must submit a separate-rate 

status application.34 The specific 

requirements for submitting the 

separate-rate application in this 

investigation are outlined in detail in 

the application itself, available on the 

Department’s Web site at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-andnews.html on the date of publication of 

this initiation notice in the Federal 

Register. The separate-rate application 

will be due sixty (60) days from the date 

of publication of this initiation notice in 

the Federal Register. 

Use of Combination Rates in an NME 

Investigation 

The Department will calculate 

combination rates for certain 

respondents that are eligible for a 

separate rate in this investigation. The 

Separate Rates/Combination Rates 

Bulletin states: 

{w}hile continuing the practice of 

assigning separate rates only to exporters, all 

separate rates that the Department will now 

assign in its NME investigations will be 

specific to those producers that supplied the 

exporter during the period of investigation. 

Note, however, that one rate is calculated for 

the exporter and all of the producers which 

supplied subject merchandise to it during the 

period of investigation. This practice applies 

both to mandatory respondents receiving an 

individually calculated separate rate as well 

as the pool of non-investigated firms 

receiving the weighted-average of the 

individually calculated rates. This practice is 

referred to as the application of combination 

rates because such rates apply to specific 

combinations of exporters and one or more 

producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to 

an exporter will apply only to merchandise 

both exported by the firm in question and 

produced by a firm that supplied the exporter 

during the period of investigation.35

Distribution of Copies of the Petition 

In accordance with section 

732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.202(f), a copy of the public version 

of the Petition has been provided to the 

representatives of the Government of the 

PRC. Because of the particularly large 

number of producers/exporters 

identified in the Petition, the 

Department considers the service of the 

public version of the Petition to the 

foreign producers/exporters satisfied by 

the delivery of the public version to the 

Government of the PRC, consistent with 

19 CFR 351.203(c)(2). 

ITC Notification 

We have notified the ITC of our 

initiation, as required by section 732(d) 

of the Act. 

Preliminary Determination by the 

International Trade Commission 

The ITC will preliminarily determine, 

no later than July 13, 2009,36 whether 

there is a reasonable indication that 

imports of PC strand from the PRC 

materially injure, or threaten material 

injury to, a U.S. industry. A negative 

ITC determination covering all classes 

or kinds of merchandise covered by the 

Petition would result in the 

investigation being terminated. 

Otherwise, this investigation will 

proceed according to statutory and 

regulatory time limits. 

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act. 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Notices 29669 

Dated: June 16, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I 

Scope of the Investigation 

For purposes of this investigation, 

prestressed concrete steel wire strand (PC 

strand) is steel wire strand, other than of 

stainless steel, which is suitable for use in, 

but not limited to, prestressed concrete (both 

pretensioned and post-tensioned) 

applications. The scope of this investigation 

encompasses all types and diameters of PC 

strand whether uncoated (uncovered) or 

coated (covered) by any substance, including 

but not limited to, grease, plastic sheath, or 

epoxy. This merchandise includes, but is not 

limited to, PC strand produced to the 

American Society for Testing and Materials 

(ASTM) A–416 specification, or comparable 

domestic or foreign specifications. PC strand 

made from galvanized wire is excluded from 

the scope if the zinc and/or zinc oxide 

coating meets or exceeds the 0.40 oz./ft2; 

standard set forth in ASTM–A–475. 

The PC strand subject to this investigation 

is currently classifiable under subheadings 

7312.10.3010 and 7312.10.3012 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 

States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for convenience 

and customs purposes, the written 

description of the scope of this investigation 

is dispositive. 

Appendix II 

Where it is not practicable to examine all 

known exporters/producers of subject 

merchandise, section 777A(c)(2) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended, permits us to 

investigate (1) a sample of exporters, 

producers, or types of products that is 

statistically valid based on the information 

available at the time of selection, or (2) 

exporters and producers accounting for the 

largest volume of the subject merchandise 

that can reasonably be examined. 

In the chart below, please provide the total 

quantity and total value of all your sales of 

merchandise covered by the scope of this 

investigation (see ‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ 

section of this notice), produced in the PRC, 

and exported/shipped to the United States 

during the period October 1, 2008, through 

March 31, 2009. 

Market Total quantity 

in kilograms Terms of sale Total value in U.S. dollars 

United States: 

1. Export Price Sales ................................................................................................

2. a. Exporter Name .................................................................................................

b. Address ............................................................................................................

c. Contact .............................................................................................................

d. Phone No. ........................................................................................................

e. Fax No. .............................................................................................................

3. Constructed Export Price Sales ...........................................................................

4. Further Manufactured ...........................................................................................

Total Sales ........................................................................................................

Total Quantity: 

• Please report quantity on a kilograms 

basis. If any conversions were used, please 

provide the conversion formula and source. 

Terms of Sales: 

• Please report all sales on the same terms 

(e.g., free on board at port of export). 

Total Value: 

• All sales values should be reported in 

U.S. dollars. Please indicate any exchange 

rates used and their respective dates and 

sources. 

Export Price Sales: 

• Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as an 

export price sale when the first sale to an 

unaffiliated customer occurs before 

importation into the United States. 

• Please include any sales exported by 

your company directly to the United States. 

• Please include any sales exported by 

your company to a third-country market 

economy reseller where you had knowledge 

that the merchandise was destined to be 

resold to the United States. 

• If you are a producer of subject 

merchandise, please include any sales 

manufactured by your company that were 

subsequently exported by an affiliated 

exporter to the United States. 

• Please do not include any sales of subject 

merchandise manufactured in Hong Kong in 

your figures. 

Constructed Export Price Sales: 

• Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as a 

constructed export price sale when the first 

sale to an unaffiliated customer occurs after 

importation. However, if the first sale to the 

unaffiliated customer is made by a person in 

the United States affiliated with the foreign 

exporter, constructed export price applies 

even if the sale occurs prior to importation. 

• Please include any sales exported by 

your company directly to the United States. 

• Please include any sales exported by 

your company to a third-country market 

economy reseller where you had knowledge 

that the merchandise was destined to be 

resold to the United States. 

• If you are a producer of subject 

merchandise, please include any sales 

manufactured by your company that were 

subsequently exported by an affiliated 

exporter to the United States. 

• Please do not include any sales of subject 

merchandise manufactured in Hong Kong in 

your figures. 

Further Manufactured: 

• Sales of further manufactured or 

assembled (including re-packaged) 

merchandise is merchandise that undergoes 

further manufacture or assembly in the 

United States before being sold to the first 

unaffiliated customer. 

• Further manufacture or assembly costs 

include amounts incurred for direct 

materials, labor and overhead, plus amounts 

for general and administrative expense, 

interest expense, and additional packing 

expense incurred in the country of further 

manufacture, as well as all costs involved in 

moving the product from the U.S. port of 

entry to the further manufacturer. 

[FR Doc. E9–14721 Filed 6–22–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–822] 

Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Extension of Time Limit for the 

Preliminary Results of the 2007–2008 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce 

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 23, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shelly Atkinson or Brandon Farlander, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; 

telephone (202) 482–0116 or (202)482– 

0182, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

29670 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Notices 

1 120 days from July 3, 2009, is October 31, 2009. 

However, Department practice dictates that where 

a deadline falls on a weekend, the appropriate 

deadline is the next business day. See Notice of 

Clarification: Application of ‘‘Next Business Day’’ 

Rule for Administrative Determination Deadlines 

Pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended, 70 

FR 24533 (May 10, 2005). 

Background 

On November 24, 2008, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) published a notice of 

initiation of an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on certain 

helical spring lock washers from the 

People’s Republic of China covering the 

period October 1, 2007, through 

September 30, 2008. See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews, 73 FR 70964 

(November 24, 2008). The preliminary 

results for this administrative review are 

currently due no later than July 3, 2009. 

Extension of Time Limits for 

Preliminary Results 

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), 

requires the Department to issue the 

preliminary results of an administrative 

review within 245 days after the last day 

of the anniversary month of an 

antidumping duty order for which a 

review is requested and issue the final 

results within 120 days after the date on 

which the preliminary results are 

published. However, if it is not 

practicable to complete the review 

within the time period, section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the 

Department to extend these deadlines to 

a maximum of 365 days and 180 days, 

respectively. 

Because the Department is analyzing 

the questionnaire response and will 

issue a supplemental questionnaire 

shortly, it is not practicable to complete 

the preliminary results of this review 

within the original time limit (i.e., July 

3, 2009). Therefore, the Department is 

extending the time limit for completion 

of the preliminary results to no later 

than November 2, 2009,1 in accordance 

with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

notice in accordance with sections 

751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: June 12, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–14730 Filed 6–22–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–570–946] 

Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire 

Strand From the People’s Republic of 

China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty 

Investigation 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: June 16, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Copyak, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 3, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Room 4014, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–2209. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petition 

On May 27, 2009, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘Department’’) received a 

petition filed in proper form by 

American Spring Wire Corp., Insteel 

Wire Products Company, and Sumiden 

Wire Products Corp (collectively, 

‘‘Petitioners’’), domestic producers of 

prestressed concrete steel wire strand 

(‘‘PC Strand’’). On June 1, 2009, the 

Department issued a request for 

additional information and clarification 

of certain areas of the Petition. Based on 

the Department’s request, Petitioners 

filed supplements to the Petition on 

June 4, 2009 (‘‘Supplement to the AD 

Petition’’ and ‘‘Supplement to the AD/ 

CVD Petitions’’). On June 4, 2009, the 

Department requested further 

clarification of Petitioners’ subsidy 

allegations. Based on the Department’s 

request, Petitioners filed supplements to 

the countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) 

petition on June 11, 2009 (‘‘Supplement 

to the CVD Petition’’). On June 8, 2009, 

the Department requested further 

clarifications of industry support and 

producers/exporters identified in the 

Petitions. Based on the Department’s 

request, Petitioners filed supplements to 

the Petition on June 9, 2009 (‘‘Second 

Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions’’). 

On June 12, 2009 the Department again 

asked for clarification regarding the 

scope. Based on the Department’s 

request, Petitioners filed an additional 

supplement to the Petition on June 15, 

2009 (‘‘Third Supplement to the AD/ 

CVD Petitions’’). 

In accordance with section 702(b)(1) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(‘‘the Act’’), Petitioners allege that 

manufacturers, producers, or exporters 

of PC Strand in the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘PRC’’) receive countervailable 

subsidies within the meaning of section 

701 of the Act, and that such imports 

are materially injuring, or threatening 

material injury to, an industry in the 

United States. 

The Department finds that Petitioners 

filed the Petition on behalf of the 

domestic industry because they are 

interested parties as defined in section 

771(9)(C) of the Act, and Petitioners 

have demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the CVD 

investigation (see ‘‘Determination of 

Industry Support for the Petition’’ 

section below). 

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation is January 

1, 2008, through December 31, 2008. 

Scope of Investigation 

The products covered by this 

investigation are PC Strand from the 

PRC. For a full description of the scope 

of the investigation, please see the 

‘‘Scope of the Investigation’’ in 

Appendix I of this notice. 

Comments on Scope of Investigation 

During our review of the Petition, we 

discussed the scope with Petitioners to 

ensure that it is an accurate reflection of 

the products for which the domestic 

industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as 

discussed in the preamble to the 

regulations (Antidumping Duties; 

Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 

27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), we are 

setting aside a period for interested 

parties to raise issues regarding product 

coverage. The Department encourages 

all interested parties to submit such 

comments by July 6, 2009, twenty 

calendar days from the signature date of 

this notice. Comments should be 

addressed to Import Administration’s 

APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230. The period of 

scope consultations is intended to 

provide the Department with ample 

opportunity to consider all comments 

and to consult with parties prior to the 

issuance of the preliminary 

determinations. 

Consultations 

Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of 

the Act, the Department invited 

representatives of the Government of the 

PRC for consultations with respect to 

the CVD Petition. The Department held 

these consultations in Washington, DC, 

on June 1, 2009. See the Memorandum 

from Dana S. Mermelstein to the Files, 

entitled, ‘‘Countervailing Duty Petitions 

on Pre-Stressed Concrete Steel Wire 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Notices 29671 

Strand and Certain Grating from the 

People’s Republic of China: 

Consultations with the Government of 

the People’s Republic of China,’’ (June 

3, 2009), which is on file in the Central 

Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’) of the main 

Department of Commerce building, 

Room 1117. 

Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petition 

Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires 

that a petition be filed on behalf of the 

domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) 

of the Act provides that a petition meets 

this requirement if the domestic 

producers or workers who support the 

petition account for: (i) At least 25 

percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product; and (ii) more 

than 50 percent of the production of the 

domestic like product produced by that 

portion of the industry expressing 

support for, or opposition to, the 

petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) 

of the Act provides that, if the petition 

does not establish support of domestic 

producers or workers accounting for 

more than 50 percent of the total 

production of the domestic like product, 

the Department shall: (i) Poll the 

industry or rely on other information in 

order to determine if there is support for 

the petition, as required by 

subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine 

industry support using a statistically 

valid sampling method. 

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

the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers as a 

whole of a domestic like product. Thus, 

to determine whether a petition has the 

requisite industry support, the statute 

directs the Department to look to 

producers and workers who produce the 

domestic like product. The U.S. 

International Trade Commission 

(‘‘ITC’’), which is responsible for 

determining whether ‘‘the domestic 

industry’’ has been injured, must also 

determine what constitutes a domestic 

like product in order to define the 

industry. While both the Department 

and the ITC must apply the same 

statutory definition regarding the 

domestic like product (section 771(10) 

of the Act), they do so for different 

purposes and pursuant to a separate and 

distinct authority. In addition, the 

Department’s determination is subject to 

limitations of time and information. 

Although this may result in different 

definitions of the like product, such 

differences do not render the decision of 

either agency contrary to law. See 

USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. 

Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001), citing Algoma 

Steel Corp. Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. 

Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff’d 865 

F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied 

492 U.S. 919 (1989). 

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the 

domestic like product as ‘‘a product 

which is like, or in the absence of like, 

most similar in characteristics and uses 

with, the article subject to an 

investigation under this subtitle.’’ Thus, 

the reference point from which the 

domestic like product analysis begins is 

‘‘the article subject to an investigation’’ 

(i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to 

be investigated, which normally will be 

the scope as defined in the petition). 

With regard to the domestic like 

product, Petitioners do not offer a 

definition of domestic like product 

distinct from the scope of the 

investigation. Based on our analysis of 

the information submitted on the 

record, we have determined that PC 

strand constitutes a single domestic like 

product and we have analyzed industry 

support in terms of that domestic like 

product. For a discussion of the 

domestic like product analysis in this 

case, see Countervailing Duty 

Investigation Initiation Checklist: PC 

Strand from the PRC (‘‘Initiation 

Checklist’’) at Attachment II (‘‘Industry 

Support’’), dated concurrently with this 

notice and on file in the Central Records 

Unit (‘‘CRU’’), Room 1117 of the main 

Department of Commerce building. 

In determining whether Petitioners 

have standing, under section 

702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered 

the industry support data contained in 

the Petition with reference to the 

domestic like product as defined in the 

‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ section above. 

To establish industry support, 

Petitioners provided their production of 

the domestic like product for the year 

2008, and compared this to total 

production of the domestic like product 

for the entire domestic industry. See 

Volume I of the Petition, at 4, and 

Exhibit General-1. Petitioners calculated 

total domestic production based on their 

own production plus information 

provided by the two other nonpetitioning companies that produce the 

domestic like product in the United 

States, who are supporters of the 

Petition. See Volume I of the Petition, at 

Exhibit General-1, and Supplement to 

the AD/CVD Petitions, at 5–6, and 

Attachment 3, and Second Supplement 

to the AD/CVD Petitions, dated June 9, 

2009, at 5, and Attachment 1; see also 

Initiation Checklist as Attachment II, 

Industry Support. 

Our review of the data provided in the 

Petition, supplemental submissions, and 

other information readily available to 

the Department indicates that 

Petitioners have established industry 

support. First, the Petition established 

support from domestic producers (or 

workers) accounting for more than 50 

percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product and, as such, the 

Department is not required to take 

further action in order to evaluate 

industry support (e.g., polling). See 

section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act and 

Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. 

Second, the domestic producers (or 

workers) have met the statutory criteria 

for industry support under section 

702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the 

domestic producers (or workers) who 

support the Petitions account for at least 

25 percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product. See Initiation 

Checklist at Attachment II. Finally, the 

domestic producers (or workers) have 

met the statutory criteria for industry 

support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of 

the Act because the domestic producers 

(or workers) who support the Petition 

account for more than 50 percent of the 

production of the domestic like product 

produced by that portion of the industry 

expressing support for, or opposition to, 

the Petition. Accordingly, the 

Department determines that the Petition 

was filed on behalf of the domestic 

industry within the meaning of section 

702(b)(1) of the Act. See id. 

The Department finds that Petitioners 

filed the Petition on behalf of the 

domestic industry because they are 

interested parties as defined in section 

771(9)(C) of the Act and they have 

demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the antidumping 

investigation that they are requesting 

the Department initiate. See id. 

Allegations and Evidence of Material 

Injury and Causation 

Petitioners allege that imports of PC 

strand from the PRC are benefitting from 

countervailable subsidies and that such 

imports are causing or threaten to cause, 

material injury to the domestic 

industries producing PC strand. In 

addition, Petitioners allege that 

subsidized imports exceed the 

negligibility threshold provided for 

under section 771(24)(A) of the Act. 

Petitioners contend that the industry’s 

injured condition is illustrated by 

reduced market share, increased import 

penetration, underselling and price 

depressing and suppressing effects, lost 

sales and revenue, reduced production, 

capacity, and capacity utilization, 

reduced employment, and an overall 

decline in financial performance. We 

have assessed the allegations and 

supporting evidence regarding material 

injury, threat of material injury, and 

causation, and we have determined that 

these allegations are properly supported 

by adequate evidence and meet the 

29672 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Notices 

statutory requirements for initiation. See 

Initiation Checklist at Attachment III 

(Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of 

Material Injury and Causation for the 

Petition). 

Initiation of Countervailing Duty 

Investigation 

Section 702(b) of the Act requires the 

Department to initiate a CVD proceeding 

whenever an interested party files a 

petition on behalf of an industry that: 

(1) Alleges the elements necessary for an 

imposition of a duty under section 

701(a) of the Act; and (2) is 

accompanied by information reasonably 

available to the petitioner(s) supporting 

the allegations. 

The Department has examined the 

CVD Petition on PC Strand from the 

PRC and finds that it complies with the 

requirements of section 702(b) of the 

Act. Therefore, in accordance with 

section 702(b) of the Act, we are 

initiating a CVD investigation to 

determine whether manufacturers, 

producers, or exporters of PC Strand in 

the PRC receive countervailable 

subsidies. For a discussion of evidence 

supporting our initiation determination, 

see Initiation Checklist. 

We are including in our investigation 

the following programs alleged in the 

petition to have provided 

countervailable subsidies to producers 

and exporters of the subject 

merchandise in the PRC: 

A. Loan Programs 

1. Policy Lending at the Federal Level 

to PC Strand Industry. 

2. Policy Lending at the Provincial 

and Municipal Level. 

3. Preferential Loans for State-Owned 

Enterprises. 

4. Treasury Bond Loans. 

5. Honorable Enterprises Program. 

6. Preferential Loans for Key Projects 

and Technologies. 

B. Government Provision of Goods and 

Services for Less Than Adequate 

Remuneration (LTAR) 

1. Government Provision of Wire Rod 

for LTAR. 

2. Provision of Land Use Rights for 

LTAR to Foreign Invested Enterprises 

(‘‘FIEs’’) in Jiangxi and the City of 

Xinyu. 

3. Federal Provision of Electricity for 

LTAR. 

4. Provision of Electricity and Water 

at LTAR for FIEs and ‘‘Technologically 

Advanced’’ Enterprises by Jiangsu 

Province. 

C. Income and Other Direct Taxes 

1. Income Tax Credits for 

Domestically Owned Companies 

Purchasing Domestically Produced 

Equipment. 

2. Income Tax Exemption for 

Investment in Domestic Technological 

Renovation. 

3. Reduction in or exemption from 

Fixed Assets Investment Orientation 

Regulatory Tax. 

D. Indirect Tax and Tariff Exemption 

Programs 

1. Stamp Exemption on Share 

Transfers Under Non-Tradable Share 

Reform. 

2. Deed Tax Exemption for State 

Owned Enterprises (SOEs) Undergoing 

Mergers or Restructurings. 

3. Export Incentive Payments 

Characterized as ‘‘VAT Rebates.’’ 

4. Import Tariff and VAT Exemptions 

for FIEs and Certain Domestic 

Enterprises Using Imported Equipment 

in Encouraged Industries. 

5. Import Tariff and VAT Refunds to 

Promote the Development of Equipment 

Manufacturing in China. 

E. Grant Programs 

1. The State Key Technology Project 

Fund. 

2. Subsidies for Development of 

Famous Export Brands and China World 

Top Brands. 

3. Sub-Central Government Programs 

to Promote Famous Export Brands and 

China World Top Brands. 

4. Exemptions for SOEs from 

Distributing Dividends to the State. 

5. Grants to Loss-Making SOEs. 

6. Program to Rebate Antidumping 

Fees. 

F. Preferential Income Tax Subsidies 

for Foreign Invested Entities (FIEs) 

1. Two Free, Three Half Program. 

2. Income Tax Exemption Program for 

Export-Oriented FIEs. 

3. Local Income Tax Exemption and 

Reduction Programs for ‘‘Productive’’ 

Foreign-Invested Enterprises. 

4. Preferential Tax Programs for 

Foreign-Invested Enterprises 

Recognized as High or New Technology 

Enterprises. 

5. Income Tax Subsidies for FIE’s 

Based on Geographic Location. 

6. VAT Refunds for FIE’s Purchasing 

Domestically-Produced Equipment. 

For further information explaining 

why the Department is investigating 

these programs, see the Initiation 

Checklist. 

We are not including in our 

investigation the following programs 

alleged to benefit producers and 

exporters of the subject merchandise in 

the PRC: 

A. Export Loans 

Petitioners allege that in Line Pipe 

from the PRC, the Department found 

that a number of companies benefitted 

from export-contingent loans from 

SOCBs and that Chinese PC strand 

producers would be eligible for such 

loans. See Circular Welded Carbon 

Quality Steel Line Pipe from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination, 73 FR 70961 (Nov. 24, 

2008) (‘‘Line Pipe from the PRC’’), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum (Line Pipe from PRC 

Decision Memorandum) at ‘‘Export 

Loans’’ section. According to 

Petitioners, this program has not been 

eliminated by any reforms to the 

Chinese banking system. Petitioners 

support their allegation by citing to Line 

Pipe from the PRC. However, in a 

subsequent initiation of a CVD 

investigation, the Department made 

clear the producers identified in that 

petition were the same as those 

investigated in Line Pipe from the PRC. 

See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Initiation of Countervailing Duty 

Investigation, 74 FR 20678 (May 5, 

2009) (‘‘OCTG Initiation’’), and 

accompanying Initiation Checklist 

(OCTG Initiation Checklist) at ‘‘Export 

Loans’’ section. The producers 

investigated in Line Pipe from the PRC 

and identified in the OCTG Initiation 

are not identified in the petition filed on 

the record of this proceeding. Therefore, 

we find that the support relied on in the 

OCTG Initiation to initiate an 

investigation of export loans does not 

apply to the facts of this proceeding. 

The petitioners have provided 

insufficient evidence indicating that PC 

strand producers can benefit from this 

alleged program. 

B. Stamp Tax Exemption and Waiver of 

Administrative Charges for SOEs 

Undergoing Mergers or Restructurings 

Petitioners allege that the GOC 

imposes charges on companies that 

undergo a restructuring or 

reorganization in China for various 

administrative items that include a 

business registration change, trademark 

registration change, tax registration, 

property rights, and land registration. 

Petitioners allege that, pursuant to Cai 

Shui (2003) No. 184 and Ji Jia Fei (1998) 

No. 1077, SOEs are exempted from 

certain fees associated with land 

registration, such as land registration 

fees, survey fees, and measurement 

registration fees. The legislation cited by 

petitioners refers to stamp tax 

exemptions provided by the 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Notices 29673 

1See Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe 

from the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and 

Final Affirmative Determination of Critical 

Circumstances, 73 FR 31966 (June 5, 2008) (‘‘CWP 

from the PRC’’), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum (CWP from the PRC 

Decision Memorandum) at ‘‘Export Assistance 

Grants.’’ 

2Citation to Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road 

Tires From the People’s Republic of China: 

Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation, 72 

FR 44122, 44124 (August 7, 2007) (‘‘OTR from the 

PRC Initiation’’), and accompanying Initiation 

Checklist (OTR from the PRC Initiation Checklist) 

at ‘‘Provision of Land and Utilities to SOEs for Less 

than Adequate Remuneration.’’ 

municipality of Shenzhen. The 

petitioners did not provide copies of Cai 

Shui (2003) No. 184 and Ji Jia Fei (1998) 

No. 1077. The only documentation 

provided by petitioners refers to stamp 

tax exemptions provided by the 

municipality of Shenzhen. However, 

petitioners have not identified a 

producer of PC strand that is located in 

the municipality of Shenzhen. 

C. Export Assistance Grants 

Petitioners allege that the Department 

found this program conferred 

countervailable benefits on Chinese 

pipe producers in the CWP from the 

PRC investigation.1 Petitioners contend 

that there is no reason to believe this 

program has been terminated, and the 

Department should investigate it 

accordingly. Aside from citing to CWP 

from the PRC, petitioners have not 

identified the administrating authority 

that is allegedly providing the export 

assistance grants. Therefore, Petitioners 

have not provided any indication 

whether the program is administered at 

the municipal, provincial, or Federal 

level. Nor have the petitioners shown 

that PC strand producers are located 

within the area or regions in which 

these assistance grants are made 

available. 

D. Provision of Land to SOEs for Less 

Than Adequate Remuneration 

According to petitioners, the 

Department initiated an investigation of 

the provision of land to SOEs for LTAR 

in OTR Tires from the PRC.2 Petitioners 

contend that, to the extent that it does 

not consider this program a subset of the 

provision of land for LTAR generally, 

the Department should investigate this 

as a separate program. Petitioners’ sole 

support for this allegation is the 

Department’s initiation in the OTR from 

the PRC Initiation, which we find does 

not constitute sufficient evidence that 

PC strand producers can benefit from 

this alleged program. We note that the 

information reviewed by the 

Department in the OTR from the PRC 

Initiation, included company-specific 

information pertaining to OTR 

producers as well as other 

documentation that is not on the record 

of the current proceeding. 

E. Government Provision of Land at 

Less Than Adequate Remuneration to 

Companies Located in Development 

Zones 

Petitioners allege that local and 

provincial governments sell land for 

LTAR to firms located in designated 

geographical areas. We have 

recommended initiating an investigation 

into the Province of Jiangxi and the City 

of Xinyu’s provision of land to FIEs for 

less than adequate remuneration in the 

context of the ‘‘Provision of Land Use 

Rights for Less Than Adequate 

Remuneration’’ program. Further, 

petitioner has provided no additional 

information to support its allegation of 

the provision of land for LTAR to 

companies located in other geographical 

regions outside the Province of Jiangxi 

and the City of Xinyu. 

F. Government Restraints on Exports of 

Wire Rod 

Petitioners allege that the GOC 

imposes export restrictions, such as 

export quotas, related export licensing 

and bidding requirements, minimum 

export prices and export duties, on the 

raw materials used for producing PC 

strand. Petitioners contend that these 

restrictions have resulted in artificially 

suppressing raw material prices of wire 

rod within the PRC. Petitioners have not 

adequately shown how these particular 

export taxes and licenses constitute 

entrustment or direction of private 

entities by the GOC to provide a 

financial contribution to producers of 

subject merchandise. Moreover, 

petitioners have not provided sufficient 

data regarding historic price and export 

trends demonstrating, e.g., price 

decreases or decreased exports (as a 

whole, from China) correlated with the 

imposition of the alleged export 

restraints. 

G. Tax Reduction for Enterprises 

Making Little Profit 

According to China’s WTO subsidies 

notification, enterprises with annual 

taxable incomes between RMB 30,000 

and 100,000 are eligible for a 3 percent 

reduction in their annual income tax 

rate. Petitioners have not established 

with reasonably available information 

that ‘‘enterprises making little profit’’ 

are a de jure specific group because 

petitioners have provided no 

explanation of why companies with 

access to this program comprise an 

enterprise or industry, or group of 

enterprises or industries. See, e.g., 

Preamble to Countervailing Duty 

Regulations, 63 FR 65348, 65357 

(November 25, 1998) ‘‘* * * because 

the user represented numerous and 

diverse industries, the program was 

found not to be specific.’’ 

H. China’s Enforced Undervaluation of 

Its Currency 

Petitioners allege that the GOCmaintained exchange rate effectively 

prevents the appreciation of the Chinese 

currency (‘‘RMB’’) against the U.S. 

dollar. In addition, petitioners allege 

that the GOC requires that foreign 

exchange earned from export activities 

be converted to RMB at the government 

prescribed rate. Therefore, when 

producers in the PRC sell their dollars 

at official foreign exchange banks, as 

required by law, the producers receive 

more RMB than they otherwise would if 

the value of the RMB were set by market 

mechanisms. Petitioners have not 

sufficiently alleged the elements 

necessary for the imposition of a 

countervailing duty and did not support 

the allegation with reasonably available 

information. 

Respondent Selection 

For this investigation, the Department 

expects to select respondents based on 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) data for U.S. imports during the 

period of investigation. We intend to 

make our decision regarding respondent 

selection within 20 days of publication 

of this Federal Register notice. The 

Department invites comments regarding 

the CBP data and respondent selection 

within seven calendar days of 

publication of this Federal Register 

notice. 

Distribution of Copies of the Petition 

In accordance with section 

702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, a copy of the 

public version of the petition has been 

provided to the Government of the PRC. 

As soon as and to the extent practicable, 

we will attempt to provide a copy of the 

public version of the petition to each 

exporter named in the petition, 

consistent with section 351.203(c)(2) of 

the Department’s regulations. 

ITC Notification 

We have notified the ITC of our 

initiation, as required by section 702(d) 

of the Act. 

Preliminary Determination by the ITC 

The ITC will preliminarily determine, 

within 25 days after the date on which 

it receives notice of the initiation, 

whether there is a reasonable indication 

that imports of subsidized PC Strand 

from the PRC are causing material 

29674 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Notices 

injury, or threatening to cause material 

injury, to a U.S. industry. See section 

703(a)(2) of the Act. A negative ITC 

determination will result in the 

investigation being terminated; 

otherwise, the investigation will 

proceed according to statutory and 

regulatory time limits. 

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: June 16, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I 

Scope of the Investigation 

For purposes of this investigation, 

prestressed concrete steel wire strand (PC 

strand) is steel wire strand, other than of 

stainless steel, which is suitable for use in, 

but not limited to, prestressed concrete (both 

pretensioned and post-tensioned) 

applications. The scope of this investigation 

encompasses all types and diameters of PC 

strand whether uncoated (uncovered) or 

coated (covered) by any substance, including 

but not limited to, grease, plastic sheath, or 

epoxy. This merchandise includes, but is not 

limited to, PC strand produced to the 

American Society for Testing and Materials 

(ASTM) A–416 specification, or comparable 

domestic or foreign specifications. PC strand 

made from galvanized wire is excluded from 

the scope if the zinc and/or zinc oxide 

coating meets or exceeds the 0.40 oz./ft2

standard set forth in ASTM–A–475. 

The PC strand subject to this investigation 

is currently classifiable under subheadings 

7312.10.3010 and 7312.10.3012 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 

States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for convenience 

and customs purposes, the written 

description of the scope of this investigation 

is dispositive. 

[FR Doc. E9–14743 Filed 6–22–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XP88 

Magnuson–Stevens Act Provisions; 

General Provisions for Domestic 

Fisheries; Application for Exempted 

Fishing Permit 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Regional 

Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, 

Northeast Region, NMFS, has made a 

preliminary determination that the 

subject exempted fishing permit (EFP) 

application contains all the required 

information and warrants further 

consideration. Therefore, NMFS 

announces that the Assistant Regional 

Administrator proposes to recommend 

that an EFP be issued that would allow 

four commercial fishing vessel to 

conduct fishing operations that are 

otherwise restricted by the regulations 

governing the fisheries of the 

Northeastern United States. The EFP, 

which would enable the applicants to 

land more than one standard tote of 

female red crabs and to conduct at–sea 

sampling and tagging, would allow for 

exemptions for up to four vessels from 

the Atlantic Deep–sea Red Crab Fishery 

Management Plan (FMP). 

Regulations under the Magnuson– 

Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act require publication of 

this notification to provide interested 

parties the opportunity to comment on 

applications for proposed EFPs. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 8, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice 

may be submitted by e–mail to 

RedCrabEFP@noaa.gov. Include in the 

subject line of the e–mail comment the 

following document identifier: 

‘‘Comments on Red Crab EFP.’’ Written 

comments should be sent to Patricia A. 

Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, 

Northeast Regional Office, 55 Great 

Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. 

Mark the outside of the envelope 

‘‘Comments on Red Crab EFP.’’ 

Comments may also be sent via 

facsimile (fax) to (978) 281–9135. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Moira Kelly, Fishery Policy Analyst, 

phone: 978–281–9218, fax: 978–281– 

9135. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: An 

application for an EFP was submitted on 

November 19, 2008, by Dr. Richard 

Wahle of the Bigelow Laboratory for 

Ocean Sciences; Dr. Yong Chen of the 

School of Marine Sciences, University 

of Maine; and Mr. Jon Williams of the 

New England Red Crab Harvesters’ 

Association. A supplementary proposal 

was received on February 10, 2009, that 

provided greater detail on the harvest of 

female red crabs (Chaceon 

quinquidens). 

This project is fully funded by the 

New England Red Crab Harvesters’ 

Association. The primary goal of the 

experimental fishery is to begin 

harvesting non–egg bearing females to 

expand the red crab market and increase 

efficiency in the harvesting process. In 

addition, an experimental fishery that 

includes non–egg bearing females 

would provide an opportunity to 

conduct at–sea sampling, renewed 

tagging, and model development to 

better evaluate the growth and 

reproductive performance of the 

population, as well as the impact of 

current and proposed harvesting on 

yields and egg production. This aspect 

of the project would be conducted by an 

onboard researcher under the direction 

of Dr. Wahle. The objectives of this 

project are as follows: 

1. Characterize regional variability in 

the reproductive characteristics of the 

red crab population along the 

geographic range of the fishery on the 

New England and mid–Atlantic shelf 

break; 

2. Conduct tagging to evaluate growth 

rates that will facilitate the development 

of growth and yield and egg production 

models for the fishery; and 

3. Develop yield and egg per recruit 

models to identify potential biological 

reference points for red crab stock 

assessment and to evaluate impacts of 

fishing on the female red crab resource. 

The experimental design calls for 

normal commercial fishing operations, 

with the addition of retaining females. 

The research and experimental fishing 

would occur within the constraints of 

the current management measures, 

including possession limits and days– 

at–sea limits. The research would occur 

during normal fishing operations by 

sampling the catch to evaluate the size 

and sex composition of the catch, 

including the number of egg–bearing 

females. Further, the applicants propose 

to tag up to 20,000 crabs over 2 years 

to analyze growth. In order to allow for 

sufficient numbers of crabs for the 

tagging project, a small number of traps 

would be fitted with small mesh to trap 

smaller crabs. All crabs would be sorted 

and weighed, and crabs of marketable 

size would be retained for sale. All 

discards would be released as quickly as 

practicable to reduce incidental 

mortality. All at–sea research would be 

conducted from one of the four active 

red crab fishing vessels, fishing under 

that vessel’s DAS. 

The applicant may make requests to 

NMFS for minor modifications and 

extensions to the EFP throughout the 

year. EFP modifications and extensions 

may be granted by NMFS without 

further notice if they are deemed 

essential to facilitate completion of the 

proposed research and result in only a 

minimal change in the scope or impact 

of the initially approved EFP request. In 

accordance with NOAA Administrative 

Order 216–6, a Categorical Exclusion or 

other appropriate NEPA document 

would be completed prior to the 

issuance of the EFP. Further review and 

consultation may be necessary before a 

B-1

APPENDIX B

CONFERENCE WITNESSES

B-3

CALENDAR OF PUBLIC CONFERENCE

Those listed below appeared as witnesses at the United States International Trade

Commission’s conference:

Subject: Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from China

Inv. No.: 701-TA-464 and 731-TA-1160 (Preliminary)

Date and Time: June 17, 2009 - 9:30 a.m.

The conference in connection with these investigations was held in the Main Hearing Room

(room 101), 500 E Street, SW, Washington, D.C.

OPENING REMARKS:

Petitioners (Kathleen W. Cannon, Esq., Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP)

Respondents (Ronald M. Wisla, Esq., Garvey Schubert Barer)

In Support of the Imposition of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duties:

Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

American Spring Wire Corp., Insteel Wire Products Co., 

and Sumiden Wire Products Corp.

Howard Woltz, III, President & CEO 

Insteel Wire Products Co.

Timothy Selhorst, President & CEO 

American Spring Wire Corp.

Jon Cornelius, General Manager, PC Strand Division 

Sumiden Wire Products Corp.

Timothy Johnson, Chief Operating Officer 

Suncoast Post-Tension Ltd.
B-4

In Support of the Imposition of 

Antidumping Duties (continued):

Richard Wagner, Vice President & General Manager

Insteel Wire Products Co.

Joseph Napoli, Product Sales Manager 

American Spring Wire Corp.

Jeffrey Feitler, Vice President of Sales and Marketing

Sumiden Wire Products Corp.

Gina Beck, Economic Consultant 

Georgetown Economic Services

Kathleen W. Cannon, Esq. ) – OF COUNSEL Paul C. Rosenthal, Esq. )

In Opposition to the Imposition of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duties:

Garvey Schubert Barer

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Global Steel Sales Corp.

Robert Hendricks, President 

Global Steel Sales Corp.

Ronald M. Wisla, Esq. ) – OF COUNSEL

Lizbeth R. Levinson, Esq. )

REBUTTAL/CLOSING REMARKS:

Petitioners (Paul C. Rosenthal, Esq., Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP)

Respondents (Lizbeth R. Levinson, Esq., Garvey Schubert Barer)
C-1

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA

C-3

APPENDIX C

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Table C-1

PC strand: Summary data concerning the U.S. market (U.S. imports based on official 

U.S. import statistics), 2006-08, January-March 2008, and January-March 2009 . . . . . . . . . . C-5

The apparent U.S. consumption data presented in table C-1 are calculated based on the U.S.

producers’ U.S. shipments compiled from Commission questionnaire responses and U.S. imports

compiled from the official U.S. import statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce. These data are

presented in the body of the staff report.

Table C-2

PC strand: Summary data concerning the U.S. market (U.S. shipments of imports based on

questionnaire responses), 2006-08, January-March 2008, and January-March 2009 . . . . . . . . C-6

The apparent U.S. consumption data presented in table C-2 are calculated based on the U.S.

producers’ and U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments compiled from Commission questionnaire responses. 

Although somewhat less complete than official import statistics, questionnaire-based data on U.S.

shipments of imports capture changes in importers’ inventories over the period for which data were

collected.

Table C-3

PC strand: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. shipments of imported product, 

total consumption and market shares, by sources and by applications, 2006-08, January-March

2008, and January-March 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-7

The consumption data presented in table C-3 are calculated based on the U.S. producers’ and U.S.

importers’ U.S. shipments compiled from Commission questionnaire responses. These data, however, do

not equal total apparent U.S. consumption data presented in table C-2 in this report due to inconsistent

reporting by firms within individual questionnaires. The primary purpose of this table is not for the

analysis of total apparent U.S. consumption but to show relative market shares of the different

applications (pre-tensioned and post-tensioned) and the prevalence of sales to “Buy America(n)”

applications.

Table C-1

PC strand: Summary data concerning the U.S. market (U.S. imports based on official Commerce statistics), 2006-08, January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

(Quantity=1,000 pounds, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per 1,000 pounds; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-March Jan.-Mar.

Item 2006 2007 2008 2008 2009 2006-08 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,112,214 980,483 942,714 260,293 96,988 -15.2 -11.8 -3.9 -62.7

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . 56.4 59.4 56.2 61.8 83.2 -0.2 3.0 -3.2 21.4

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.2 36.1 40.5 35.1 12.6 5.3 0.9 4.4 -22.5

 All other countries . . . . . . . . . . 8.4 4.5 3.3 3.2 4.3 -5.1 -3.9 -1.2 1.1

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43.6 40.6 43.8 38.2 16.8 0.2 -3.0 3.2 -21.4

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 466,543 407,609 550,451 116,528 54,829 18.0 -12.6 35.0 -52.9

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . 64.1 65.9 60.8 65.0 85.1 -3.3 1.9 -5.2 20.1

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.4 28.4 35.3 31.0 9.6 7.9 1.1 6.9 -21.5

 All other countries . . . . . . . . . . 8.6 5.6 4.0 4.0 5.3 -4.6 -3.0 -1.7 1.3

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.9 34.1 39.2 35.0 14.9 3.3 -1.9 5.2 -20.1

U.S. imports (2) from:

 China:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391,367 353,937 381,652 91,269 12,183 -2.5 -9.6 7.8 -86.7

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127,617 115,843 194,276 36,157 5,251 52.2 -9.2 67.7 -85.5

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $326 $327 $509 $396 $431 56.1 0.4 55.5 8.8

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . 62,149 31,037 52,426 8,989 50,097 -15.6 -50.1 68.9 457.3

 All other countries:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93,412 43,766 31,089 8,225 4,154 -66.7 -53.1 -29.0 -49.5

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40,085 22,982 21,771 4,675 2,924 -45.7 -42.7 -5.3 -37.4

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $429 $525 $700 $568 $704 63.2 22.4 33.4 23.9

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 484,778 397,703 412,741 99,494 16,337 -14.9 -18.0 3.8 -83.6

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167,702 138,825 216,047 40,832 8,176 28.8 -17.2 55.6 -80.0

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $346 $349 $523 $410 $500 51.3 0.9 50.0 21.9

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . . 810,653 902,782 903,795 226,334 226,334 11.5 11.4 0.1 0.0

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . . 673,195 601,717 558,885 161,089 80,750 -17.0 -10.6 -7.1 -49.9

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . . 83.0 66.7 61.8 71.2 35.7 -21.2 -16.4 -4.8 -35.5

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 627,436 582,780 529,973 160,799 80,651 -15.5 -7.1 -9.1 -49.8

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298,841 268,784 334,404 75,696 46,653 11.9 -10.1 24.4 -38.4

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $476 $461 $631 $471 $578 32.5 -3.2 36.8 22.9

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . 68,014 61,262 67,081 54,954 65,324 -1.4 -9.9 9.5 18.9

 Inventories/total shipments (1) . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . . 385 357 331 333 258 -14.0 -7.3 -7.3 -22.5

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . . 856 771 694 183 120 -18.9 -9.9 -10.0 -34.5

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . . 16,963 14,145 13,264 3,366 2,184 -21.8 -16.6 -6.2 -35.1

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $19.82 $18.34 $19.11 $18.41 $18.25 -3.6 -7.5 4.2 -0.9

 Productivity (pounds per hour) . 786.7 780.0 805.0 881.2 674.7 2.3 -0.9 3.2 -23.4

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . $25.20 $23.51 $23.73 $20.90 $27.05 -5.8 -6.7 1.0 29.4

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 661,469 613,704 589,793 167,186 82,775 -10.8 -7.2 -3.9 -50.5

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312,046 283,088 354,083 78,761 47,764 13.5 -9.3 25.1 -39.4

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $472 $461 $600 $471 $577 27.3 -2.2 30.1 22.5

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . . 248,545 230,394 302,334 65,434 52,054 21.6 -7.3 31.2 -20.4

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . . 63,501 52,694 51,749 13,327 (4,290) -18.5 -17.0 -1.8 (3)

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,648 13,317 13,795 3,449 3,430 -5.8 -9.1 3.6 -0.6

 Operating income or (loss) . . . . 48,853 39,377 37,954 9,878 (7,720) -22.3 -19.4 -3.6 (3)

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $376 $375 $513 $391 $629 36.4 -0.1 36.5 60.7

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . $22 $22 $23 $21 $41 5.6 -2.0 7.8 100.9

 Unit operating income or (loss) . $74 $64 $64 $59 ($93) -12.9 -13.1 0.3 (3)

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79.7 81.4 85.4 83.1 109.0 5.7 1.7 4.0 25.9

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.7 13.9 10.7 12.5 (16.2) -4.9 -1.7 -3.2 -28.7

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Import quantities and values compiled from official Commerce statistics.

 (3) Undefined.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding,

figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics.

C-5
Table C-2

PC strand: Summary data concerning the U.S. market (U.S. shipments of imports based on questionnaire responses), 2006-08, January-March 2008, and January-March 20

(Quantity=1,000 pounds, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per 1,000 pounds; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-March Jan.-Mar.

Item 2006 2007 2008 2008 2009 2006-08 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 997,674 944,077 856,757 263,354 96,146 -14.1 -5.4 -9.2 -63.5

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . 62.9 61.7 61.9 61.1 83.9 -1.0 -1.2 0.1 22.8

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.2 35.9 36.1 37.4 13.7 4.9 4.7 0.2 -23.7

 All other countries . . . . . . . . . . 5.9 2.4 2.0 1.6 2.5 -3.9 -3.5 -0.4 0.9

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.1 38.3 38.1 38.9 16.1 1.0 1.2 -0.1 -22.8

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439,303 400,749 514,377 123,591 54,583 17.1 -8.8 28.4 -55.8

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . 68.0 67.1 65.0 61.2 85.5 -3.0 -1.0 -2.1 24.2

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.5 30.3 32.8 37.0 11.5 6.3 3.9 2.4 -25.5

 All other countries . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 2.6 2.2 1.8 3.0 -3.3 -2.9 -0.4 1.2

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.0 32.9 35.0 38.8 14.5 3.0 1.0 2.1 -24.2

U.S. shipments of imports from:

 China:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311,202 338,625 309,384 98,410 13,131 -0.6 8.8 -8.6 -86.7

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116,262 121,625 168,596 45,691 6,279 45.0 4.6 38.6 -86.3

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $374 $359 $545 $464 $478 45.9 -3.9 51.7 3.0

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . 62,149 31,037 52,426 8,989 50,097 -15.6 -50.1 68.9 457.3

 All other countries:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59,036 22,672 17,400 4,145 2,363 -70.5 -61.6 -23.3 -43.0

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24,200 10,340 11,377 2,204 1,651 -53.0 -57.3 10.0 -25.1

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $410 $456 $654 $532 $699 59.5 11.2 43.4 31.4

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370,238 361,297 326,784 102,555 15,495 -11.7 -2.4 -9.6 -84.9

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140,462 131,965 179,973 47,895 7,930 28.1 -6.0 36.4 -83.4

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $379 $365 $551 $467 $512 45.2 -3.7 50.8 9.6

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. producers':

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 627,436 582,780 529,973 160,799 80,651 -15.5 -7.1 -9.1 -49.8

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298,841 268,784 334,404 75,696 46,653 11.9 -10.1 24.4 -38.4

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $476 $461 $631 $471 $578 32.5 -3.2 36.8 22.9

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

Note.--Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

C-6
C-7

Table C-3

PC strand: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. shipments of imported product, total consumption

and shares, by sources and by applications, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

Item

Calendar year January-March

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Pre-tensioned applications

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments:

Subject to “Buy America(n)” restrictions *** *** *** *** ***

Not subject to “Buy America(n)” restrictions *** *** *** *** ***

Total, U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments:

China *** *** *** *** ***

Nonsubject countries *** *** *** *** ***

All countries *** *** *** *** ***

Total *** *** *** *** ***

Share of quantity (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments:

Subject to “Buy America(n)” restrictions 53.3 48.9 52.7 48.8 55.6

Not subject to “Buy America(n)” restrictions 37.1 40.2 37.8 41.0 33.9

Total, U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 90.4 89.0 90.5 89.8 89.5

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments:

China 6.8 10.1 8.7 9.6 9.4

Nonsubject countries 2.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 1.1

All countries 9.6 11.0 9.5 10.2 10.5

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table continued on following page.
C-8

Table C-3--Continued

PC strand: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. shipments of imported product, total consumption

and shares, by sources and by applications, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

Item

Calendar year January-March

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Post-tensioned applications

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments:

Subject to “Buy America(n)” restrictions *** *** *** *** ***

Not subject to “Buy America(n)” restrictions *** *** *** *** ***

Total, U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments:

China *** *** *** *** ***

Nonsubject countries *** *** *** *** ***

All countries *** *** *** *** ***

Total *** *** *** *** ***

Share of quantity (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments:

Subject to “Buy America(n)” restrictions 8.4 4.5 9.6 6.9 28.8

Not subject to “Buy America(n)” restrictions 28.6 25.1 17.3 21.4 35.4

Total, U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 37.0 29.6 26.9 28.2 64.2

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments:

China 55.3 67.3 70.4 70.2 35.4

Nonsubject countries 7.6 3.1 2.7 1.6 0.5

All countries 63.0 70.4 73.1 71.8 35.8

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table continued on following page.
C-9

Table C-3--Continued

PC strand: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. shipments of imported product, total consumption

and shares, by sources and by applications, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

Item

Calendar year January-March

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Total

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments:

Subject to “Buy America(n)” restrictions *** *** *** *** ***

Not subject to “Buy America(n)” restrictions *** *** *** *** ***

Total, U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments:

China *** *** *** *** ***

Nonsubject countries *** *** *** *** ***

All countries *** *** *** *** ***

Total *** *** *** *** ***

Share of quantity (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments:

Subject to “Buy America(n)” restrictions 30.7 28.2 33.7 28.3 51.1

Not subject to “Buy America(n)” restrictions 32.8 33.1 28.7 31.4 34.1

Total, U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 63.5 61.3 62.4 59.8 85.3

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments:

China 31.3 36.8 35.9 39.2 13.7

Nonsubject countries 5.3 1.9 1.6 1.1 1.0

All countries 36.5 38.7 37.6 40.2 14.7

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Note.--Total consumption data presented in this table do not equal total apparent U.S. consumption data presented elsewhere in this

report due to inconsistencies reported by firms within individual questionnaires.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 
D-1

APPENDIX D

NONSUBJECT COUNTRY AND AGGREGATED PRICE DATA

D-3

Table D-1

PC strand: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 2 and

margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2006-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table D-2

PC strand: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported products 1 and

2 (combined) and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2006-March 2009

* * * * * * *
 
E-1

APPENDIX E

ALLEGED EFFECTS OF SUBJECT IMPORTS ON U.S. PRODUCERS’ 

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCTION EFFORTS,

GROWTH, INVESTMENT, AND ABILITY TO RAISE CAPITAL

E-3

* * * * * * *