U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4114 November 2009

Washington, DC 20436

Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand 

from Brazil, India, Japan, 

Korea, Mexico, and Thailand 

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-432 and 731-TA-1024-1028 (Review) 

and AA1921-188 (Third Review)
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 4114 November 2009

Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand 

from Brazil, India, Japan, 

Korea, Mexico, and Thailand 

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-432 and 731-TA-1024-1028 (Review) 

and AA1921-188 (Third Review)
 
i

CONTENTS

Page

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

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

Part I: Introduction and overview

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

The original investigations and subsequent five-year reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Summary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

Related investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

Title VII investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

Safeguard investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

Statutory criteria and organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

Statutory criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

Organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-16

Commerce’s reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-16

Administrative reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-16

Changed-circumstances reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-19

Scope inquiry reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-19

Results of five-year reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-20

Distribution of Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-22

The subject merchandise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-22

Commerce’s scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-22

Tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-24

The product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-25

Description and applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-25

Manufacturing process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-27

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

U.S. market participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-29

U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-29

U.S. importers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-32

U.S. purchasers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-33

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-33

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

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

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

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

Supply ................................................................... II-4

U.S. demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-10
ii

CONTENTS

Page

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

Substitutability issues .......................................................... II-15

Factors affecting purchasing decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-16

Comparison of domestic products and subject imports .............................. II-20

Comparison of domestic products and nonsubject imports ........................... II-20

Comparison of subject imports and nonsubject imports ............................. II-23

Elasticity estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-23

U.S. supply elasticity ........................................................ II-23

U.S. demand elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-23

Substitution elasticity ....................................................... II-23

Part III: Condition of the U.S. industry

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

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

Existing operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-1

Anticipated changes in existing operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-2

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

Covered/coated PC strand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-4

Indented PC strand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-5

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

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

U.S. producers’ domestic shipments, company transfers, and export shipments ............. III-6

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

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

U.S. producers’ employment, wages, and productivity ................................ III-9

Financial experience of the U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-11

Background ............................................................... III-11

Operations on PC strand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-11

Variance analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-14

Capital expenditures and research and development expenses ........................ III-15

Assets and return on investment ............................................... III-15

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

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

U.S. importers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-6

Cumulation considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-7

Fungibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-7

Geographic markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-8

Presence in the market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-10
iii

CONTENTS

Page

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

The subject foreign industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-11

Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-11

Actual and anticipated changes in capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-13

Exports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-13

Net trade balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-13

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

The industry in Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-17

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-17

PC strand operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-18

The industry in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-19

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-19

PC strand operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-20

Alternative products ........................................................ IV-21

The industry in Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-22

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-22

PC strand operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-23

Alternative products ........................................................ IV-24

The industry in Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-24

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-24

PC strand operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-25

Alternative products ........................................................ IV-26

The industry in Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-27

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-27

PC strand operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-27

Alternative products ........................................................ IV-29

The industry in Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-29

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-29

PC strand operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-30

Alternative products ........................................................ IV-32

Global market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-32

Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-32

World trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-33

Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-33

Prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-33

Raw material prices and supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-36
iv

CONTENTS

Page

Part V: Pricing and related information

Factors affecting prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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-4

Price comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-4

Appendixes

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

B. Commission’s hearing witness list . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

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

D. Responses of U.S. producers, U.S. importers, U.S. purchasers, and foreign producers 

concerning the significance of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders and the 

likely effects of revocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

E. Combined pricing data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

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

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

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

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-432 and 731-TA-1024-1028 (Review) and AA1921-188 (Third Review)

PRESTRESSED CONCRETE STEEL WIRE STRAND FROM 

BRAZIL, INDIA, JAPAN, KOREA, MEXICO, AND THAILAND

DETERMINATIONS

On the basis of the record1

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

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

of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)), that revocation of the countervailing duty order on prestressed concrete

steel wire strand (“PC strand”) from India and antidumping duty orders on PC strand from Brazil, India,

Korea, Mexico, and Thailand, as well as the antidumping duty finding on PC strand from Japan, would be

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

reasonably foreseeable time.

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted these reviews on December 1, 2008 (73 FR 72834) and determined on

March 6, 2009 that it would conduct full reviews (74 FR 11967, March 20, 2009). Notice of the

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

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

Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register on April 2, 2009 (74 FR 15000). 

The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on September 30, 2009, and all persons who requested the

opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel.
 
 1

 Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan, Investigation No. AA1921-188, USITC Pub. 928,

November 1978, (“Japan Original Injury Determination”).

 2

 Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan, 43 Fed. Reg. 57599 (December 8, 1978).

 3

 Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand From Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand, Investigations Nos.

701-TA-432 and 731-TA-1024-1028 (Final), USITC Pub. 3663 (January 2004).

 4

 Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from the Republic of Korea,

Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from India, Notice of Amended Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire

Strand from Thailand, Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Brazil,

Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Mexico, 69 Fed. Reg. 4109-4113

(January 28, 2004); and Notice of Countervailing Duty Order: Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand From India,

69 Fed. Reg. 5319 (February 4, 2004).

 5

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

3156, February 1999 (“Japan First Injury Review”).

 6

 Continuation of Antidumping Finding: Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand From Japan, 64 Fed. Reg. 40554

(July 27, 1999).

3

VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

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

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

concrete steel wire strand (“PC strand”) from Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand, and the

antidumping finding on PC strand from Japan, as well as revocation of the countervailing duty order on

PC strand from India, would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an

industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Original Determinations

In November 1978, the Commission determined that a domestic industry was injured by reason of

less than fair value imports of PC strand from Japan,1

 and the Department of the Treasury issued an

antidumping duty finding on imports of PC strand from Japan in December 1978.2

 In January 2004, the

Commission determined that a domestic industry was materially injured by reason of subsidized imports

of PC strand from India and less than fair value imports of PC strand from Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico,

and Thailand (“2004 Original Determinations”).3

 Commerce subsequently issued a countervailing duty

order on imports of PC strand from India and antidumping duty orders on imports of PC strand from

Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand.4

B. Commission’s Five-Year Reviews of the Japan Finding

In January 1999, the Commission completed its first expedited five-year review of the

antidumping duty finding on PC strand from Japan and determined that revocation of the finding would

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

within a reasonably foreseeable time.5

 As a result of the affirmative five-year review determinations by

Commerce and the Commission, Commerce issued a continuation of the antidumping duty finding.6

 

In June 2004, the Commission completed its second expedited five-year review of the

antidumping duty finding on PC strand from Japan and again determined that revocation of the finding

would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United
 7

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

Pub. 3699 (June 2004) (“Japan Second Injury Review”).

 8

 Continuation of Antidumping Duty Findings: Prestressed Concrete Wire Strand from Japan and Pressure

Sensitive Plastic Tape From Italy, 69 Fed. Reg. 35584 (June 25, 2004).

 9

 73 Fed. Reg. 72834 (December 1, 2008). 

 10 As noted below, there are currently two other domestic producers of PC strand, who did not respond to the

notice of institution.

 11 See Confidential Staff Report (“CR”), at Appendix A (reproducing Explanation of Commission Determinations

on Adequacy), Public Staff Report (“PR”) at Appendix A.

 12 74 Fed. Reg. 13189 (March 26, 2009).

 13 74 Fed. Reg. 15938 (April 8, 2009).

 14 CR at III-1, PR at III-1. The five producers are: American, Insteel, Rettco/MMI, Strandtech, and Sumiden.

 15 CR at IV-1 and VI-41, PR at IV-1 and VI-33.

4

States within a reasonably foreseeable time.7 Commerce again issued a continuation of the antidumping

duty finding on imports of PC strand from Japan.8

C. The Current Reviews

The Commission instituted these five-year reviews on December 1, 2008.9

 The Commission

received responses to the notice of institution from domestic producers American Spring Wire Corp.,

Insteel Wire Products Co., and Sumiden Wire Products Corp. (collectively the “Domestic Producers”);10

Mexican producers Aceros Camesa S.A. de C.V. and Deacero S.A. de C.V. (collectively the “Mexican

Respondents”); and Korean producer Dong-Il Steel Mfg., Ltd. The Commission determined that the

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

party group response was adequate for the reviews on the orders on subject imports from Korea and

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

orders on subject imports from Korea and Mexico in light of the adequate domestic and respondent

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

administrative efficiency.11

Commerce expedited its five-year reviews with respect to the subject imports and published final

affirmative review determinations concerning the antidumping duty orders and finding on March 26,

2009,12 and its final affirmative review determination with respect to the countervailing duty order on

April 8, 2009.13

The Commission received briefs from the Domestic Producers and from the Mexican

Respondents. Both the Domestic Producers and the Mexican Respondents appeared at the Commission

hearing, as did representatives of the Mexican Government and the President of the Steel Manufacturers

Association. The Mexican Government also made a posthearing submission.

Five U.S. producers, accounting for all U.S. production of PC strand in 2008, provided complete

responses to the Commission’s questionnaire.14 The Commission received usable questionnaire responses

from 22 importers and 21 purchasers of PC strand.15 The Commission also received at least partial

responses to foreign producers’ questionnaires from the sole Brazilian producer, one Indian producer that

estimated that it accounted for *** percent of Indian production of subject merchandise in 2008, two

current or former producers in Japan that estimated they accounted for *** percent of Japanese

production of subject merchandise in 2008; two producers in Korea that estimated that they accounted for

*** percent of Korean production of subject merchandise in 2008; both producers in Mexico; and one
 16 CR at IV-26-27, IV-32, IV-40, IV-45, IV-52, and IV-60, PR at IV-17, IV-19, IV-23-24, IV-27, and IV-30. The

record also contains information from the domestic industry regarding producers in the subject countries.

 17 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 18 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10); 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); Timken Co. v. United States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996); Torrington Co. v.

United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 748-49 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1990), aff’d, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also S.

Rep. No. 249, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 90-91 (1979).

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

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

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

Pub. 3577 at 4 (February 2003).

 20 74 Fed. Reg. 15938 (April 8, 2009).

 21 74 Fed. Reg. 13189 (March 26, 2009).

5

Thai producer that estimated that it accounted for *** percent of Thai production of subject merchandise

in 2008.16

II. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT

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

domestic like product” and the “industry.”17 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 under this subtitle.”18 The Commission’s practice in five-year reviews is to look to the

like product definition from the original determinations and any completed reviews and consider whether

the record indicates any reason to revisit the prior finding(s).19

A. Product Description

Commerce has defined the scope of the countervailing duty order on imports of PC strand from

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

Thailand as follows:

steel strand produced from wire of non-stainless, non-galvanized steel, which is suitable

for use in prestressed concrete (both pre-tensioned and post-tensioned) applications. The

product definition encompasses covered and uncovered strand and all types, grades, and

diameters of PC strand.20

Commerce has defined the scope of the finding on imports of PC strand from Japan as follows:

steel wire strand, other than alloy steel, not galvanized, which is stress-relieved and suitable for

use in prestressed concrete.21

PC strand consists of multiple steel wires wound together to produce a strong, flexible product

that is used to strengthen concrete structures. It 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. Nominal diameters of PC strand typically range
 22 CR at I-27-28, PR at I-25.

 23 CR at I-28, PR at I-25.

 24 CR at I-28-29, PR at I-25-26.

 25 Japan First Injury Review at 4 and Japan Second Injury Review at 4-6. 

 26 2004 Original Determinations at 9-10, n.43.

 27 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, at 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)),

(continued...)

6

from 0.25 to 0.70 inch, while the three common grade designations (250, 270, and 300) correspond to the

minimum ultimate strength of the product in thousands of pounds per square inch.22

PC strand is used in the construction of prestressed concrete structural components to introduce

compression into the concrete. This compression offsets or neutralizes forces within the concrete that

occur when it is subjected to loads. Typical applications of prestressed concrete include parking garages,

bridge decks, bridge girders, pilings, precast concrete panels and structural supports, roof trusses, floor

supports, and certain concrete foundations.23

PC strand may be pre-tensioned or post-tensioned. Pre-tensioned PC strand is tensioned (pulled

tightly and slightly elongated) using a calibrated tensioning apparatus, and concrete is cured around the

PC strand. After the concrete has cured, the tension is released and the tensile force of the strand induces

a compressive force in the concrete. 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. In post-tensioned prestressed concrete, permanent mechanical anchors

remain in place to maintain tension after the removal of the tensioning apparatus. Whether PC strand is

sold for pre- or post-tensioned applications, it serves the same purpose of imparting compressive forces

into concrete so that it can withstand tensile stress without cracking.24

B. Original Determinations

Although the Commission did not make a domestic like product determination in its original

determination concerning Japan in 1979, in its expedited first and second five-year reviews of that finding

it found the appropriate definition of the domestic like product to be the same as Commerce’s scope, that

is, all steel wire strand, other than alloy steel, not galvanized, which has been stress-relieved and is

suitable for use in prestressed concrete.25

In its 2004 Original Determinations, the Commission found the domestic like product to be all PC

strand co-extensive with Commerce’s scope, that is, steel strand produced from wire of non-stainless,

non-galvanized steel that is suitable for use in prestressed concrete (both pre-tensioned and

post-tensioned) applications and that encompasses covered and uncovered strand and all types, grades,

and diameters of PC strand. The Commission considered and rejected an argument that covered and

uncovered PC strand should be treated as separate like products.26

C. Analysis and Conclusion

No new facts have been presented to warrant a conclusion different from that in the 2004 Original

Determinations and the first and second reviews of the Japan finding. Moreover, no party raised any

objections to the Commission’s proposed definition of the domestic like product in either their responses

to the notice of institution27 or their briefs.28
 27 (...continued)

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, at 10.

 28 See Mexican Respondents’ Prehearing Brief and Posthearing Brief.

 29 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). The definitions in 19 U.S.C. § 1677 are applicable to the entire subtitle containing the

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

related party provision provides that producers that are related to an exporter or importer of subject merchandise or

which are themselves importers may be excluded in appropriate circumstances. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B).

 30 Japan Original Injury Determination at 4.

 31 Japan First Injury Review at 4 and Japan Second Injury Review at 6-7. 

 32 2004 Original Determinations at 10-12. In these reviews, Commission staff found that none of the domestic PC

strand producers grease and cover bare PC strand in-house. Instead, these services are performed by domestic

purchasers of bare strand. CR at III-8, PR at III-4-5.

 33 One of the firms producing PC strand, Rettco Steel, produces the product under a toll arrangement with another

firm, MMI Products, Inc., under which MMI provides Rettco with the raw material and pays a conversion fee for

Rettco to produce finished PC strand, which MMI then sells. CR at I-35 n.77, PR at I-30 n.77. Pursuant to our

standard practice, we treat Rettco, the toller, and not MMI, the tollee, as the domestic producer, as it is Rettco that

engages in the production activity. We note, however, that certain data and information are solely in the possession

(continued...)

7

Therefore, we define the domestic like product to encompass “steel strand produced from wire of

non-stainless, non-galvanized steel, which is suitable for use in prestressed concrete (both pre-tensioned

and post-tensioned) applications and that encompasses covered and uncovered strand and all types,

grades, and diameters of PC strand,” which is how Commerce has defined the scope of the countervailing

duty order on imports of PC strand from India and the antidumping duty orders on imports of PC strand

from Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand. We recognize that the description of the scope of these

orders differs in a number of technical respects from that of the scope of the Japan finding, but we find

that these differences lack significance.

III. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY

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

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

constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”29 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. 

In its original determination regarding Japan, the Commission defined the domestic industry as

“facilities in the United States devoted to the production of steel wire strand for prestressed concrete,”30

and in its expedited first and second reviews the Commission defined the domestic industry as all

producers of PC strand.31

In the 2004 Original Determinations, the Commission defined the domestic industry to include all

producers of PC strand and determined that plastic coating did not constitute sufficient production-related

activity to qualify coaters as members of the domestic industry producing PC strand.32

No new facts have been presented to warrant a conclusion different from that in the 2004 Original

Determinations and the first and second reviews of the Japan finding. Moreover, no party raised any

objections to this domestic industry definition. Therefore, based on our definition of the domestic like

product, we define the domestic industry to include all producers of the domestic like product.33
 33 (...continued)

of the tollee.

 34 Original Determinations, USITC Pub. 3663 at 15.

 35 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7).

 36 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(G)(i); see also, e.g., Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States, 475 F. Supp. 2d 1370,

1378 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2006) (recognizing the wide latitude the Commission has in selecting the types of factors it

considers relevant in deciding whether to exercise discretion to cumulate subject imports in five-year reviews);

Nucor v. United States, 569 F. Supp. 2d 1328, 1337-38 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2008); United States Steel Corp. v. United

States, Slip Op. 08-82 (Aug. 5, 2008).

8

IV. CUMULATION

A. Original Investigations

In the 2004 Original Determinations, the Commission cumulated imports from the five countries

subject to those investigations. With respect to fungibility, the Commission found that the domestic like

product and PC strand from each of the subject sources were generally interchangeable, notwithstanding

Buy America(n) restrictions and substantial imports of plastic-coated PC strand from Mexico. The

Commission also found overlapping geographic markets for subject imports and the domestically

produced product because the domestic like product and imports from all subject countries were generally

marketed throughout the United States. The Commission found an overlap of channels of distribution

because most of the domestic like product and most subject imports were sold to end users. Finally, the

domestic like product and imports from all subject countries were present in the U.S. market throughout

the period examined.34

B. Legal Standard

With respect to five-year reviews, section 752(a) of the Tariff Act provides as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.35

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

governed by section 771(7)(G)(I) of the Act.36 The Commission may exercise its discretion to cumulate,

however, only if the reviews are initiated on the same day, the Commission determines that the subject

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

imports from each such subject country are not likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the

domestic industry in the event of revocation. Our focus in five-year reviews is not only on present

conditions of competition, but also on likely conditions of competition in the reasonably foreseeable

future.
 37 73 Fed. Reg. 72834 (December 1, 2008). Subject imports from Japan are now eligible for cumulation because

of the timing of the initiation of Commerce’s third review.

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

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

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

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

next proceed to consider whether there is a likelihood of a reasonable overlap of competition whereby those imports

are likely to compete with each other and with the domestic like product. Finally, if based on that analysis they

intend to exercise their discretion to cumulate one or more subject countries, they analyze whether they are

precluded from cumulating such imports because the imports from one or more subject countries, assessed

individually, are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry. See Steel Concrete

Reinforcing Bar From Belarus, China, Indonesia, Korea, Latvia, Moldova, Poland, and Ukraine, Invs. Nos. 731-TA873 to 875, 877 to 880, and 882 (Review), USITC Pub. 3933 (July 2007) (Separate and Dissenting Views of

Chairman Daniel R. Pearson and Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun Regarding Cumulation). Accord Nucor Corp.

v. United States, Slip Op. 09-16 at 23-25 (Ct. Int’l Trade March 9, 2009); Nucor Corp. v. United States, Slip Op.

08-141 at 39-43 (Ct. Int’l Trade, December 23, 2008).

 39 As explained below, Commissioners Lane and Pinkert apply a different analytical framework in determining

whether other considerations justify exercising their discretion to cumulate the subject imports.

 40 See, e.g., Domestic Producers’ Prehearing Brief at 6-37.

 41 See, e.g., Mexican Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at 7-8 and 21-23.

 42 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7).

9

The statutory threshold for cumulation is satisfied in these reviews, because all of the reviews of

PC strand, including the review of the antidumping duty finding on PC strand from Japan, which has not

previously been considered for cumulation, were initiated on the same day.37

We consider three issues in deciding whether to exercise our discretion to cumulate the subject

imports: (1) whether imports from any of the subject countries are precluded from cumulation because

they are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry; (2) whether there is a

likelihood of a reasonable overlap of competition among imports of PC strand from the subject countries

and the domestic like product; and (3) other considerations, such as whether there are similarities and

differences in the likely conditions of competition under which subject imports are likely to compete in

the U.S. market for PC strand.38 39 Domestic Producers ask the Commission to exercise its discretion to

cumulate imports from all six subject countries,40 and Mexican Respondents argue that imports from

Mexico should not be cumulated with those of the other five subject countries.41

Based on the record, we find that subject imports from each of the six countries would not be

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

find a likely reasonable overlap of competition among the imports from the subject countries and between

the subject imports and the domestic like product in the event of revocation. We do not find significant

differences in the likely conditions of competition affecting imports from the countries subject to these

reviews. We therefore exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports from Brazil, India, Japan,

Korea, Mexico, and Thailand. 

C. Likelihood of No Discernible Adverse Impact

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

likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.42 Neither the statute nor the

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

specific guidance on what factors the Commission is to consider in determining that imports “are likely to
 43 SAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. I at 887 (1994).

 44 CR at II-25-31, PR at II-15-20.

 45 CR/PR at Table II-6.

 46 In the original investigations, the combined price data for pre-tensioned and post-tensioned applications

showed that subject imports from Brazil undersold the domestic like product in 14 of 14 price comparisons; subject

imports from India undersold the domestic like product in 14 of 14 price comparisons; subject imports from Japan

undersold the domestic like product in 12 of 16 comparisons; subject imports from Korea undersold the domestic

like product in 14 of 14 price comparisons; subject imports from Mexico undersold the domestic like product in 13

of 14 price comparisons; and subject imports from Thailand undersold the domestic like product in 12 of 14 price

comparisons. CR/PR at Table V-5, Note. Price data in the original investigation concerning PC strand from Japan

were not presented on the basis of application; accordingly, comparable historical price data for all countries can

only be shown based on combined data for pre-tensioned and post-tensioned applications.

 47 During the period examined in the original investigations, the volume of U.S. shipments of subject imports

from Brazil was 31.4 million pounds in 2000, 22.1 million pounds in 2001, and 23.1 million pounds in 2002. CR/PR

at Table I-1. 

 48 Id.

 49 CR/PR at Table IV-14.

 50 CR at IV-28, PR at IV-18, and Domestic Producers’ Prehearing Brief at 8. The Brazilian producer did not

respond to questions concerning planned capacity expansions in its questionnaire response.

 51 The Brazilian producer’s capacity utilization fell from *** percent in interim 2008 to *** percent in interim

2009. CR/PR at Table IV-14.

10

have no discernible adverse impact” on the domestic industry.43 With respect to this provision, the

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

imports on the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time if the orders are revoked.

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

have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry in the event of revocation of the orders or the

finding. Our analysis for each of the subject countries takes into account the nature of the product and the

behavior of subject imports in the original investigations. Imports from each of the subject countries are

likely to be substitutable for, and competitive with, domestically produced PC strand.44 Such competition

is likely to be based, at least in part, on price, due to the importance of price in purchasing decisions.45

For sales of PC strand to the pre-tensioned and post-tensioned applications combined, producers in each

of the subject countries undersold U.S. producers in the large majority of pricing comparisons during the

original investigations.46 

Brazil. Brazil was a significant exporter of the subject merchandise to the United States during

the original period of investigation.47 It accounted for the third largest share of imports from among the

subject countries.48 The capacity of the sole producer of PC strand in Brazil has *** since the imposition

of the antidumping duty order in 2004.49 There is, however, some evidence in the record that the

Brazilian producer may have plans to expand its production capacity for stranded wires and other long

products.50 The Brazilian producer’s capacity utilization *** in interim 2009 as compared with interim

2008.51 For these reasons, we do not find that PC strand imports from Brazil would likely have no

discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry if the relevant order were revoked.
 52 During the period examined in the original investigations, the volume of U.S. shipments of subject imports

from India was 9.4 million pounds in 2000, 13.6 million pounds in 2001, and 14.4 million pounds in 2002. CR/PR

at Table I-1. 

 53 The Indian PC strand industry’s capacity rose from approximately *** pounds in 2002 to approximately ***

pounds in 2008, or by *** percent. CR at IV-33, PR at IV-20.

 54 CR at IV-32, PR at IV-19. This producer’s capacity utilization increased from *** percent in 2003 to ***

percent in 2008. CR/PR at Table IV-16.

 55 Memorandum INV-AA-191 (December 19, 2003) at Table VII-2.

 56 That producer, Usha Martin, exported *** percent of its shipments in 2008. CR/PR at Table IV-15. The

largest producer of PC strand in the original investigation, Tata Iron and Steel Co., exported *** percent of its

production in 2002. Id.

 57 Imports from Japan were 295.3 million pounds in 1974, 166.8 million pounds in 1975, 139.1 million pounds in

1976, and 176.5 million pounds in 1977. CR/PR at Table I-1.

 58 Japan Original Injury Determination at 5.

 59 CR/PR at Table I-1. 

 60 CR at IV-39-40, PR at IV-22-23.

 61 Id. The remaining producer reported that its capacity utilization was *** percent in 2008. CR/PR at Table IV17.

 62 The estimated capacity of the Japanese industry was *** pounds in 2003 and *** pounds in 2008. CR/PR at

Tables IV-17 and IV-9.

 63 Japan Second Injury Review at 11.

 64 Japan Second Injury Review Confidential Views at 15.

11

India. Imports from India increased steadily during the original period of investigation.52 The

estimated capacity of the Indian PC strand industry has increased substantially since that time.53 Only one

of the four producers of PC strand in India responded to the foreign producer questionnaire in these

reviews.54 Because of this lack of participation in these reviews by Indian producers, we do not have full

reported data on excess capacity in India. The Indian PC strand industry, however, did have substantial

unused capacity during the original investigation, when its capacity utilization rate ranged between ***

percent and *** percent in the full years of the period examined.55 Based on the information provided by

the one responding Indian producer, it appears that the Indian PC strand industry is at least moderately

export oriented.56 For these reasons, we do not find that PC strand imports from India would likely have

no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry if the relevant orders were revoked.

Japan. While imports from Japan decreased both absolutely and relative to U.S. consumption

between 1974 and 1977,57 they held over 60 percent of the U.S. market in both 1976 and 1977.58 Since

2004 (the year of the last five-year review), imports from Japan have been present in the market in each

year, in amounts ranging from 1.4 million pounds to 2.0 million pounds.59 It is believed that there are

currently four subject producers of PC strand in Japan, but only two Japanese producers, which are

believed to have the *** capacity to produce PC strand in Japan, responded to the Commission’s foreign

producer questionnaire.60 One of these firms reportedly ceased production of PC strand in ***.61 The

estimated capacity of the PC strand industry in Japan has declined since the last five-year review of the

finding, but still remains substantial.62 Because of the lack of participation in these reviews by other

Japanese producers, we do not have full reported data on excess capacity in Japan. During the most

recent five-year review, however, the Commission found that Japanese producers subject to the

antidumping finding had substantial excess capacity to manufacture PC strand.63 The Commission

estimated that those producers were operating at a capacity utilization rate of only *** percent and that

the excess capacity of those producers could supply *** percent of the U.S. market.64 For these reasons,
 65 During the period examined in the original investigations, the volume of U.S. shipments of subject imports

from Korea was 38.3 million pounds in 2000, 42.6 million pounds in 2001, and 63.7 million pounds in 2002. CR/PR

at Table I-1. 

 66 Since the imposition of the order, annual imports from Korea have ranged from 0.3 million pounds to 4.0

million pounds. CR/PR at Table C-1.

 67 The Korean PC strand industry’s capacity was approximately *** pounds in 2002 and approximately ***

pounds in 2008, based in part on estimates provided by Domestic Producers. CR at IV-46, PR at IV-25. Based on

estimates provided by one of the two Korean producers that responded to the Commission’s questionnaire, the

Korean industry’s capacity was *** pounds in 2009. CR at IV-46 n.48, PR at IV-25 n.48. 

 68 The capacity utilization rate of the two responding Korean producers fell from *** percent in interim 2008 to

*** percent in interim 2009. CR/PR at Table IV-20.

 69 Memorandum INV-AA-191 (December 19, 2003) at Table VII-4.

 70 During the period examined in the original investigations, the volume of U.S. shipments of subject imports

from Mexico was 31.9 million pounds in 2000, 37.1 million pounds in 2001, and 53.0 million pounds in 2002. 

CR/PR at Table I-1. 

 71 2004 Original Determinations at Table C-4.

 72 The Mexican PC strand industry’s capacity rose from *** pounds in 2002 to *** pounds in 2008, or by ***

percent. CR/PR at Table IV-21.

 73 CR/PR at Tables IV-21 and IV-22.

 74 Mexican Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at 8.

 75 See Foreign Producer Questionnaire Response of Camesa at pp. 3 and 5 (indicating that ***).

12

we do not find that PC strand imports from Japan would likely have no discernible adverse impact on the

domestic industry if the finding were revoked.

Korea. Imports from Korea increased sharply during the original period of investigation.65

Subject imports from Korea have remained in the U.S. market even after the imposition of the

antidumping duty order, albeit at smaller volumes.66 The estimated capacity of the Korean PC strand

industry has remained relatively stable since that time.67 The capacity utilization of the two Korean

producers that responded to the Commission’s questionnaire was *** lower in interim 2009 than in

interim 2008.68 Because of the lack of participation in these reviews by other Korean producers, we do

not have full reported data on excess capacity in Korea, but the Korean PC strand industry had substantial

unused capacity during the original investigation, when its capacity utilization rate ranged between ***

percent and *** percent.69 For these reasons, we do not find that PC strand imports from Korea would

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

Mexico. Imports from Mexico increased sharply during the original period of investigation,70 and

Mexico was the second largest source of subject imports.71 The capacity of the Mexican PC strand

industry has increased substantially since that time.72 The Mexican industry’s capacity utilization rate has

also fallen substantially since the original investigation, declining from *** percent in 2002 to ***

percent in 2008, and from *** percent in interim 2008 to *** percent in interim 2009.73

We do not find that PC strand imports from Mexico would likely have no discernible adverse

impact on the domestic industry. The Mexican Respondents argue that both Mexican producers have

come under new ownership since the original investigation and the new owners, which have interests in

non-PC strand wire products operations in the United States, have no “incentive to operate as a detractive

presence in the U.S. PC strand market.”74 There is no reason to believe that Mexican PC strand producers

will not pursue their commercial interests. Given their current *** and the proximity of the large U.S. PC

strand market, they can be expected to seek to reenter that market in the event the antidumping duty order

is revoked.75 It is unclear why their relationships with U.S. producers of other steel products would act as
 76 E.g., Hearing Tr. at 87 (Wagner, Insteel).

 77 PCS, a U.S. PC strand producer that was related to the Mexican producer Camesa, operated a plant in

Rosenberg, TX from *** to the end of ***; and EMC, another domestic producer, that was related to the Mexican

producer Cablesa, operated a plant in Phoenix, AZ from *** until *** 2007. CR at I-35 and III-3-4, PR at I-30 and

III-2, CR/PR at Figure I-1. In addition, Mexican producer ***. CR at IV-2, PR at IV-2. 

 78 “Buy America” requirements apply to iron and steel products 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). 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 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.” CR at II-25 n.22, PR at II-16

n.22.

 79 Mexican Respondents contend that a substantial part of Mexican PC strand production is dedicated to the

Mexican home market, which, they maintain, is expected to grow strongly as a result of increased infrastructure

spending in Mexico, especially under Mexico’s National Infrastructure Plan. Mexican Respondents’ Prehearing

Brief at 18-19 and Posthearing Brief at Exh. 1 p. 3.

 80 Hearing Tr. at 18 (Commissioner Okun). 

 81 Exports constituted *** percent of the Mexican industry’s shipments in 2002 and *** percent of shipments in

2008. CR/PR at Table IV-21.

 82 CR/PR at Table IV-22.

 83 Apparent U.S. consumption of PC strand was 943 million pounds in 2008. CR/PR at Table C-1.

13

a disincentive to exporting to the United States or prevail over their clear commercial interest in selling

more PC strand.

We find that there is little if any evidence in the record that Mexican producers would face any

significant barriers to re-entering the U.S. market if the order were revoked or that they would have to

“start from scratch” in the U.S. market. The record indicates that any pre-certification requirements can

be met easily and quickly.76 Moreover, although Mexican PC strand producers have not exported their

product to the United States since ***, both of the Mexican producers had related PC strand production

facilities in the United States, and thus maintained contacts with U.S. customers, more recently than

***.77 Also, Buy America(n)78 requirements apply to approximately one-third of the U.S. PC strand

market, leaving the majority of the market open to competition from subject imports, including those

from Mexico.

The Mexican Government provided the Commission a list of approved infrastructure projects

related to Mexico’s National Infrastructure Plan.79 However, the information provided lacks the level of

specificity the Commission requested80 and does not permit us to determine how much of the Mexican

Respondents’ 2009 and 2010 production of PC strand is currently contractually committed to funded and

approved domestic projects or to otherwise conclude that a specific volume of production is not likely to

be available for export.

We recognize that the Mexican PC strand industry was much less export oriented in 2008 than it

was in 2002.81 This is not a reason, however, to conclude that subject imports from Mexico would have

no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry upon revocation of the order. The Mexican

industry has a low rate of capacity utilization and substantial unused capacity. Its capacity utilization rate

was only *** percent in 2008, and it had almost *** pounds of unused capacity,82 an amount that exceeds

*** percent of U.S. apparent consumption in 2008.83 In light of this substantial unused capacity, and the
 84 In this regard, we note that a representative from one of the Mexican producers testified that the proximity of

the Mexican industry to the United States would be an asset for selling to the U.S. market. Hearing Tr. at 216 and

234 (Gomez, Camesa). Mexico was also identified by an importer as “the country with the greatest ability to

compete” due to its proximity to Texas. *** Importer Questionnaire Response at 42. All imports from Mexico

during the period of review were entered through Laredo or El Paso, Texas (CR/PR at Table IV-7). Texas is part of

the Southwest and Rocky Mountain states region, which accounted for *** U.S. shipments of PC strand for posttensioning applications. Much of this PC strand is used for slab-on-grade applications, which are generally not

subject to Buy America(n) requirements. CR at I-29, II-19-20, and II-25 n.22, PR at I-26, II-12, and II-16 n.22.

 85 Before the order was imposed, Mexico’s exports of PC strand to the United States exceeded its home market

shipments. Domestic Producers’ Posthearing Brief at 7. We also note that the Mexican Respondents’ argument as

to why the unused capacity in Mexico does not pose a threat to the U.S. PC strand industry, see Mexican

Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at 7-10, is based on unsubstantiated assumptions.

 86 Mexican Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at 5.

 87 Hearing Tr. at 190 and 192 (Gomez, Camesa).

 88 Mexican Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at 20 and Posthearing Brief at Exh. 1, p. 4.

 89 CR/PR at Table II-4 (purchaser opinions), and CR/PR at Table IV-22 (AUVs of Mexican exports) compared

with CR/PR at Table C-1 (AUVs of U.S. shipments by U.S. producers). 

 90 Finally, the Mexican Respondents argue that any modest increase in Mexican imports would not adversely

affect the domestic industry’s financial results. This argument is flawed, however, because it rests on the

questionable assumption that the domestic industry’s displaced sales volume due to the hypothetical increase in

Mexican imports would have the same unit net sales value, unit cost of goods sold, and unit selling, general, and

administrative expenses as reflected in table C-4 of the staff report.

 91 In assessing whether PC strand imports from Mexico would likely have no discernible adverse impact on the

domestic industry, Chairman Aranoff and Commissioner Okun relied primarily on information on the record

subsequent to the change in ownership of Mexican Respondents, with emphasis on the current abilities of, and

market incentives facing, Mexican producers, and placed limited weight on data from the original investigations as

to Mexico. 

14

proximity of the Mexican industry to the large U.S. market,84 it is reasonable to expect that exports to the

United States would again play an important role for the Mexican industry were the order to be revoked,

as they did before the imposition of the order.85

Mexican Respondents argued that competition from non-subject imports, especially those from

China, would make it difficult for Mexican producers to increase sales in the U.S. market.86 However,

there is evidence in the record that Mexican PC strand is able to compete with PC strand from China in at

least some third country markets.87

The Mexican Respondents argued that imports from Mexico would not have adverse price effects

on the domestic industry.88 They maintain that one Mexican producer’s prices in its home market ***. 

This comparison is invalid, however, because they compare prices of one (unnamed) Mexican producer

with AUVs in the United States, an “apples-to-oranges” comparison. It also is not clear that the time

periods for the prices and AUVs are the same, or how the “average” Mexican price (an average of prices

for covered and uncovered strand) was derived. Moreover, other evidence in the record (such as the

views of U.S. purchasers as to price leadership and the AUVs of Mexican exports to third country

markets as compared with the AUVs for U.S. shipments by U.S. producers) tends to refute Mexican

Respondents’ contention that they would not undersell the U.S. product in the event of revocation.89 90

For these reasons, in particular the increase in imports from Mexico during the original

investigations,91 the subsequent increase in the Mexican industry’s production capacity, the large amount

of unused Mexican capacity, and Mexico’s geographic proximity to the U.S. market, we do not find that

PC strand imports from Mexico would likely have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry

if the relevant order were revoked.
 92 During the period examined in the original investigations, the volume of U.S. shipments of subject imports

from Thailand was 7.6 million pounds in 2000, 13.9 million pounds in 2001, and 10.7 million pounds in 2002. 

CR/PR at Table I-1.

 93 The Thai PC strand industry’s capacity rose from approximately *** pounds in 2002 to approximately ***

pounds in 2008, or by *** percent. CR at IV-61, PR at IV-30.

 94 CR at IV-60, PR at IV-30. This producer reported that its capacity utilization rate *** from *** percent in

2003 to *** percent in 2008, and that it was *** percent in interim 2008 and *** percent in interim 2009. CR/PR at

Table IV-24.

 95 Memorandum INV-AA-191 (December 19, 2003) at Table VII-11.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Ct. Int’l Trade 1989).

 97 See Mukand Ltd. v. United States, 937 F. Supp. 910, 916 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996); Wieland Werke, 718 F. Supp.

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

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

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

subject imports. See, e.g., Live Cattle From Canada and Mexico, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-386 and 731-TA-812 to 813

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

United States, 74 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1999); Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from the

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

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

15

Thailand. Imports from Thailand increased over the original period of investigation.92 The

estimated capacity of the Thai PC strand industry has increased substantially since that time.93 Only one

of the six producers of PC strand in Thailand responded to the foreign producer questionnaire in these

reviews.94 Because of this lack of participation by the vast majority of Thai producers, we do not have

full reported data on excess capacity in Thailand. The Thai PC strand industry, however, had substantial

unused capacity during the original investigation, when its capacity utilization rate ranged between ***

percent and *** percent.95 For these reasons, we do not find that PC strand imports from Thailand would

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

D. Likelihood of a Reasonable Overlap of Competition

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

determining whether the imports compete with each other and with the domestic like product.96 Only a

“reasonable overlap” of competition is required.97 In five-year reviews, the relevant inquiry is whether

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

from the U.S. market.98

In the 2004 Original Determinations, the Commission found a reasonable overlap of competition

among the five subject countries and the domestic like product. Although the Commission cumulated

subject imports from Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand in the 2004 Original Determinations, the

issue of whether to cumulate imports from Japan with imports from those other countries arises for the

first time in these reviews.

The Mexican Respondents contend that imports from Mexico should not be cumulated with those

from the other subject countries (including Japan) because several factors relevant to the Commission’s
 99 Mexican Respondents’ Posthearing Brief, Exh. 1, at 8-9.

 100 Domestic Producers’ Prehearing Brief at 28-30.

 101 Domestic Producers’ Prehearing Brief at 30-32.

 102 Domestic Producers’ Prehearing Brief at 32.

 103 Domestic Producers’ Prehearing Brief at 32-33.

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

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

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

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

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

2007).

 105 CR/PR at Table II-5.

 106 CR/PR at Table II-4.

 107 CR at IV-15, PR at IV-8

16

analysis support not cumulating. Specifically, they argue that the fungibility of imports from Mexico and

the domestic like product is limited by Buy America(n) requirements and the segmentation of the U.S.

market into pre-tensioned and post-tensioned applications. They also argue that, because there have been

no imports from Mexico since shortly after the imposition of the order, Mexican producers do not sell in

the same geographic market as U.S. producers, do not have similar channels of distribution, and are not

simultaneously in the market.99 

The Domestic Producers argue that there is a likely reasonable overlap of competition among

imports from the different subject countries and between the subject imports and the domestic like

product. First, they point to the evidence of product fungibility in the 2004 Original Determinations and

contend that the record in these reviews continues to support a finding of fungibility. In this connection,

they argue that the percentage of the domestic PC strand market that is comprised of Buy America(n)

sales is largely the same as it was in the original investigations.100 Second, Domestic Producers argue that

there is a reasonable overlap in channels of distribution because PC strand, regardless of source, is

predominantly sold to end users. They maintain that an overlap in channels of distribution continues to

be observable, even if end users are divided into post-tensioners and pre-tensioners.101 Third, Domestic

Producers maintain that subject imports and the domestic like product overlap in sales in the same

geographic markets.102 Finally, Domestic Producers argue that, if the orders were revoked, subject

imports and the domestic like product would likely be sold in the U.S. market at the same time, as was the

case in the original investigations.103

1. Fungibility104

All U.S. producers and a majority of purchasers and importers reported in this review that the

domestic like product, subject imports, and nonsubject imports are always interchangeable.105 Most

purchasers reported that the domestic product was superior in terms of delivery time and technical

support/service, but that it was inferior in terms of price. For nearly all other factors, the responding

purchasers rated the domestic product and subject imports as comparable.106

We recognize that the interchangeability of subject imports with the domestic like product is

limited somewhat by the existence of end uses that are subject to Buy America(n) requirements. We note,

however, that such requirements applied to only about one-third of total apparent U.S. consumption of PC

strand during the review period, leaving the majority of the U.S. market open to competition between

subject imports and the domestic like product.107 Nor is there evidence in the record that the percentage

of sales subject to Buy America(n) requirements is likely to increase in the reasonably foreseeable future. 
 108 CR at IV-10, PR at IV-7 and CR/PR at Tables IV-3 through IV-5.

 109 In the January 2003-June 2009 period, more than two-thirds of the domestic industry’s shipments were for pretensioned applications, and less than one-third were for post-tensioned applications. In addition, there was a shift by

the domestic industry away from post-tensioned applications in this period. In 2003, *** percent of the domestic

producers’ U.S. shipments were for pre-tensioned applications; by 2008, this percentage had increased to ***

percent. CR at IV-9-10, PR at IV-7.

 110 Hearing Tr. at 116 (Wagner, Insteel).

 111 CR/PR at Tables V-3 and V-5 Note.

 112 CR at III-14, PR at III-8.

 113 2004 Original Injury Determination at 15.

 114 CR/PR at Table II-1. U.S. importers did not report shipments of imports of PC strand from Japan or Mexico

during the review period. CR/PR at Table II-1 n.1.

 115 2004 Original Injury Determination at 15.

 116 CR/PR at Table V-1.

 117 CR/PR at Table IV-7.

 118 CR/PR at Table V-1.

17

We note also that Buy America(n) requirements do not limit the fungibility of imports from the different

subject countries.

The fungibility of subject imports and the domestic like product may also be limited somewhat by

their different concentrations in the markets for pre-tensioned and post-tensioned applications (the

distinction between these applications is discussed below in Section V.B.2.a.). Almost all of the U.S.

shipments by importers from the three subject countries for which data were provided by type of

application (Brazil, Korea, and Thailand) went to post-tensioned applications during the period of

review.108 The majority of the domestic industry’s shipments, however, were for pre-tensioned

applications.109 Nevertheless, notwithstanding this difference as to predominant applications, there is no

difference between the PC strand that is sold in the pre-tensioned and post-tensioned markets, nor is there

likely to be any such difference in the reasonably foreseeable future.110 Moreover, subject imports have

been sold in the pre-tensioned market,111 and the domestic industry has expressed an interest in selling

more PC strand in the post-tensioned market.112

2. Common or Similar Channels of Distribution

In the 2004 Original Determinations, the Commission found that most PC strand was sold

directly to end users.113 In these reviews, all domestically produced PC strand and all PC strand imported

from Brazil, India, Korea, and Thailand during the period of review was sold directly to end users.114

There is no evidence in the record that this commonality in channels of distribution is likely to change in

the reasonably foreseeable future.

3. Same Geographic Markets

In the 2004 Original Determinations, the Commission found overlapping geographic markets for

subject imports and domestically produced PC strand.115 During the period covered by these reviews, PC

strand produced in the United States was sold nationwide.116 Despite a concentration of import entries

into the Gulf region and the West Coast,117 at least some importers of subject merchandise reported selling

in all regions of the United States.118 There is no evidence in the record that subject imports would not

again compete in the same geographic markets with domestically produced PC strand in the reasonably

foreseeable future upon revocation of the orders and the finding.
 119 2004 Original Injury Determination at 15.

 120 We note, however, that most of the imports from Japan and all of the imports from Mexico appear to involve

nonsubject merchandise. CR/PR at Table IV-1 Note.

 121 CR/PR at Table IV-1.

 122 See, e.g., Chefline Corp. v. United States, 219 F. Supp. 2d 1313, 1314 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002) (“The statute and

legislative history are clear: the Commission is not required to find that subject imports currently compete in the U.S.

market.”).

18

4. Simultaneous Market Presence

In the 2004 Original Determinations, the Commission found that the subject imports and the

domestic like product were simultaneously present in the U.S. market.119 Imports from all six subject

countries were present in the U.S. market during 2003-2004.120 Subject imports from Brazil and India

have been essentially absent from the U.S. market since 2004, and those from Thailand have been

essentially absent since 2005. Subject imports from Korea were present in each full year of the review

period.121 As discussed above, each of the subject countries is likely to resume or increase its exports to

the United States upon revocation of the orders and the finding. It follows that the subject imports and

the domestic like product are likely to be simultaneously present in the U.S. market in the reasonably

foreseeable future upon revocation.

5. Conclusion

Based on the traditional four competition factors that the Commission considers, we conclude that

imports from the subject countries are fungible, would likely move in the same channels of distribution,

and would likely compete simultaneously in the same geographic markets upon revocation of the orders

and the finding. We note that the focus of the Commission’s inquiry in five-year reviews is whether there

would likely be competition upon revocation of the relevant orders, even if there currently are no imports

from a subject country.122 Thus, the Mexican Respondents’ argument that there is not a reasonable

overlap of competition between Mexican imports and the domestic like product because Mexican PC

strand has largely been absent from the U.S. market since the imposition of the orders is unavailing.

Accordingly, we conclude that there likely would be a reasonable overlap of competition between

the subject imports and the domestic like product and among the subject imports if the antidumping duty

orders, the countervailing duty order, and the finding were revoked.
 123 Commissioners Lane and Pinkert explain their analysis of other considerations as follows. Where, in a fiveyear review, they do not find that the subject imports would be likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the

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

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

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

limits competition such that cumulation is not warranted.

Based on the record in these reviews, they find that there is no such condition or propensity with respect to

the subject imports. They note that only the Mexican Respondents have argued otherwise. They do not agree with

the Mexican Respondents that Mexico’s status as a net importer – during a period in which its exports to its principal

foreign market (the United States) are restricted by an antidumping duty order – is a condition or propensity that is

likely to persist for a reasonably foreseeable time and significantly limits competition. See Mexican Respondents’

Posthearing Brief, Exh. 1 at 12. 

In sum, they find no justification for exercising their discretion not to cumulate the subject imports from

Brazil, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand, and they have cumulated them in these reviews.

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

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

subject imports in five-year reviews); Nucor v. United States, 569 F. Supp. 2d at 1337-38; United States Steel, Slip

Op. 08-82.

 125 Mexican Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at 10-12.

 126 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 127 For purposes of their determinations with respect to cumulation and likelihood of material injury, Chairman

Aranoff and Commissioner Okun relied primarily on information on the record subsequent to the change in

ownership of Mexican Respondents, with emphasis on the current abilities of, and market incentives facing,

Mexican producers, and placed limited weight on data from the original investigations as to Mexico.

19

E. Other Considerations123

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

whether the subject imports from Brazil, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand are likely to compete

under similar or different conditions in the U.S. market in the event of revocation.124 Based on the current

record, we do not find any significant differences in likely conditions of competition among imports from

Brazil, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand. 

Mexican Respondents argue that Mexico’s unique status among the subject countries as a net

importer of PC strand in every year since 2003 warrants a decision not to cumulate imports from

Mexico.125 Mexico’s current status as a net importer, under the discipline of the order, is not enough to

persuade us that imports from Mexico would likely compete under different conditions in the U.S. market

than imports from the other subject countries in the event of revocation of the order. In light of the

Mexican industry’s export orientation in the original investigations (when it was a leading source of

subject imports and (in 2003) accounted for 4.7 percent of the U.S. market),126 127 its current substantial

excess capacity, and its close proximity to the U.S. market, we do not find that Mexico’s current status as

a net importer alone sufficiently differentiates Mexican producers from producers in other subject

countries, which we find would also resume and/or increase exports to the United States if the orders and

antidumping duty finding are lifted.

Accordingly, we exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports from each of the subject

countries.
 128 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

 129 SAA at 883-84. The SAA states that “{t}he likelihood of injury standard applies regardless of the nature of

the Commission’s original determination (material injury, threat of material injury, or material retardation of an

industry). Likewise, the standard applies to suspended investigations that were never completed.” Id. at 883.

 130 While the SAA states that “a separate determination regarding current material injury is not necessary,” it

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

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

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

SAA at 884.

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

probable within the context of 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c) and 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)”), aff’d mem., 140 Fed. Appx. 268

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

United States, 26 CIT 1402, 1404 nn.3, 6 (2002) (“more likely than not” standard is “consistent with the court’s

opinion”; “the court has not interpreted ‘likely’ to imply any particular degree of ‘certainty’”); Indorama Chemicals

(Thailand) Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-105 at 20 (Ct. Int’l Trade Sept. 4, 2002) (“standard is based on a

likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury, not a certainty”); Usinor v. United States, 26 CIT 767, 794 (2002)

(“‘likely’ is tantamount to ‘probable,’ not merely ‘possible’”).

 132 For a complete statement of Commissioner Okun’s interpretation of the likely standard, see Additional Views

of Vice Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun Concerning the “Likely” Standard in Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy

Steel Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe From Argentina, Brazil, Germany, and Italy, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-362

(Review) and 731-TA-707 to 710 (Review)(Remand), USITC Pub. 3754 (Feb. 2005).

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

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

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

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

addresses this issue. 

 134 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).

20

V. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY IF

THE ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDERS, THE ANTIDUMPING DUTY FINDING, AND

THE COUNTERVAILING DUTY ORDER ARE REVOKED

A. Legal Standards

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

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

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

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

material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.”128 The SAA states that “under the likelihood

standard, the Commission will engage in a counterfactual analysis; it must decide the likely impact in the

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

proceeding and the elimination of its restraining effects on volumes and prices of imports.”129 Thus, the

likelihood standard is prospective in nature.130 The U.S. Court of International Trade has found that

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

applies that standard in five-year reviews.131 132 133

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

may not be imminent, but may manifest themselves only over a longer period of time.”134 According to
 135 SAA at 887. Among the factors that the Commission should consider in this regard are “the fungibility or

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

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

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

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

 136 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

 137 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). We note that no duty absorption findings have been made by Commerce. 

 138 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5). Although the Commission must consider all factors, no one factor is necessarily

dispositive. SAA at 886.

 139 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

 140 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A-D).

 141 See 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(3). The SAA states that “{c}onsistent with its practice in investigations, in

considering the likely price effects of imports in the event of revocation and termination, the Commission may rely

on circumstantial, as well as direct, evidence of the adverse effects of unfairly traded imports on domestic prices.” 

SAA at 886.

21

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

‘imminent’ timeframe applicable in a threat of injury analysis in original investigations.”135

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

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

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

merchandise on the industry if the orders are revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated.”136 It

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

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

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

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

§ 1675(a)(4).137 The statute further provides that the presence or absence of any factor that the

Commission is required to consider shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the

Commission’s determination.138

In evaluating the likely volume of imports of subject merchandise if the orders under review are

revoked and the suspended investigations are terminated, the Commission is directed to consider whether

the likely volume of imports would be significant either in absolute terms or relative to production or

consumption in the United States.139 In doing so, the Commission must consider “all relevant economic

factors,” including four enumerated factors: (1) any likely increase in production capacity or existing

unused production capacity in the exporting country; (2) existing inventories of the subject merchandise,

or likely increases in inventories; (3) the existence of barriers to the importation of the subject

merchandise into countries other than the United States; and (4) the potential for product shifting if

production facilities in the foreign country, which can be used to produce the subject merchandise, are

currently being used to produce other products.140

In evaluating the likely price effects of subject imports if the orders and finding under review

were revoked, the Commission is directed to consider whether there is likely to be significant underselling

by the subject imports as compared to the domestic like product and whether the subject imports are

likely to enter the United States at prices that otherwise would have a significant depressing or

suppressing effect on the price of the domestic like product.141

In evaluating the likely impact of imports of subject merchandise if the orders and finding under

review are revoked, the Commission is directed to consider all relevant economic factors that are likely to

have a bearing on the state of the industry in the United States, including but not limited to the following: 

(1) likely declines in output, sales, market share, profits, productivity, return on investments, and

utilization of capacity; (2) likely negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth,
 142 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 143 The SAA states that in assessing whether the domestic industry is vulnerable to injury if the order is revoked,

the Commission “considers, in addition to imports, other factors that may be contributing to overall injury. While

these factors, in some cases, may account for the injury to the domestic industry, they may also demonstrate that an

industry is facing difficulties from a variety of sources and is vulnerable to dumped or subsidized imports.” SAA at

885.

 144 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a) authorizes the Commission to “use the facts otherwise available” in reaching a

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

level of participation, the Commission is obligated to consider all evidence relating to each of the statutory factors

and may not draw adverse inferences that render such analysis superfluous. “In general, the Commission makes

determinations by weighing all of the available evidence regarding a multiplicity of factors relating to the domestic

industry as a whole and by drawing reasonable inferences from the evidence it finds most persuasive.” SAA at 869.

 146 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

22

ability to raise capital, and investment; and (3) likely negative effects on the existing development and

production efforts of the industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version of

the domestic like product.142 All relevant economic factors are to be considered within the context of the

business cycle and the conditions of competition that are distinctive to the industry. As instructed by the

statute, we have considered the extent to which any improvement in the state of the domestic industry is

related to the orders at issue and whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the orders were

revoked.143

As discussed above, the Commission received a limited number of foreign producer questionnaire

responses. Accordingly, we have relied on the facts otherwise available when appropriate in these

reviews, which consist primarily of information from the original investigations, information submitted in

these reviews, including by the domestic industry, and information available from published sources.144 145

B. Conditions of Competition and Business Cycle

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

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

conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”146
 147 Japan Original Injury Determination at 3-10.

 148 Japan Original Injury Determination at A-11.

 149 Japan First Injury Review at 6-8.

 150 Japan Second Injury Review at 8-10.

 151 2004 Original Injury Determinations at 16-17.

 152 2004 Original Injury Determinations at 17.

23

1. The Commission’s Original Determinations and Prior Reviews of the Japan

Finding

a. Original Determination and Prior Reviews With Respect to Japan

Finding

The Commission did not discuss conditions of competition in its original injury determination with

respect to imports from Japan.147 The staff report in that investigation, however, observed that there was a

strand shortage in the United States in 1973 and 1974, in response to which domestic and foreign capacity

was expanded. This expansion, however, was followed by a recession in 1975.148

In its first five-year review, the Commission noted that, since the original Japan finding, the total

U.S. supply of PC strand had expanded significantly and the market share held by imports from Japan had

dropped precipitously, while nonsubject imports became more important in the U.S. market. The

Commission explained that demand for PC strand was derived from its use in construction. It

characterized PC strand as predominantly a commodity product for which competition was based mostly

on price, and it noted that sales of PC strand had become concentrated in certain grades and sizes.149

In its second five-year review, the Commission again noted that demand for PC strand was derived

from its use in construction. It found that demand for PC strand had been strong since the first review, but

that imports from Japan had remained largely absent from the market, which was supplied by the domestic

industry and nonsubject imports. It again characterized PC strand as predominantly a commodity product,

for which competition was based mostly on price.150

b. Original Determinations With Respect to Brazil, India, Korea,

Mexico, and Thailand

In the 2004 Original Determinations, the Commission observed that demand for PC strand is

derived from demand for prestressed concrete, which, in turn, is derived from demand for construction

projects, particularly infrastructure projects, commercial and institutional construction, large housing

projects and, to a lesser degree, single-family housing. The Commission stated that purchasers were

evenly divided on the question of whether demand for prestressed concrete had increased or decreased. 

Apparent U.S. consumption had declined between 2000 and 2003, but was higher in interim 2003 than in

interim 2002. The Commission noted that there was disagreement among the parties as to the existence

and significance of market distinctions based on pre-tensioned versus post-tensioned PC strand

applications. It concluded, however, that the U.S. market was not strictly segmented.151

The Commission explained that the domestic industry was the largest source of supply to the U.S.

market (although its market share fell below 70 percent over the period of investigation) and that

cumulated subject imports supplied more than 20 percent of the U.S. market, while nonsubject imports

accounted for less than 10 percent. U.S. producers were the predominant suppliers to pre-tensioned

customers; post-tensioned customers, however, were increasingly supplied by subject imports.152

The Commission found PC strand to be a largely undifferentiated product that was generally

produced in a single form, size, and strength. It noted that Buy America(n) restrictions or preferences
 153 2004 Original Injury Determinations at 17-18.

 154 CR at II-20-21, PR at II-13. 

 155 CR at II-20, PR at II-12.

 156 Id.

 157 CR at II-22, PR at II-13.

 158 CR at II-23, PR at II-14.

 159 CR at I-28-29, PR at I-25-26.

 160 See CR/PR at Table III-5 (breakdown of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments by application) and Table II-1

(breakdown of importers’ U.S. shipments by application).

 161 See CR/PR at Table III-5. During the period of review, *** percent of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments for pretensioned applications were subject to Buy America(n) restrictions, whereas *** percent of U.S. producers’ U.S.

shipments for post-tensioned applications were subject to Buy America(n) restrictions. See CR/PR at Table III-5. 

24

applied to about 30 percent of the entire U.S. PC strand market, largely in pre-tensioned applications. 

Finally, the Commission explained that subject imports and domestically produced PC strand were

generally substitutable, with price being an important factor in purchasing decisions.153

2. The Current Proceedings

We find the following conditions of competition relevant to our determinations in these reviews.

a. Demand

Most market participants either stated that U.S. demand for PC strand had fluctuated since 2003 or

that it decreased.154 Apparent U.S. consumption of PC strand increased from 805.9 million pounds in 2003

to 1.1 billion pounds in 2006, and then fell to 942.7 million pounds in 2008.155 Apparent U.S.

consumption was 557.8 million pounds in interim 2008 and 229.1 million pounds in interim 2009.156

Most U.S. producers and importers reported that demand is expected to continue to decline in the

near term (at least the next 12 months) and that any recovery in demand depends on a recovery in

construction.157 The Domestic Producers maintain in these reviews that they have not benefitted from

Federal stimulus spending under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and that this

legislation is unlikely to have any significant effect on demand for PC strand in the reasonably foreseeable

future, because most of the stimulus spending to date has been directed to “shovel ready” projects, such as

road paving, that do not use PC strand.158

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 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.159 During the period

of review, most of the subject imports were sold for post-tensioned applications, while the domestic

product was sold mostly for pre-tensioned applications.160 According to data on U.S. producers’ U.S.

shipments, Buy America(n) provisions are much more prevalent with respect to sales of PC strand to pretensioned customers.161
 162 CR at I-35, PR at I-30.

 163 CR/PR at Figure I-1.

 164 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 165 These are: American, Insteel, Rettco/MMI, Strandtech, and Sumiden. CR at I-35, PR at I-30.

 166 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 167 CR/PR at Table IV-1.

 168 CR/PR at Tables IV-1 and I-11. Imports of PC strand from China are currently subject to antidumping and

countervailing duty investigations. See Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from China, Investigation Nos. 701-

TA-464 and 731-TA-1160 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 4086 (July 2009).

 169 CR/PR at Table II-3.

 170 Vice Chairman Pearson notes that over the entire period under review, there were no U.S. imports of coated

PC strand reported from any of the subject countries. CR at V-4 n.6, PR at V-3 n.6. During the original

investigations, however, Mexico, unlike other subject countries, sent the majority of its U.S. import shipments in the

form of coated PC strand. The proportion of coated PC strand within total U.S. shipments of PC strand imports from

Mexico rose steadily from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2002, and was *** percent in the first half of 2003. 

2003 Staff Report at Table IV-8. In fact, Mexican Respondents argued during the original investigations that coated

PC strand should have been defined as a separate like product, an argument that was not adopted by the

Commission. Confidential Views of the Commission at 14 n.43. Mexico was the only country to have sent a

significant quantity of coated PC strand to the United States during the original investigations; although *** sent

some coated PC strand to the United States in 2001 and 2002, the quantities shipped by *** amounted to *** of

what Mexico sent to the United States in both of those years. 2003 Staff Report at Table IV-8. While Vice

Chairman Pearson might have concluded, given the prior focus of the Mexican industry on exporting coated PC

strand, that imports from Mexico would have competed in the U.S. market under different conditions of competition

from other subject countries were the order to have been revoked, the parties did not present any arguments on this

issue that would have enabled him to draw such a conclusion.

25

b. Supply

There have been a number of changes in the identity of the suppliers of PC strand to the U.S.

market since the 2004 Original Determinations. Two Mexican PC strand producers set up production

facilities in the United States, but later closed those facilities.162 Another domestic producer, Rettco/MMI,

commenced production in 2005.163 The domestic industry’s capacity grew from 742 million pounds in

2003 to 904 million pounds in 2008.164 There are currently five domestic producers of PC strand.165

Subject imports from Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand largely left the market, or

continued at much reduced levels, after the imposition of the antidumping orders and the countervailing

duty order in 2004.166 Imports of PC strand from China, however, increased rapidly over the period of

review.167 By 2008, imports from China accounted for 40.5 percent of apparent U.S. consumption.168

c. Other Conditions

As explained above in the discussion of cumulation, market participants find subject imports from

Brazil, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand to be generally interchangeable with one another and for

the domestic like product. Purchasers listed quality, price, and product consistency as the three most

important factors affecting their PC strand purchasing decisions.169 170
 171 CR at IV-15, PR at IV-8. As noted above, Buy America(n) restrictions are more common with respect to sales

for pre-tensioned applications.

 172 CR at V-1, PR at V-1.

 173 CR at IV-70, PR at IV-36.

 174 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 175 Japan Original Injury Determination at 5.

 176 Japan First Injury Review at 8-10.

 177 Japan Second Injury Review at 10-12.

26

Approximately one-third of the domestic PC strand market was subject to Buy America(n)

restrictions during the period of review, which is about the same proportion as in the original

investigations.171

Wire rod costs are an important component of the total cost of producing PC strand.172 Global

prices of wire rod increased in the beginning of 2008, peaked in August of that year, and then declined to

pre-2008 levels.173

C. Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Orders, the Antidumping Duty Finding, and

the Countervailing Duty Order Is Likely to Lead to Continuation or Recurrence of

Material Injury

1. Likely Volume of Cumulated Subject Imports

a. The Commission’s Original Determination and Prior Reviews of the

Japan Finding

Imports from Japan were 295.3 million pounds in 1974, 166.8 million pounds in 1975, 139.1

million pounds in 1976, and 176.5 million pounds in 1977.174 Despite this decrease, imports from Japan

held over 60 percent of the U.S. market in both 1976 and 1977.175

In its first five-year review, the Commission found that Japanese capacity far exceeded domestic

demand and that Japan and other Asian countries were experiencing a severe recession, while demand for

PC strand in the United States was strong. The Commission also examined the past export behavior of

Japanese producers. Before the imposition of the finding in 1978, Japanese producers had exported about

two-thirds of their total production to the United States, and these exports fell sharply after the

antidumping finding was in place. Based on the foregoing, the Commission found that the volume of

imports from Japan likely would be significant and likely would increase significantly if the orders were

revoked. 176

In its second five-year review, the Commission noted that Japanese producers subject to the

finding continued to have substantial excess capacity and that the exportation of even a limited amount of

this capacity to the United States would result in significant volume increases. It found that thenprevailing market conditions (buoyant construction activity in the United States, compared with sluggish

demand in Japan) created incentives for Japanese producers to target the U.S. market. The Commission

also explained that the recent imposition of antidumping duties on imports of PC strand from Brazil, India,

Korea, Mexico, and Thailand and countervailing duties on imports from India would create an opening for

imports from Japan to reenter the market if the finding on Japan were revoked. Based on the foregoing,

the Commission found that subject imports likely would be significant, both in absolute terms and relative

to production and consumption in the United States, if the finding was revoked.177
 178 2004 Original Injury Determinations at 18-20.

 179 CR/PR at Table IV-9.

 180 CR/PR at Table IV-14.

 181 Memorandum INV-AA-191 (December 19, 2003) at Table VII-2.

 182 Japan Second Injury Review Confidential Views at 15.

 183 CR/PR at Table IV-20.

 184 Memorandum INV-AA-191 (December 19, 2003) at Table VII-4.

 185 CR/PR at Tables IV-21 and IV-22.

27

b. The Commission’s Original Determinations With Respect to Brazil,

India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand

In the 2004 Original Determinations, the Commission found that the volume of cumulated subject

imports from Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand increased during the period of investigation from

118.6 million pounds in 2000 to 129.2 million pounds in 2001, then jumped sharply to 164.9 million

pounds in 2002. Their market share increased from 15.1 percent of the U.S. market in 2000 to 22.0

percent in 2002. The Commission noted that subject imports were focused on sales to post-tensioned

customers, where they displaced domestic producers from a significant volume of domestic sales and

market share. The Commission found the volume of subject imports, both in absolute terms and relative to

production and consumption in the United States, as well as the increase in that volume, to be

significant.178

c. The Current Reviews

Several factors support the conclusion that cumulated subject import volume is likely to be

significant in the event of revocation. 

First, there is considerable production capacity in the subject countries. The aggregate estimated

capacity in the six countries grew from 1,038 million pounds in 2002/2003 to 1,253 million pounds in

2008/2009, or by about 20 percent.179 

Second, there is significant unused capacity in the subject countries. Producers in *** reported

decreasing capacity utilization. Although we are unable to quantify precisely the unused production

capacity in the subject countries because of the failure of many subject producers to respond to the

Commission’s questionnaire in these reviews, it is clear that the excess capacity has become substantial,

especially in interim 2009, as the effects of the worldwide economic slowdown have deepened. The

Brazilian producer’s capacity utilization was *** percent in interim 2008 compared to *** percent in

interim 2009.180 Because of a lack of participation in these reviews by Indian PC strand producers, we do

not have full data on current excess capacity in India, but the Indian industry had unused capacity during

the original investigations, when its capacity utilization rate ranged between *** percent and ***

percent.181 Because of a lack of participation in these reviews by Japanese PC strand producers, we do not

have full data on current excess capacity in Japan, but during the most recent five-year review, the

Commission found that Japanese producers subject to the antidumping finding were operating at only ***

percent capacity utilization and had substantial excess capacity to manufacture PC strand.182 The capacity

utilization rate of the two responding Korean producers was *** percent in interim 2008 and *** percent

in interim 2009.183 The Korean industry also had substantial unused capacity during the original

investigations, when its capacity utilization rate ranged between *** percent and *** percent.184 The

Mexican industry’s capacity utilization rate fell from *** percent in 2002 to *** percent in 2008, and was

*** percent in interim 2008 and *** percent in interim 2009.185 Because of a lack of participation in these

reviews by Thai PC strand producers, we do not have full data on current excess capacity in Thailand, but
 186 Memorandum INV-AA-191 (December 19, 2003) at Table VII-11.

 187 This ratio declined from *** percent in 2002 to *** percent in 2008 for the Brazilian industry, and from ***

percent to *** percent in the same period for the Mexican industry. CR/PR at Tables IV-13 and IV-21. 

 188 The ratio of exports to total shipments in 2002 was *** percent for the Indian industry, *** percent for the

Korean industry, and *** percent for the Thai industry. CR/PR at Tables IV-16, IV-19, and IV-23. This ratio for

the Japanese industry was *** percent in 1977, the last year for which such information is available. CR/PR at

Table IV-17.

 189 For purposes of their determination with respect to the likely volume of subject imports, Chairman Aranoff

and Commissioner Okun relied primarily on information on the record subsequent to the change in ownership of

Mexican Respondents, with emphasis on the current abilities of, and market incentives facing, Mexican producers,

and placed limited weight on data from the original investigations as to Mexico.

 190 CR at IV-66, PR at IV-33.

 191 We have also considered the other economic factors enumerated in the statute in connection with the likely

volume analysis. The evidence in the record with respect to existing inventories of the subject merchandise, or

likely increases in inventories, is incomplete (due to the lack of information from many foreign producers) and

inconclusive. See CR/PR at Tables IV-13, IV-15, IV-17, IV-19, IV-21, and IV-23. With respect to third country

import barriers, South Africa maintains an antidumping duty order on stranded wire, ropes, and cables (including PC

strand) from Korea and a countervailing duty order on such products from India. CR at IV-25-IV-26, PR at IV-16-

17. The potential for product shifting is not a relevant factor in these reviews. CR at II-10-16, PR at II-6-10.

28

the Thai PC strand industry had substantial unused capacity during the original investigations, when its

capacity utilization rate ranged between *** percent and *** percent.186 The aggregate excess capacity

among the subject countries will likely provide a strong incentive for producers of PC strand in the subject

countries to increase shipments to export markets, including the United States, if the orders and the finding

are revoked. 

Third, it appears that the PC strand industries in at least some of the subject countries depend to a

significant degree on exports. We recognize that the ratios of exports to total shipments by producers in

Brazil and Mexico have declined sharply since the original investigations.187 Because of a lack of full

participation by the producers in the other subject countries, we do not have full information on their

degree of export orientation. Information from the original investigations, however, shows that the

industries in those countries were highly export oriented.188 There is no information in the record

suggesting that those countries that were export oriented in the original investigations, and for which we

do not have full information, have directed their focus away from exports.189

Finally, the United States is an attractive market for foreign producers because of its size. The

United States was the world’s largest importer of iron or steel stranded wire, ropes, cables, and cordage

during the period of review.190 191

Accordingly, based on the demonstrated ability of the PC strand producers in the subject countries

to increase imports into the U.S. market rapidly, their substantial production capacity and unused capacity,

and the attractiveness of the U.S. market, we find that the likely volume of subject imports, both in

absolute terms and as a share of the U.S. market, would be significant in the event of revocation.
 192 Japan Original Injury Determination at 6.

 193 Japan First Injury Review at 10-11.

 194 Japan Second Injury Review at 12-14.

29

2. Likely Price Effects of Cumulated Subject Imports

a. The Commission’s Original Determination and Prior Reviews of the

Japan Finding

During the original investigation of imports from Japan, the Commission found that subject

imports consistently undersold the domestic product for most of the period examined, resulting in lost sales

and price depression.192 

In its first five-year review, the Commission found that imports of subject merchandise would

likely have significant negative price effects if the finding were revoked. The record contained little

pricing data. The Commission noted that the commodity nature of the product resulted in competition

being largely price-based, a factor of particular significance insofar as the types of products commonly

sold had narrowed since the original investigation in 1978. The Commission further noted that average

unit values for domestic shipments were declining despite generally high demand levels. Subject

producers, the Commission found, likely would win sales upon re-entering the U.S. market by discounting

from prevailing price levels. The Commission therefore concluded that significant underselling was likely

in the event the finding were revoked and that such pricing practices would likely have a significant

depressing or suppressing effect on domestic prices.193

In its second five-year review, the Commission found that the significance of price in sourcing

decisions, the high degree of interchangeability of PC strand, and the diversity of sources of supply were

factors that were unchanged from the first review. The record again contained little pricing data, and the

Commission did not rely on that data. The Commission observed that the 2003-04 investigations

confirmed the intense, price-based nature of competition in the domestic PC strand market and that the

competitive conditions in this market were such that subject imports would likely re-enter at prices below

prevailing levels in order to win sales. Given the importance of price in the PC strand market, the

interchangeability of subject imports and domestically produced PC strand, the likely significant volume of

imports, the likely significant underselling by such imports, the pricing practices demonstrated in the

original investigation, and the incentives for subject imports to enter the U.S. market, the Commission

concluded that, if the antidumping finding were revoked, significant volumes of PC strand from Japan

likely would significantly undersell the domestic like product to gain market share and likely would have

significant depressing or suppressing effects on the prices of the domestic like product.194

b. The Commission’s Original Determinations With Respect to Brazil,

India, Korea, Mexico and Thailand

In the 2004 Original Determinations of the five subject countries, the Commission found that

significant injurious price effects resulted from the subject imports underselling domestically produced PC

strand. The Commission found that the record on underselling by subject imports was mixed. The

Commission noted that, with respect to combined sales to pre-tensioned and post-tensioned customers,

“imports from all subject countries combined undersold the comparable domestic product in all 14 quarters

by margins ranging from 4.5 to 13.6 percent.” On an individual country basis, subject imports undersold

the domestic product in 67 out of 70 comparisons. With respect to sales to pre-tensioned customers only,

subject imports undersold comparable domestic products in 15 of 21 possible comparisons. However, with

respect to sales to post-tensioned customers only, subject imports undersold comparable domestic products

in 28 out of 70 possible comparisons. On balance, the Commission found, based on record evidence, that
 195 2004 Original Determinations at 20-24.

 196 CR/PR at Table II-3.

 197 The pricing products were as follows: 1⁄2 inch, grade 270 (270,000 PSI), low relaxation, uncovered prestressed

concrete strand sold for pre-tensioned applications; and 1⁄2 inch, grade 270 (270,000 PSI), low relaxation, uncovered

prestressed concrete strand sold for post-tensioned applications. CR at V-4; PR at V-3.

 198 CR at V-4; PR at V-4. No price data were reported for sales of imported PC strand from Japan or Mexico. Id.

 199 CR/PR at Table V-5.

 200 CR at V-10, PR at V-4.

 201 Mexican Respondents argued that revocation of the antidumping duty order on PC strand from Mexico is not

likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury in part because Mexican producers mostly oversold the

domestic product in the original investigations. Mexican Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at 11-12. Since we have

decided to cumulate imports from Mexico with those from other subject countries, it is the pricing of all subject

imports, not just those from Mexico, that is relevant to our analysis. Moreover, the Commission recognized in the

2004 Original Determinations that the record on underselling was mixed. 2004 Original Determinations at 20.

30

“significant volumes of the subject merchandise depressed U.S. prices, resulted in substantial lost sales and

lost revenues, and had significant adverse price effects on the U.S. industry.”195

c. The Current Reviews

Price remains an important factor in the purchase of PC strand, with nearly all purchasers reporting

that price is “very important” to their purchasing decisions.196

Even under the discipline of the finding and the orders, the pricing data in these reviews indicate a

mixture of overselling and underselling by subject imports. The Commission collected pricing data on two

products.197 These products accounted for approximately 59.9 percent of U.S. shipments, 8.8 percent of

U.S. commercial shipments of imports from Brazil, 42.3 percent of U.S. commercial shipments of imports

from India, 53.3 percent of U.S. commercial shipments of imports from Korea, and 50.1 percent of U.S.

commercial shipments of imports from Thailand during January 2003 - June 2009.198 The data indicate

that cumulated subject imports undersold the domestic like product in these reviews in 12 out of 23

quarterly comparisons.199

Quarterly prices for U.S. produced PC strand increased substantially in 2004, were relatively

stable during 2005-2007, increased substantially in the beginning of 2008, and then fell toward the end of

2008 and in the first half of 2009. The limited price data for subject imports from Korea and Thailand

appeared to track U.S. prices in 2003 and the first two quarters of 2004, and the prices of Thai imports 

declined in the second half of 2004.200

In view of the factors motivating foreign producers of the subject merchandise to increase

shipments to the United States and the degree of substitutability between subject and domestic PC strand,

producers in the subject countries are likely to use underselling to increase market share in the United

States. This underselling is likely to result in significant negative price effects in the event of revocation. 

Thus, given the likely significant volume of cumulated subject imports, the importance of price in the PC

strand market, the interchangeability of subject imports and the domestic like product, the adverse price

effects of low-priced imports in the original investigations201 and the two reviews of imports from Japan,

and the underselling that occurred during the period of these reviews even with the finding and the orders

in place, we conclude that, if the orders and the finding under review were revoked, significant volumes of

subject imports from Brazil, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand likely would significantly

undersell the domestic like product to gain market share and likely would have significant depressing

and/or suppressing effects on the prices of the domestic like product. 
 202 The SAA states that in assessing whether the domestic industry is vulnerable to injury if the order is revoked,

the Commission “considers, in addition to imports, other factors that may be contributing to overall injury. While

these factors, in some cases, may account for the injury to the domestic industry, they may also demonstrate that an

industry is facing difficulties from a variety of sources and is vulnerable to dumped or subsidized imports.” SAA at

885, 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). Section 752(a)(6) of the Tariff Act states that “the Commission may consider the

magnitude of the margin of dumping or the magnitude of the net countervailable subsidy” in making its

determination in a five-year review. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(6). The statute defines the “magnitude of the margin of

dumping” to be used by the Commission in five-year reviews as “the dumping margin or margins determined by the

administering authority under section 1675a(c)(3) of this title.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)(C)(iv). See also SAA at 887.

With respect to the antidumping duty order on subject imports from Brazil, Commerce found likely margins

of 118.75 percent for Belgo Bekaert Arames S.A. and all others. With respect to the antidumping duty order on

subject imports from India, Commerce found likely margins of 102.07 percent for Tata Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. and

83.65 percent for all others. With respect to the antidumping finding on subject imports from Japan, Commerce

found likely margins of 13.30 percent for Shinko Wire Co., Ltd., 6.90 percent for Suzuki Metal Industry Co., Ltd.,

4.50 percent for Tokyo Rope Mfg. Co., Ltd., and 9.76 percent for all others. With respect to the antidumping duty

order on subject imports from Korea, Commerce found likely margins of 54.19 percent for Dong-Il Steel Mfg. Co.

Ltd. and Kiswire Ltd., and 35.64 percent for all others. With respect to the antidumping duty order on subject

imports from Mexico, Commerce found likely margins of 77.20 percent for Cablesa S.A. de C.V. and 62.78 percent

for Aceros Camesa S.A. de C.V. and all others. With respect to the antidumping duty order on subject imports from

Thailand, Commerce published a likely margin of 12.91 percent for Siam Industrial Wire Co. Ltd. and all others. 74

Fed. Reg. 13189 (March 26, 2009).

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

expedited sunset review and found a likely subsidy rate of 62.92 percent for all producers and exporters. 74 Fed.

Reg. 15938 (April 8, 2009). Commerce further concluded that six of India’s countervailable subsidy programs were

prohibited subsidies within the meaning of Article 3.1 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing

Measures. Commerce Decision Memorandum C-533-829 from John M. Anderson to Ronald K. Lorentzen at 4-5

(March 1, 2009), found at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/summary/india/E9-7983-1.pdf.

 203 Japan Original Injury Determination at 4-5.

 204 Japan First Injury Review 11-13.

31

3. Likely Impact of Cumulated Subject Imports202

a. The Commission’s Original Determination and Prior Reviews of the

Japan Finding

In the original investigation of imports from Japan, the Commission found that the domestic

industry was being injured by reason of dumped imports from Japan. The industry experienced a declining

rate of capacity utilization, a decrease in shipments, an increase in inventories, a drop in employment, and

a precipitous decline in profitability between 1974 and 1977. The ratio of operating profit or loss to net

sales for domestic producers dropped from a profit of about 20 percent in both 1974 and 1975 to a loss of 3

percent in 1976 and an even greater loss of 7 percent in 1977, the year in which Treasury found that

imports from Japan were sold at less than fair value.203

In its first five-year review, the Commission found that the domestic industry was experiencing a

cost-price squeeze in a highly competitive, price-based market supplied by some two dozen other sources

that were contributing to an environment of declining prices. The Commission found that the domestic

industry was vulnerable to material injury in this environment. It concluded that subject imports would

likely have significant negative effects on the domestic industry’s prices, output, profitability, capacity

utilization, cash flow, and ability to raise capital and make future investments within a reasonably

foreseeable time if the finding were revoked.204

In its second five-year review, the Commission found that the domestic industry was vulnerable to

further injury if the antidumping finding on subject imports from Japan were revoked. The Commission
 205 Japan Second Injury Review at 15.

 206 2004 Original Determinations at 24-27.

 207 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 208 Id.

 209 Id.

 210 Id.

 211 Id.

 212 Id.

 213 Id.

 214 Id.

 215 Id.

32

concluded that subject imports would likely have significant negative effects on the domestic industry’s

prices, output, profitability, capacity utilization, cash flow, and ability to raise capital and make future

investments within a reasonably foreseeable time if the finding were revoked.205

b. The Commission’s Original Determinations With Respect to Brazil,

India, Korea, Mexico and Thailand

In the 2004 Original Determinations, the Commission found that most indicators of the domestic

industry’s condition showed marked declines between 2000 and 2002 at a rate greater than the decline in

apparent U.S. consumption. It attributed the domestic industry’s performance declines in significant part

to the increases in subject import volume and market share that had significant price depressing effects. It

explained that Buy America(n) restrictions did not detract from its finding that subject imports had

significant price effects, particularly insofar as Buy America(n) sales accounted for only approximately 30

percent of the domestic market. The Commission noted that the vast majority of subject imports were for

post-tensioned sales, where subject imports had increased their sales rapidly and at the expense of

domestic producers. Although subject imports accounted for only a small share of pre-tensioned sales,

they had at least some impact on those sales, persistently underselling the domestic product and resulting

in both lost sales and lost revenue.206

c. The Current Reviews

The condition of the domestic industry generally improved in the years 2003 through 2006 and

then declined in 2007 and 2008, before deteriorating dramatically in interim 2009. Apparent U.S.

consumption rose from 806 million pounds in 2003 to 1,112 million pounds in 2006 and then declined to

943 million pounds in 2008.207 It was 558 million pounds in interim 2008 and 229 million pounds in

interim 2009.208 U.S. production of PC strand increased from 578 million pounds in 2003 to 673 million

pounds in 2006 and then declined to 559 million pounds in 2008.209 It was 327 million pounds in interim

2008 and 172 million pounds in interim 2009.210 U.S. shipments increased from 564 million pounds in

2003 to 627 million pounds in 2006 and then declined to 530 million pounds in 2008.211 They were 325

million pounds in interim 2008 and 183 million pounds in interim 2009.212 Net sales increased from 565

million pounds in 2003 to 661 million pounds in 2006 and then declined to 590 million pounds in 2008.213

They were 341 million pounds in interim 2008 and 188 million pounds in interim 2009.214 The domestic

industry’s capacity increased from 742 million pounds in 2003 to 904 million pounds in 2008, and was

455 million pounds in interim 2008 and 456 million pounds in interim 2009.215 Capacity utilization
 216 Id.

 217 Id.

 218 Id.

 219 Id.

 220 Id.

 221 Id.

 222 Id. We recognize that inventory write-down costs by one domestic producer (Insteel) were a *** 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 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 than in interim 2008. CR at III-22 n.37, PR at III-13 n.37.

 223 Id.

 224 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 most of the period of review. 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.

 225 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.

33

increased irregularly from 77.9 percent in 2003 to 83.0 percent in 2006 and then declined to 61.8 percent

in 2008. Capacity utilization was 72.0 percent in interim 2008 and 37.8 percent in interim 2009.216

The domestic industry’s employment-related indicators showed the same pattern of improvement

from 2003 to 2006, followed by a deterioration through 2008 and a sharp decline in interim 2009. The

industry’s production and related workers (PRWs) increased from 315 in 2003 to 385 in 2006 and then

declined to 331 in 2008.217 The number of PRWs was 337 in interim 2008 and 253 in interim 2009.218 The

number of hours worked increased irregularly from 762,000 in 2003 to 856,000 in 2006 and then declined

to 694,000 in 2008. Hours worked were 392,000 in interim 2008 and 244,000 in interim 2009. Hourly

wages followed a similar pattern. Productivity increased irregularly from 2003 to 2008 and was lower in

interim 2009 than in interim 2008.219

The domestic industry’s financial performance followed a similar pattern. Gross profits and

operating income surged from 2003 to 2004 and reached a peak in 2005, before declining in subsequent

years and turning to losses in interim 2009.220 The industry’s operating income margin increased from 3.4

percent in 2003 to 17.0 percent in 2004 and then declined to 10.7 percent in 2008.221 It was 15.9 percent in

interim 2008 and negative 7.5 percent in interim 2009.222 The industry’s capital expenditures increased

irregularly from 2003 to 2006 and then declined irregularly.223 224 225

Based on the record in these reviews, we conclude that revocation of the orders and the finding

would likely lead to a significant increase in the volume of subject imports that would undersell the

domestic like product and significantly suppress or depress U.S. prices. We also find that the volume and

price effects of the subject imports would likely have a significant adverse impact on the production,

shipments, sales, market share, and revenues of the domestic industry. These reductions would have a

direct adverse impact on the industry’s profitability and employment as well as its ability to raise capital

and make and maintain necessary capital investments. We conclude that, if the antidumping duty orders,

the countervailing duty order, and the antidumping finding were revoked, subject imports from Brazil,

India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand would be likely to have a significant adverse impact on the

domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time. 

We have considered the likely role of nonsubject imports in the U.S. market. Nonsubject imports

took on an increasingly significant role in the U.S. market after the imposition of the antidumping and

countervailing duty orders in 2004, at least until interim 2009, when they receded sharply. The U.S.
 226 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 227 See CR/PR at Table IV-1. In 2008, for example, out of a total of 406 million pounds of nonsubject imports,

382 million pounds were from China. 

 228 We note that the only relevant “subject” imports in these reviews are those that are subject to the

countervailing duty order, the five antidumping duty orders, and the antidumping finding that are under review. 

E.g., Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India and Taiwan, Invs. 701-TA-415 and 731-TA-933-

934 (Review), USITC Pub. 3994 at 27 n.187.

 229 CR at IV-15 n.11, PR at IV-8 n.11.

 230 Id.

 231 Domestic Parties’ Posthearing Brief at Exh. 1, pp. 5-6.

 232 Hearing Tr. at 30 (Woltz, Insteel). The Mexican Respondents suggested that the proportion of the U.S. market

that is subject to Buy America(n) requirements will continue to be higher in the reasonably foreseeable future than it

was in most of the period of review, because a substantial part of the market is now driven by Federal appropriations

(including stimulus spending) that are subject to such requirements. Mexican Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at 12

n.29. The assertion that a larger proportion of PC strand consumption will be driven by Federal appropriations is

purely speculative, given that it is unclear how stimulus appropriations will be spent in the reasonably foreseeable

future. Domestic Producers testified that a disproportionate amount of stimulus spending is on infrastructure

projects that do not use PC strand, such as resurfacing and re-paving highways, and there is no evidence to the

contrary. CR at II-23, PR at II-14.

34

market share of nonsubject imports rose from 16.7 percent in 2003 to 43.1 percent in 2008. It was 41.0

percent in interim 2008 and 19.1 percent in interim 2009.226 These nonsubject imports have increasingly

come from China.227 As noted above, imports of PC strand from China are currently subject to ongoing

antidumping and countervailing duty investigations.228 We find that the increasing presence of nonsubject

imports has likely heightened the price sensitivity of the domestic PC strand market, but that these

nonsubject imports are not likely to prevent subject imports from reentering the U.S. market in the event of

the revocation of the antidumping duty orders, the countervailing duty order, and the antidumping finding. 

The presence of imports of PC strand from China does not diminish the attractiveness of the U.S. market to

producers in the subject countries, especially given the large amount of unused capacity in those countries. 

We note that nonsubject imports were sharply lower in interim 2009 and that, although this decline may

not be permanent, it is likely to provide increased opportunity for subject imports to reenter the U.S.

market, at least in the reasonably foreseeable future. Accordingly, we find that subject imports are likely

to have a significant adverse impact upon the domestic industry in the event of revocation, notwithstanding

the presence of nonsubject imports in the U.S. market.

We have also considered the role of Buy America(n) requirements in the domestic PC strand

market. With the exception of interim 2009, the proportion of the U.S. market subject to Buy America(n)

requirements has remained relatively stable at about one-third of the market.229 In interim 2009, the share

of the market accounted for by such requirements was *** percent.230 The Domestic Producers attribute

this increase to a temporary decline in imports (which supply only non-Buy America(n) customers) in

early 2009, due to a large overhang of imports in inventory.231 The Domestic Producers do not expect any

longer-term change in the proportion of the market that is subject to Buy America(n) requirements, and

there is no evidence that any such long-term increase is likely in the reasonably foreseeable future.232 In

short, while Buy America(n) provisions may shield the domestic industry from direct competition with

subject imports in a part of the domestic market, a substantial part of the market – about two thirds – is not

shielded from such competition. Accordingly, we find that subject imports are likely to have a significant

adverse impact upon the domestic industry in the event of revocation, notwithstanding that a part of the

U.S. market is shielded from direct competition.
 233 Hearing Tr. at 116 (Wagner, Insteel).

 234 CR/PR at Table V-6 Note.

 235 CR at III-14, PR at III-8.

 236 Hearing Tr. at 43 (Wagner, Insteel) (imports tend to target post-tensioned accounts due to the larger volume

involved).

35

We have also considered the market dynamics underlying sales for pre-tensioned and posttensioned applications. Although the majority of the domestic industry’s shipments have been for pretensioned applications, and the limited volume of subject imports have mostly been for post-tensioned

applications, there is not a clear demarcation in the market. The same product is sold for both types of

applications.233 Subject imports are sold for pre-tensioned applications234 and the domestic industry sells

PC strand for post-tensioned applications and has expressed an interest in increasing those sales.235 The

ability of imports to gain market share in post-tensioned applications may be due, in part, to the lower

proportion of Buy America(n) sales in such uses and to the greater ability of importers to sell to larger

customers in larger quantities.236 Neither of these factors supports the view that the domestic industry has

abandoned, is not interested in, or is unable to serve post-tensioned applications. All evidence is to the

contrary. Thus, we find that subject imports are likely to have a significant adverse impact upon the

domestic industry in the event of revocation, notwithstanding the concentration of the domestic product

and subject imports in sales for different applications.

Finally, we have considered the likely future effects of suppressed demand for PC strand on the

domestic industry. The global economic crisis has adversely affected the domestic industry through lower

industry sales volumes and prices. It is unclear when U.S. demand for PC strand will improve. 

Nevertheless, for the reasons described above, we find that subject imports would further reduce domestic

sales volumes and prices significantly and thus would be likely to have a significant adverse impact on the

domestic industry in the event of revocation regardless of demand levels. We also note that subject

imports increased and gained market share while demand declined during the period covered by the

investigations leading to the 2004 Original Determinations.

CONCLUSION 

For the above reasons, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on PC strand

from Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand, the countervailing duty order on PC strand from India,

and the antidumping duty finding on PC strand from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.
 
 1

 19 U.S.C. 1675 (c).

 2

 All interested parties were requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information requested by the

Commission. Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Brazil, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand, 73

FR 72834, December 1, 2008.

 3

 In accordance with section 751(c) of the Act, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) published a

notice of initiation of five-year reviews of the subject antidumping and countervailing duty finding/orders

concurrently with the Commission’s notice of institution. Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews, 73 FR 72770,

December 1, 2008.

 4

 The Commission found that the domestic interested party response to its notice of institution was adequate and

that the respondent interested party group responses with respect to Korea and Mexico were adequate. The

Commission determined that the respondent interested party group response with respect to Brazil, India, Japan, and

Thailand were inadequate, but determined to conduct full reviews to promote administrative efficiency. Prestressed

Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Brazil, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand, 74 FR 11967, March 20, 2009.

 5

 The Commission’s notice of institution, notice to conduct full reviews, scheduling notice, and statement on

adequacy appear in app. A and may also be found at the Commission’s web site (internet address www.usitc.gov). 

Commissioners’ votes on whether to conduct expedited or full reviews may also be found at the web site.

I-1

PART I: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

BACKGROUND

On December 1, 2008, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission” or “USITC”)

gave notice, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”),1

 that it had instituted reviews

to determine whether revocation of the countervailing duty order on prestressed concrete steel wire strand

(“PC strand”) from India and the antidumping duty finding/orders on PC strand from Brazil, India, Japan,

Korea, Mexico, and Thailand would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to a

domestic industry.2 3

 Effective March 6, 2009, the Commission determined that it would conduct full

reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Act.4

 Information relating to the background and schedule of

the reviews is provided in the following tabulation.5
I-2

Effective date Action

December 8, 1978 Commerce’s antidumping duty finding concerning Japan (43 FR 57599)

September 1, 1998

Commission’s institution (63 FR 46477) and Commerce’s initiation (63 FR 46410)

of first review concerning Japan.

January 6, 1999 Commerce’s final results of expedited first review concerning Japan (64 FR 857)

January 27, 1999

Commission’s expedited first review determination concerning Japan (64 FR

4123)

February 3, 1999

Commerce’s first continuation order concerning the antidumping finding on PC

strand from Japan (64 FR 40554, July 27, 1999)

January 2, 2004

Commission’s institution (69 FR 103) and Commerce’s initiation (69 FR 50) of

second review concerning Japan.

January 28, 2004

Commerce’s antidumping duty orders concerning Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico,

and Thailand (69 FR 4109-4113)

February 4, 2004 Commerce’s countervailing duty order concerning India (69 FR 5319)

May 7, 2004

Commerce’s final results of expedited second review concerning Japan (69 FR

25563)

June 7, 2004

Commission’s expedited second review determination concerning Japan (69 FR

33071, June 14, 2004)

June 25, 2004

Commerce’s second continuation order concerning the antidumping finding on PC

strand from Japan (69 FR 35584)

December 1, 2008

Commission’s institution (73 FR 72834) and Commerce’s initiation (73 FR 72770)

of first reviews concerning Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand and third

review concerning Japan

March 6, 2009 Commission’s decision to conduct full reviews (74 FR 11967, March 20, 2009)

March 27, 2009 Commission’s scheduling of the reviews (74 FR 15000, April 2, 2009)

March 26, 2009

Commerce’s final results of expedited reviews concerning the antidumping duty

orders on Brazil, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand (74 FR 13189)

April 8, 2009

Commerce’s final result of expedited review concerning the countervailing duty

order on India (74 FR 15938)

September 30, 2009 Commission’s hearing1

November 10, 2009 Commission’s vote

November 25, 2009 Commission’s determinations transmitted to Commerce

 1 The list of hearing witnesses is presented in app. B.
 6

 19 U.S.C. 160(a).

 7 Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan: Investigation and Hearing, 43 FR 39454, September 5,

1978. The petition which led to Treasury’s determination of LTFV sales was filed on behalf of the following five

domestic producers of PC strand: American Spring Wire Corp. (“American”), Armco Steel Corp. (“Armco”),

Bethlehem Steel Corp. (“Bethlehem Steel”), CF&I Steel Corp. (“CF&I”), and Florida Wire & Cable Co. (“Florida

Wire”). Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan, Investigation No. AA1921-188, USITC Publication

928, November 1978, p. A-3.

 8

 Kawatetsu was excluded from Treasury’s original determination because its weighted-average margin of 0.62

percent was considered minimal in relation to the total volume of its sales and because the firm gave formal

assurances that it would make no future sales at LTFV. Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan: 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Discontinuance of Antidumping Investigation, 43 FR

38495, August 28, 1978; Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan: Determination of Injury, 43 FR

55826, November 29, 1978.

 9 Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan: Determination of Injury, 43 FR 55826, November 29,

1978.

 10 Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan, 43 FR 57599, December 8, 1978.

 11 Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan, Investigation No. AA1921-188, USITC Publication

928, November 1978, p. A-2. Commerce later extended Treasury’s “discontinuance” to Kawasaki Steel

Techno-Wire Co., Ltd., Kawatetsu’s successor company. Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete From Japan;

Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 55 FR 28796, July 13, 1990.

 12 Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty, Administrative

Review and Revocation In Part, 51 FR 30894, August 29, 1986. Sumitomo had the highest weighted average LTFV

margin calculated by Treasury and accounted for *** percent of Japan’s exports to the United States between June 1

and November 30, 1977. Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan: Inv. No. AA1921-188,

OP2-B-178, November 3, 1978, p. A-9, table 1.

I-3

THE ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND SUBSEQUENT FIVE-YEAR REVIEWS

Japan

The Commission instituted an antidumping duty investigation concerning PC strand from Japan

(Inv. No. AA1921-188) on August 29, 1978, following notification from the Department of the Treasury

(“Treasury”) on August 22, 1978, that steel wire strand from Japan was being, or was likely to be, sold in

the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”) within the meaning of the Antidumping Act, 1921, as

amended.6 7

 Treasury published its final determination of sales at LTFV on August 28, 1978, with the

following weighted-average dumping margins: Shinko Wire Co., Ltd. (13.3 percent), Sumitomo Electric

Ind. Ltd. (15.8 percent), Suzuki Metal Industry Co., Ltd. (6.0 percent), Kawatetsu Wire Products Co., Ltd.

(0.62 percent), and Tokyo Rope Mfg. Co., Ltd. (4.5 percent).8

 The Commission made its final affirmative

injury determination on November 16, 1978,9

 and Treasury issued an antidumping duty finding on

imports of PC strand from Japan on December 8, 1978.10 

In the original investigation, Treasury excluded one Japanese firm producing and exporting PC

strand, Kawatetsu, from its antidumping duty finding.11 In 1986, Commerce revoked the antidumping

duty finding for a second Japanese producer of PC strand, Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd.12
 13 Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Japan, Investigation No. AA1921-188 (Review), USITC

Publication 3156, February 1999. Commissioner Askey determined that revocation of the antidumping duty finding

in this case would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United

States.

 14 Continuation of Antidumping Finding: Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand From Japan, 64 FR 40554,

July 27, 1999.

 15 Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Japan, Investigation No. AA1921-188 (Second Review), USITC

Publication 3699, June 2004.

 16 Continuation of Antidumping Duty Findings: Prestressed Concrete Wire Strand from Japan and Pressure

Sensitive Plastic Tape From Italy, 69 FR 35584, June 25, 2004.

 17 The petition was filed by American, Insteel Wire Products Co. (“Insteel”), and Sumiden Wire Products

Corp. (“Sumiden”). 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 Publication 3663, January 2004, p.

I-1.

I-4

In January 1999, the Commission completed an expedited first five-year review of the

antidumping duty finding on PC strand from Japan, and determined that revocation of the finding would

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

within a reasonably foreseeable time.13 Following five-year reviews by Commerce and the Commission,

effective February 3, 1999, Commerce issued a continuation of the antidumping duty finding on imports

of PC strand from Japan.14 

In June 2004, the Commission completed an expedited second five-year review of the

antidumping duty finding on PC strand from Japan, and unanimously determined that revocation of the

finding would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the

United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.15 Following second five-year reviews by Commerce

and the Commission, effective June 25, 2004, Commerce issued a continuation of the antidumping duty

finding on imports of PC strand from Japan.16 

Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand

On January 31, 2003, a petition was filed with Commerce and the Commission alleging that an

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

subsidized imports of PC strand from India and by reason of LTFV imports of PC strand from Brazil,

India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand.17 On December 8, 2003, Commerce made a final affirmative

countervailable subsidy determination with respect to PC strand from India and final affirmative dumping

determinations with respect to PC strand from Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand. Commerce

calculated a final net subsidy rate of 62.92 percent ad valorem for all Indian producers/exporters of the

subject merchandise and it calculated the following final weighted-average dumping margins: Brazil

(118.75 percent), India (83.65-102.07 percent), Korea (35.64-54.19 percent), Mexico (67.78-77.20 
 18 Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical

Circumstances: Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Thailand, Notice of Final Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Prestressed Concrete Steel

Wire Strand from Mexico, Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Prestressed Concrete

Steel Wire Strand from India, Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Prestressed

Concrete Steel Wire Strand from the Republic of Korea, Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value: Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Brazil, Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination:

Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand From India, 68 FR 68348-68357, December 8, 2003.

 19 Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand From Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand, Investigations Nos.

701-TA-432 and 731-TA-1024-1028 (Final), 69 FR 4177, January 28, 2004.

 20 Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from the Republic of Korea,

Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from India, Notice of Amended Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Prestressed Concrete Steel

Wire Strand from Thailand, Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from

Brazil, Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Mexico, 69 FR 4109-4113,

January 28, 2004; and Notice of Countervailing Duty Order: Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand From India,

69 FR 5319, February 4, 2004.

 21 Note that the subject import data as calculated from official import statistics and presented in table I-1 and

throughout this report are overstated by the entry of nonsubject merchandise (e.g., galvanized strand) under the

applicable HTS statistical reporting numbers for the subject PC strand. Although in aggregate the degree of

overstatement is relatively minor, for certain smaller suppliers, galvanized PC strand can account for a substantial

share of U.S. imports. In addition, imports of PC strand from Japan during the period 1974-77 include product from

Kawatetsu – a firm that was exempted from Treasure’s LTFV finding. Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete

from Japan: Inv. No. AA1921-188, OP2-B-178, November 3, 1978, p. A-29.

I-5

percent), and Thailand (12.99 percent).18 The Commission made its final affirmative injury

determinations on January 21, 200419 and Commerce issued a countervailing duty order on imports of PC

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

Mexico, and Thailand thereafter.20

SUMMARY DATA

Table I-1 presents a summary of data from the original investigations and from these reviews.21
I-6

Table I-1

PC strand: Summary data from the original investigations, first and second reviews (Japan), and current

reviews, 1974-77, 1997, and 2000-08

(Quantity=1,000 pounds; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs,

and unit financial data are per 1,000 pounds)

Item 1974 1975 1976 1977 1997

U.S. consumption quantity:

Amount 433,119 254,989 229,205 290,500 588,153

Producers’ share1 27.0 28.5 35.1 31.2 77.3

Importer’s share:1

Brazil (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

India (2

) (2) (2) (2) (2)

Korea (2

) (2) (2) (2) (2)

Mexico (2

) (2) (2) (2) (2)

Thailand (2

) (2) (2) (2) (2)

Subtotal, 5 subject countries (2

) (2) (2) (2) (2)

Japan3 68.2 65.4 60.7 60.7 0.1

Subtotal, 6 subject countries (2

) (2) (2) (2) (2)

All other countries2 3 4.8 6.1 4.2 8.0 22.6

Total imports 73.0 71.5 64.9 68.8 22.7

U.S. consumption value:

Amount N/A N/A N/A N/A 187,984

Producers’ share1 N/A N/A N/A N/A 80.0

Importer’s share:1

Brazil N/A N/A N/A N/A (2)

India N/A N/A N/A N/A (2

)

Korea N/A N/A N/A N/A (2

)

Mexico N/A N/A N/A N/A (2

)

Thailand N/A N/A N/A N/A (2

)

Subtotal, 5 subject countries N/A N/A N/A N/A (2

)

Japan3 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.2

Subtotal, 6 subject countries N/A N/A N/A N/A (2

)

All other countries2 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A 19.8

Total imports N/A N/A N/A N/A 20.0

Table continued on following page.
I-7

Table I-1--Continued

PC strand: Summary data from the original investigations, first and second reviews (Japan), and current reviews,

1974-77, 1997, and 2000-08

(Quantity=1,000 pounds; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs,

and unit financial data are per 1,000 pounds)

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

U.S

Pro 785,818 761,201 748,182 805,929 859,433 907,092 1,112,214 980,504 942,713

Imp: 76.8 73.8 69.7 70.0 66.8 68.6 56.4 59.4 56.2

In

Ko 4.0 2.9 3.1 2.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Me 1.2 1.8 1.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Th 4.9 5.6 8.5 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.4

4.1 4.9 7.1 4.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2

1.0 1.8 1.4 0.8 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

Su 15.1 17.0 22.0 13.2 0.9 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.5

0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1

15.3 17.1 22.1 13.3 1.0 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.7

Jap 7.8 9.1 8.2 16.7 32.2 31.1 42.9 39.8 43.1

Su 23.2 26.2 30.3 30.0 33.2 31.4 43.6 40.6 43.8

All

To 207,066 194,048 181,395 215,223 353,511 425,623 465,112 407,169 549,768

U.S: 77.0 73.7 69.9 71.3 71.9 70.8 63.9 65.9 60.7

Pro

Imp: 3.9 2.7 2.9 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Ind 1.1 1.6 1.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Kor 4.6 5.2 7.8 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.4

Mex 4.4 5.3 8.0 5.4 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.2

Tha 0.9 1.8 1.4 0.7 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

Sub 14.9 16.6 21.8 12.3 0.7 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.6

Jap 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2

Sub 15.3 16.8 21.9 12.5 1.0 0.4 0.7 0.9 0.8

All 7.7 9.5 8.2 16.3 27.2 28.8 35.3 33.1 38.5

Tot 23.0 26.3 30.1 28.7 28.1 29.2 36.1 34.1 39.3

Table continued on following page.
I-8

Table I-1--Continued

PC strand: Summary data from the original investigations, first and second reviews (Japan), and current

reviews, 1974-77, 1997, and 2000-08

(Quantity=1,000 pounds; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, 

and unit financial data are per 1,000 pounds)

Item 1974 1975 1976 1977 1997

U.S. imports from–4

Brazil:

Quantity (2

) (2) (2) (2) (2)

Value (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

Unit value (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

India:

Quantity (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

Value (2

) (2) (2) (2) (2)

Unit value (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

Korea:

Quantity (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

Value (2

) (2) (2) (2) (2)

Unit value (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

Mexico:

Quantity (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

Value (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

Unit value (2

) (2) (2) (2) (2)

Thailand:

Quantity (2

) (2) (2) (2) (2)

Value (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

Unit value (2

) (2) (2) (2) (2)

Subtotal, 5 subject countries:

Quantity (2

) (2) (2) (2) (2)

Value (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

Unit value (2

) (2) (2) (2) (2)

Japan:

Quantity 295,304 166,750 139,096 176,452 597

Value 67,589 52,973 28,662 34,372 362

Unit value $229 $318 $206 $195 $607

Subtotal, 6 subject countries:

Quantity (2

) (2) (2) (2) (2)

Value (2

) (2) (2) (2) (2)

Unit value (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

All other countries:3

Quantity 20,740 15,659 9,657 23,311 133,096

Value 5,876 5,592 1,891 4,474 37,311

Unit value $283 $357 $196 $192 $280

All countries:

Quantity 316,044 182,409 148,753 199,763 133,693

Value 73,465 58,565 30,553 38,846 37,673

Unit value $232 $321 $205 $194 $282

Table continued on following page.
I-9

Table I-1--Continued

PC strand: Summary data from the original investigations, first and second reviews (Japan), and current

reviews, 1974-77, 1997, and 2000-08

(Quantity=1,000 pounds; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs,

and unit financial data are per 1,000 pounds)

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

31,389 22,076 23,078 21,511 449 0 0 0 0

7,976 5,227 5,219 4,610 168 0 0 0 0

$254 $237 $226 $214 $373 --- --- --- ---

9,436 13,553 14,436 3,210 34 2 2 235 209

2,253 3,012 3,096 704 41 17 9 81 156

$239 $222 $214 $219 $1,208 $7,934 $5,265 $344 $746

38,315 42,635 63,739 36,934 316 258 3,958 2,831 3,325

9,479 10,044 14,062 7,995 167 196 1,506 1,399 2,201

$247 $236 $221 $216 $527 $759 $380 $494 $662

31,863 37,065 52,964 38,257 867 555 1,526 2,283 1,514

9,207 10,360 14,506 11,534 290 187 729 1,036 885

$289 $280 $274 $301 $335 $337 $478 $454 $584

7,620 13,881 10,661 6,791 5,800 624 45 0 0

1,930 3,491 2,626 1,572 1,819 240 25 0 0

$253 $251 $246 $231 $314 $385 $543 --- ---

118,623 129,210 164,878 106,703 7,466 1,439 5,530 5,349 5,048

30,845 32,134 39,509 26,415 2,485 640 2,268 2,516 3,241

$260 $249 $240 $248 $333 $444 $410 $470 $642

1,655 976 494 768 1,545 1,564 1,580 1,952 1,380

918 533 262 399 876 1,092 1,100 1,343 916

$554 $546 $529 $519 $567 $698 $696 $688 $663

120,278 130,186 165,372 107,471 9,011 3,003 7,111 7,301 6,429

31,763 32,667 39,771 26,813 3,361 1,732 3,368 3,859 4,157

$264 $251 $240 $249 $373 $577 $474 $529 $647

61,685 69,191 61,487 134,423 276,723 282,247 477,667 390,402 406,312

15,919 18,422 14,846 34,990 95,994 122,471 164,334 134,966 211,890

$258 $266 $241 $260 $347 $434 $344 $346 $521

181,963 199,377 226,859 241,894 285,733 285,250 484,778 397,703 412,741

47,682 51,089 54,617 61,803 99,355 124,203 167,702 138,825 216,047

$262 $256 $241 $255 $348 $435 $346 $349 $523

Table continued on following page.
I-10

Table I-1--Continued

PC strand: Summary data from the original investigations, first and second reviews (Japan), and current

reviews, 1974-77, 1997, and 2000-08

(Quantity=1,000 pounds; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs,

and unit financial data are per 1,000 pounds)

Item 1974 1975 1976 1977 1997

U.S. producers’--

Capacity quantity 133,600 129,600 176,600 180,800 533,715

Production quantity 118,916 77,418 78,112 92,020 482,666

Capacity utilization1 89.0 59.7 44.2 50.9 90.4

U.S. shipments:

Quantity 117,075 72,580 80,452 90,737 454,460

Value N/A N/A N/A N/A 150,311

Unit value N/A N/A N/A N/A $331

Ending inventory quantity 3,608 7,806 4,608 5,029 N/A

Inventories/total shipments1 3.0 10.5 5.7 5.5 N/A

Production workers 341 238 270 278 N/A

Hours worked (1,000 hours) 672 461 581 584 N/A

Wages paid (1,000 dollars) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Hourly wages N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Productivity (1,000 pounds per hour) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Net sales:

Quantity 120,419 74,103 81,253 91,599 N/A

Value 28,063 24,636 20,905 24,848 155,705

Unit value $233 $332 $257 $271 N/A

Cost of goods sold 20,328 17,940 19,575 24,261 128,952

Gross profit or (loss) 7,735 6,696 1,330 587 26,753

SG&A 1,673 1,908 1,942 2,314 9,302

Operating income or (loss) 6,062 4,788 (612) (1,727) 17,451

Unit cost of goods sold $169 $242 $241 $265 N/A

Unit operating income or (loss) $50 $65 ($8) ($19) N/A

Cost of goods sold/sales1 72.4 72.8 93.6 97.6 82.8

Operating income or (loss)/sales1 21.6 19.4 (2.9) (7.0) 11.2 1

 In percent. 2

 Data for Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand for 1974-77 and 1997 are included in “all other countries.” 3

 2000-02 “all other countries” data presented are calculated by subtracting data for six subject countries from data presented for “all countries.” 4

 U.S. shipments of imports for Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand for 2000-02.

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. N/A=not available.

Source: Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Japan: Inv. No. AA1921-188 (Second Review), INV-BB-058, May 10, 2004, tables I-2, I-4, and I-5; Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan: Inv. No. AA1921-188, OP2-B-178,

November 3, 1978, pp. A-19 and A-23; and Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Japan: Inv. No. AA1921-188 (Review), INV-V-108, December 31, 1998, table I-1 (for 1974-77 and 1997 data presented); Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from

Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand: Investigations Nos. 701-TA-432 and 731-TA-1024-1028 (Final), INV-AA-191,

December 19, 2003, table C-1 (for 2000-02 data presented); and compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics (for 2003-08 data presented).
I-11

Table I-1--Continued

PC strand: Summary data from the original investigations, first and second reviews (Japan), and current

reviews, 1974-77, 1997, and 2000-08

(Quantity=1,000 pounds; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs,

and unit financial data are per 1,000 pounds)

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

714,675 732,475 763,577 742,295 754,653 791,653 810,653 902,782 903,795

633,505 576,210 539,601 578,004 608,562 621,919 673,195 601,732 558,885

88.6 78.7 70.7 77.9 80.6 78.6 83.0 66.7 61.8

603,855 561,824 521,323 564,035 573,700 621,842 627,436 582,801 529,972

159,384 142,959 126,778 153,420 254,156 301,420 297,410 268,344 333,721

$264 $254 $243 $272 $443 $489 $474 $460 $630

51,918 53,043 47,117 38,343 59,605 44,596 68,014 61,262 67,082

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

409 353 308 315 335 364 385 357 331

926 788 671 762 744 784 856 771 694

13,481 12,109 10,171 11,658 12,764 14,302 16,963 14,145 13,264

$14.56 $15.36 $15.15 $15.30 $17.17 $18.24 $19.82 $18.34 $19.11

684.3 730.9 803.9 758.3 818.5 793.2 786.7 780.1 805.0

624,730 573,985 545,527 564,937 610,678 605,636 661,470 613,704 589,793

164,347 145,849 132,712 150,480 249,170 299,892 312,046 283,088 354,082

$263 $254 $243 $266 $408 $495 $472 $461 $600

139,500 133,909 125,756 135,503 193,659 235,830 248,909 230,394 302,334

24,847 11,940 6,956 14,977 55,511 64,062 63,137 52,694 51,748

12,339 9,874 12,805 9,887 13,251 13,233 14,648 13,317 13,795

12,508 2,066 (5,849) 5,090 42,260 50,829 48,489 39,377 37,953

$233 $233 $231 $240 $317 $389 $376 $375 $513

$20 $4 ($11) $9 $69 $84 $73 $64 $64

84.9 91.8 94.8 90.0 77.7 78.6 79.8 81.4 85.4

7.6 1.4 (4.4) 3.4 17.0 16.9 15.5 13.9 10.7 1

 In percent. 2

 Data for Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand for 1974-77 and 1997 are included in “all other countries.” 3

 2000-02 data presented are calculated from data presented for “all sources.”

4

 U.S. shipments of imports for Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand for 2000-02.

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. N/A=not available.

Source: Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Japan: Inv. No. AA1921-188 (Second Review), INV-BB-058, May 10, 2004, tables I-2, I-4, and I-5; Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan: Inv. No. AA1921-188, OP2-B-178, November 3, 1978, pp. A-19 and A-23; and Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Japan: Inv. No. AA1921-188 (Review), INV-V-108, December 31, 1998,

table I-1 (for 1974-77 and 1997 data presented); Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand: 

Investigations Nos. 701-TA-432 and 73 1-TA-1024-1028 (Final), INV-AA-191, December 19,2003, table C-1 (for 2000-02 data presented).
 22 At this time, there are ongoing countervailing duty and antidumping duty investigations on PC strand from

China. Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from China, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-464 and 731-TA-1160

(Preliminary), USITC Publication 4086, July 2009. Commerce is expected to issue its preliminary subsidy

determination on or about October 24, 2009 and its preliminary dumping determination on December 3, 2009. 

Therefore, any final phase investigation by the Commission will be completed in 2010. Prestressed Concrete Steel

Wire Strand From the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 74 FR 29665, June

23, 2009; Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand From the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of

Countervailing Duty Investigation, 74 FR 29670, June 23, 2009; Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from the

People’s Republic of China: Correction to Notice of Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation, 74 FR 38584,

August 4, 2009; Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand From the People’s Republic of China: Notice of

Postponement of Preliminary Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation, 74 FR 40567, August 12,

2009; and Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from the People's Republic of China: Postponement of the

Preliminary Determination of the Antidumping Duty Investigation, 74 FR 54963, October 26, 2009.

 23 19 U.S.C. § 2252.

 24 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, Investigation No. TA-201-

73, Volume I: Determinations and Views of Commissioners, USITC Publication 3479, December 2001, pp. 88-90,

273, and 312.

 25 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.

I-12

RELATED INVESTIGATIONS

Title VII Investigations

The Commission has conducted several antidumping and countervailing duty investigations and

five-year reviews concerning PC strand from 10 different countries. The earliest investigations

concerning PC strand were conducted by the Commission in 1978. Although the Commission did not

make a like product determination per se in its original 1978 determinations concerning India and Japan,

the Commission’s domestic like product and domestic industry determinations in all subsequent 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-2 presents information on title VII investigations and five-year reviews concerning PC

strand.22

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 197423 to determine whether certain steel products, including PC strand,24 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.25 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
Table I-2

PC strand: 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

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."

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(Final)

01/31/2003 01/21/2004

The Commission found the domestic like product to be all PC strand co-extensiv

with 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(Final)

Korea

731-TA-1026(Final)

Mexico

731-TA-1027(Final)

Thailand

731-TA-1028(Final)

China

701-TA-464731-TA-1060(Preliminary) 05/27/2009 07/13/2009

Consistent with its findings in previous investigations involving PC strand, theCommission defined a single domestic like product in a manner that wasco-extensive with the scope of the investigations. Likewise, it similarly found thedomestic industry to include all domestic producers of PC strand.

Source: Various Commission publications and Federal Register notices.

I-13
 26 19 U.S.C. § 2251.

 27 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.

 28 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).

I-14

investigate certain steel imports under section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974.26 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-201-73.27 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.28

STATUTORY CRITERIA AND ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

Statutory Criteria

Section 751(c) of the Act requires Commerce and the Commission to conduct a review no later

than five years after the issuance of an antidumping or countervailing duty order or the suspension of an

investigation to determine whether revocation of the order or termination of the suspended investigation

“would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or a countervailable subsidy (as the

case may be) and of material injury.”

Section 752(a) of the Act provides that in making its determination of likelihood of continuation

or recurrence of material injury--

(1) IN GENERAL.-- . . . the Commission shall determine whether revocation of

an order, or termination of a suspended investigation, would be likely to lead to

continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. The

Commission shall consider the likely volume, price effect, and impact of imports of the

subject merchandise on the industry if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation

is terminated. The Commission shall take into account--

(A) its prior injury determinations, including the volume, price

effect, and impact of imports of the subject merchandise on the industry

before the order was issued or the suspension agreement was accepted, 

(B) whether any improvement in the state of the industry is

related to the order or the suspension agreement, 

(C) whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the

order is revoked or the suspension agreement is terminated, and 

(D) in an antidumping proceeding . . ., (Commerce’s findings)

regarding duty absorption . . ..

(2) VOLUME.--In evaluating the likely volume of imports of the subject

merchandise if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated, the

Commission shall consider whether the likely volume of imports of the subject

merchandise would be significant if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is
I-15

terminated, either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the

United States. In so doing, the Commission shall consider all relevant economic factors,

including--

(A) any likely increase in production capacity or existing unused

production capacity in the exporting country, 

(B) existing inventories of the subject merchandise, or likely

increases in inventories, 

(C) the existence of barriers to the importation of such

merchandise into countries other than the United States, and 

(D) the potential for product-shifting if production facilities in

the foreign country, which can be used to produce the subject

merchandise, are currently being used to produce other products.

(3) PRICE.--In evaluating the likely price effects of imports of the subject

merchandise if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated, the

Commission shall consider whether--

(A) there is likely to be significant price underselling by imports

of the subject merchandise as compared to domestic like products, and 

(B) imports of the subject merchandise are likely to enter the

United States at prices that otherwise would have a significant

depressing or suppressing effect on the price of domestic like products.

(4) IMPACT ON THE INDUSTRY.--In evaluating the likely impact of imports of

the subject merchandise on the industry if the order is revoked or the suspended

investigation is terminated, the Commission shall consider all relevant economic factors

which are likely to have a bearing on the state of the industry in the United States,

including, but not limited to--

(A) likely declines in output, sales, market share, profits,

productivity, return on investments, and utilization of capacity, 

(B) likely negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment,

wages, growth, ability to raise capital, and investment, and 

(C) likely negative effects on the existing development and

production efforts of the industry, including efforts to develop a

derivative or more advanced version of the domestic like product.

The Commission shall evaluate all such relevant economic factors . . . within the context

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

industry.

Section 752(a)(6) of the Act states further that in making its determination, “the Commission may

consider the magnitude of the margin of dumping or the magnitude of the net countervailable subsidy. If

a countervailable subsidy is involved, the Commission shall consider information regarding the nature of

the countervailable subsidy and whether the subsidy is a subsidy described in Article 3 or 6.1 of the

Subsidies Agreement.”
 29 There are currently five U.S. producers of PC strand: American, Insteel, RettCo Steel, LLC (“Rettco”)/MMI

StrandCo. (“MMI”), Strand-Tech Martin (“Strand-Tech”), and Sumiden. The data presented in this report do not

include the data of two U.S. PC strand producers (PCS of America (“PCS”) and EMC) that ceased production during

2006-07.

 30 No duty absorption findings were made for any of the subject countries.

 31 For previously reviewed or investigated companies not included in an administrative review, the cash deposit

rate continues to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period.

I-16

Organization of the Report

Information obtained during the course of the reviews that relate to the statutory factors listed

above is presented throughout this report. A summary of data collected in the reviews is presented in

appendix C, table C-1. U.S. industry data are based on questionnaire responses of five firms that

accounted for all U.S. production of PC strand during 2008.29 U.S. imports presented in the body of this

report are based on Commerce’s official import statistics. Responses by U.S. producers, importers, and

purchasers of PC strand and producers of PC strand in Brazil, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand

to a series of questions concerning the significance of the existing antidumping and countervailing duty

orders and the likely effects of revocation are presented in appendix D. Appendix E presents aggregate

price data for pre-tensioned and post-tensioned applications.

COMMERCE’S REVIEWS30

Administrative Reviews

Commerce has conducted no administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders concerning

PC strand from Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand and has conducted no administrative reviews

of the countervailing duty order concerning PC strand from India. However, Commerce has conducted

several administrative reviews of the antidumping duty finding on PC strand from Japan. The results of

Commerce’s administrative reviews concerning the antidumping duty finding on PC strand from Japan

are shown in table I-3.31 On August 29, 1986, Commerce revoked the antidumping duty finding with

respect to PC strand from Japan produced by Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd., and exported by

Sumitomo Corp.
I-17

Table I-3

PC strand: Commerce’s administrative reviews of the antidumping duty finding concerning Japan

Date results

published Producer/exporter Period of review Margin

October 6, 1983

(48 FR 45586)

Kokoku Steel Wire, Ltd./All exporters 04/01/78 - 11/30/80 0.0

Shinko Wire Co., Ltd./All exporters (except Mitsui &

Co. Ltd.) 04/01/78 - 03/31/79 0.0

Shinko Wire Co. Ltd./Mitsubishi Corp./Freyssinet

International; and Shinko Wire Co., Ltd./All other

exporters (except Mitsui & Co. Ltd.) 04/01/79 - 11/30/80 0.0

Sumitomo Electric Ind. Ltd./All exporters (except

Mitsui & Co. Ltd.) 04/01/78 - 12/31/80 0.0

Suzuki Metal Industry Co. Ltd./Mitsubishi Corp.

04/01/79 - 12/31/79 0.29

01/01/80 - 11/30/80 0.0

Suzuki Metal Industry Co., Ltd./Nissho-Iwai Co. Ltd.

04/01/79 - 12/31/79 0.03

01/01/80 - 11/30/80 0.0

Suzuki Metal Industry Co. Ltd./All other exporters

(except Mitsui & Co. Ltd.) 04/01/79 - 11/30/80 0.0

Teikoku Sangyo Co. Ltd./All exporters (except Mitsui

& Co. Ltd.) 04/01/78 - 03/31/79 0.0

Teikoku Sangyo Co. Ltd./Nissho-Iwai Co. Ltd. 04/01/79 - 11/30/80 0.1

Teikoku Sangyo Co. Ltd./AII other exporters (except

Mitsui & Co. Ltd.) 04/01/79 - 11/30/80 0.0

Tokyo Rope Mfg. Co., Ltd./All exporters (except

Mitsui & Co. Ltd.) 04/01/78 - 11/30/80 0.0

August 29, 1986

(51 FR 30894)

Shinko Wire Co. Ltd./Mitsubishi Corp./Freyssinet

International; and Shinko Wire Co., Ltd./All other

exporters (except Mitsui & Co. Ltd.)1 12/01/80 - 11/30/82 0.0

Sumitomo Electric Ind., Ltd./Sumitomo Corp., Japan;

and Sumitomo Electric Ind. Ltd./All other exporters

(except Mitsui & Co. Ltd.)2 01/01/81 - 05/20/82 0.0

Suzuki Metal Industry Co., Ltd.; Suzuki Metal Industry

Co., Ltd./Mitsubishi Corp./Nissho-Iwai Co., Ltd.; and

Suzuki Metal Industry Co., Ltd./All other exporters

(except Mitsui & Co., Ltd.) 12/01/80 - 11/30/82 0.0

Tokyo Rope Mfg. Co., Ltd.; and Tokyo Rope Mfg.

Co., Ltd./All other exporters (except Mitsui & Co.,

Ltd.) 12/01/80 - 11/30/82 4.5

February 11, 1987

(52 FR 4373)

(as corrected on

October 13, 1987

(52 FR 37997)

Mitsubishi Corp.3 12/1/82 - 11/30/85 0.0

Shinko Wire Co., Ltd./All other exporters (except

Mitsui & Co., Ltd.)3 12/1/82 - 11/30/85 0.0

Suzuki Metal Industry Co., Ltd./All other Exporters

(except Mitsui & Co., Ltd.)3 12/1/82 - 11/30/85 0.0

Tokyo Rope Mfg. Co., Ltd./All other exporters (except

Mitsui & Co., Ltd.)3 12/1/82 - 11/30/85 4.5

Table continued on following page.
I-18

Table I-3--Continued

PC strand: Commerce’s administrative reviews of the antidumping duty finding concerning Japan

Date results

published Producer/exporter Period of review Margin

March 25, 1988

(53 FR 9787)

(as corrected on

April 5, 1988

(53 FR 11162)

Kokoku Steel Wire, Ltd. 12/01/85 - 11/30/86 0.04

Mitsubishi Corp. 12/01/85 - 11/30/86 0.04

Nissho Iwai Co., Ltd. 12/01/85 - 11/30/86 0.04

Shinko Wire Co., Ltd. 12/01/85 - 11/30/86 0.04

Suzuki Metal Industry Co., Ltd. 12/01/85 - 11/30/86 0.04

Teikoku Sangyo Co., Ltd. 12/01/85 - 11/30/86 0.04

Tokyo Rope Mfg. Co., Ltd. 12/01/85 - 11/30/86 4.54

November 7, 1990

(55 FR 46853) All manufacturers/Mitsui & Co., Ltd. 04/01/78 - 11/30/85 15.8

December 26,

1991

(56 FR 66840) All manufacturers/Mitsui & Co., Ltd. 12/01/85 - 11/30/88 15.85

November 12,

1997

(62 FR 60688)

Amended final

results

Shinko Wire Co., Ltd./Mitsui & Co., Ltd. 04/01/78 - 11/30/83 0.0

Sumitomo Electric Ind., Ltd./Mitsui & Co., Ltd. 04/01/78 - 11/30/83 0.0

Suzuki Metal Ind. Co., Ltd./Mitsui & Co., Ltd. 04/01/78 - 11/30/83 0.0

Teikoku Sangyo Co., Ltd./Mitsui & Co., Ltd. 04/01/78 - 11/30/83 0.0

Tokyo Rope Mfg. Co., Ltd./Mitsui & Co., Ltd.

04/01/78 - 11/30/80 0.0

12/01/80 - 11/30/83 4.55

 1 Shinko Wire Co. Ltd./Mitsubishi Corp./Freyssinet International made no shipments of PC strand to the United

States during 12/1/81 to 11/30/82.

 2

 Sumitomo Electric Ind., Ltd. made no shipments of PC strand to the United States during 1/1/82 to 5/20/82. 

The antidumping duty finding was revoked with respect to PC strand manufactured by Sumitomo Electric Industries,

Ltd. and exported by Sumitomo Corp., Japan, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after

May 20, 1982.

 3

 Mitsubishi Corp.; Shinko Wire Co. Ltd.; Suzuki Metal Industry Co., Ltd.; and Tokyo Rope Mfg. Co., Ltd. made

no shipments of PC strand to the United States during 12/1/82 to 11/30/85.

 4

 There were no known shipments of PC strand to the United States during 12/1/85 to 11/30/86. Margins were

obtained from the last review where there were shipments.

 5

 Mitsui & Co., Ltd. made no shipments of PC strand to the United States from 12/1/1982 to 11/30/1983 and from

12/1/85 to 11/30/88.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.
 32 Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete From Japan: Final Results of Changed Circumstances

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 55 FR 28796, July 13, 1990. 

 33 Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Japan: Inv. No. AA1921-188 (Second Review), INV-BB-058,

May 10, 2004, p. I-18, fn. 41. In May 2002, Kawasaki Steel Corp. and NKK Corp. concluded an agreement for

consolidation of their entire operations, including their subsidiaries and affiliates. The newly consolidated entity was

named JFE Group. JFE Holdings web site, http://www.jfe-holdings.co.jp/en, accessed October 1, 2009.

 34 Staff telephone notes, ***, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, October 2,

2009; and domestic producers’ prehearing brief, p. 26.

 35 The Court of International Trade (“CIT”) upheld Commerce’s scope determination in Cablesa S.A. de C.V. v.

United States, 29 Int’l Trade Rep. 1438 (CIT 2007). Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Expedited Sunset

Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Finding/Orders on Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Brazil, India,

Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and Thailand, Memorandum to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant

Secretary for Import Administration, March 19, 2009, p. 6; Notice of Scope Rulings, 70 FR 24533, May 10, 2005.

 36 Domestic Producers’ Prehearing Brief, pp. 18-19; hearing transcript, p. 39 (Cornelius).

I-19

Changed-Circumstances Reviews

There have been no changed-circumstances reviews concerning the countervailing duty order on

PC strand from India and no changed-circumstances reviews concerning the antidumping duty orders on

PC strand from Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand. However, since the publication of the

antidumping duty finding on PC strand from Japan, Commerce published one notice of final results of

changed-circumstances review with respect to that finding. In that review, Commerce determined that

Kawasaki Steel Techno-Wire was the successor-in-interest to Kawatetsu Wire Products Co., Ltd.

(“Kawatetsu”), and that the discontinuance previously issued to Kawatetsu applied to Kawasaki Steel

Techno-Wire.32 However, the discontinuance that Commerce applied in 1990 to Kawasaki Steel TechnoWire as Kawatetsu’s successor-in-interest does not apply to JFE Techno-Wire, the apparent successor

firm to Kawasaki Steel Techno-Wire,33 because a changed-circumstances review has not been conducted

by Commerce concerning Kawasaki Steel Techno-Wire’s successor-in-interest. Therefore, any

production of PC strand by JFE Techno-Wire in Japan would be subject to the antidumping duty order

upon entry into the United States.34

Scope Inquiry Reviews

There have been no scope inquiry reviews concerning the countervailing duty order on PC strand

from India and the antidumping duty finding/orders on PC strand from Brazil, India, Japan, Korea, and

Thailand. However, Commerce conducted a scope inquiry with respect to the antidumping duty order on

PC strand from Mexico, as requested by domestic PC strand producers American, Insteel, and Sumiden,

and Mexican PC strand producer Cablesa , S.A. de C.V. (“Cablesa”) (predecessor company to Mexican

PC strand producer Deacero). On June 16, 2004, Commerce issued a scope ruling in connecting with that

inquiry finding that 0.05 oz/sq. ft. zinc-coated PC strand was within the scope of the antidumping duty

order.35 The domestic interested parties in these reviews explained that Commerce’s scope inquiry review

concerning PC strand from Mexico was requested after Cablesa began lightly coating the subject

merchandise with zinc and claiming that the product was a galvanized product outside the scope of the

order. The lightly zinc-coated product was found by Commerce (and ultimately the CIT) to be within the

scope of the order.36

At the Commission’s hearing in these reviews, Mexican producer Deacero testified that “in our

many decades of international operation with more than 20 countries {we’ve} never been accused of
 37 Hearing transcript, p. 156 (Fernandez).

 38 Ibid., p. 157 (Fernandez).

 39 Mexican Producers’ Prehearing Brief, p. 3.

 40 Hearing transcript, pp. 241-242 and 244-245 (Levin), 

I-20

unfair trading with respect to any of the product we sell.”37 Deacero further indicated that, since its

purchase of Cablesa in 2007 (three years after the scope inquiry review by Commerce), it has “never

taken any action that could be interpreted as an attempt to circumvent the antidumping order or to play

fast and loose with the rules, such as applying a thin coat of seal on the product and calling it galvanized

PC strand.”38 Both Camesa (purchased by Wireco WorldGroup in 2005) and Deacero stated that under

their new ownership, they are “untainted by unfair trading.”39 In addition, counsel for the Mexican

interested parties argued that the Mexican producers believe that any attempt at circumvention of the

antidumping duty is “an abomination” and that “it’s important to distinguish the actions of Cablesa from

the current market posture of Deacero.”40

Results of Five-Year Reviews

Table I-4 presents the margins calculated by Commerce in its original investigations and

subsequent five-year reviews concerning the antidumping duty finding on PC strand from Japan. Also

presented are the margins calculated by Commerce in its original investigations and expedited first fiveyear reviews concerning the countervailing duty order on PC strand from India (table I-5) and the

antidumping duty orders on PC strand from Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand (table I-6).

Table I-4

PC strand: Commerce’s original and subsequent five-year review antidumping duty margins for

producers/exporters in Japan1

Producer/exporter

Original

margin

(percent)

First fiveyear review

margin

(percent)

Second fiveyear review

margin

(percent)

Third fiveyear review

margin

(percent)

Kawatetsu Wire Products Co. Ltd. (2

) (2) (2) (2)

Shinko Wire Co., Ltd. 13.30 13.30 13.30 13.30

Sumitomo Electric Industries Ltd. 15.80 (3

) (3) (3)

Suzuki Metal Industry Co., Ltd. 6.90 6.90 6.90 6.90

Tokyo Rope Mfg. Co., Ltd. 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50

All others (4

) 9.76 9.76 9.76

 1 Antidumping duty finding, 43 FR 57599, December 8, 1978; final results of first expedited sunset review, 64

FR 857, January 6, 1999; final results of second expedited five-year review, 69 FR 25563, May 7, 2004; and final

results of third expedited five-year review, 74 FR 13189, March 26, 2009. 

 2

 On August 28, 1978, Treasury discontinued the antidumping duty investigation with respect to imports from

Kawatetsu Wire Products Co., Ltd. (43 FR 38495, August 28, 1978). As indicated earlier in the section of this

report entitled “Changed-Circumstances Reviews,” although the discontinuance applies to successor Kawasaki

Steel Techno-Wire (55 FR 28796, July 13, 1990), it does not apply to successor JFE Techno-Wire (formed in

2002).

 3

 On August 29, 1986, Commerce revoked the finding with respect to imports produced by Sumitomo Electric

Ind., Ltd. and exported by the Sumitomo Corp. 51 FR 30894, August 29, 1986.

 4

 Treasury did not publish an “all others” rate in its final determination. 43 FR 38495, August 28, 1978.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.
I-21

Table I-5

PC strand: Commerce’s original and first five-year review countervailing duty margin for

producers/exporters in India1

Producer/exporter

Original cash deposit

rate

(percent)

First five-year review

net countervailable

subsidy (percent)

All producers/exporters 62.92 62.92

 1 Countervailing duty order, 69 FR 5319, February 4, 2004; final results of first expedited sunset review, 74 FR

15938, April 8, 2009.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

Table I-6

PC strand: Commerce’s original and first five-year review antidumping duty margins for

producers/exporters in Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand, by subject country

Producer/exporter

Original margin

(percent)

First five-year review margin

(percent)

Brazil1

Belgo Bekaert Arames S.A. 118.75 118.75

All others 118.75 118.75

India2

Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. 102.07 102.07

All others 83.65 83.65

Korea3

Dong-Il Steel Mfg. Co. Ltd. 54.19 54.19

Kiswire Ltd. 54.19 54.19

All others 35.64 35.64

Mexico4

Aceros Camesa S.A. de C.V. 62.78 62.78

Cablesa S.A. de C.V. 77.20 77.20

All others 62.78 62.78

Thailand5

Siam Industrial Wire Co. Ltd. 12.91 12.91

All others 12.91 12.91

 1 Antidumping duty order, 69 FR 4112, January 28, 2004; final results of first expedited five-year review, 74 FR

13189, March 26, 2009.

 2

 Antidumping duty order, 69 FR 4110, January 28, 2004; final results of first expedited five-year review, 74 FR

13189, March 26, 2009.

 3

 Antidumping duty order, 69 FR 4109, January 28, 2004; final results of first expedited five-year review, 74 FR

13189, March 26, 2009.

 4

 Antidumping duty order, 69 FR 4112, January 28, 2004; final results of first expedited five-year review, 74 FR

13189, March 26, 2009.

 5

 Antidumping duty order (amended margins), 69 FR 4111, January 28, 2004; final results of first expedited fiveyear review, 74 FR 13189, March 26, 2009.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.
 41 Section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)).

 42 19 CFR 159.64 (g).

 43 Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Brazil, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and

Thailand: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Finding/Orders, 74 FR 13189,

March 26, 2009; and Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review of Countervailing Duty Order: Prestressed Concrete

Steel Wire Strand from India, 74 FR 15938, April 8, 2009. 

 44 Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Brazil, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and

Thailand: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Finding/Orders, 74 FR 13189,

March 26, 2009.

I-22

DISTRIBUTION OF CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT FUNDS

The Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (“CDSOA”) (also known as the Byrd

Amendment) provides that assessed duties received pursuant to antidumping or countervailing duty

orders must be distributed to affected domestic producers for certain qualifying expenditures that these

producers incur after the issuance of such orders.41 During the review period, qualified U.S. producers of

PC strand were eligible to receive disbursements from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(“Customs”) under CDSOA relating to six antidumping duty orders/findings and one countervailing duty

order on the subject product.42 Table I-7 presents CDSOA disbursements and claims for Federal fiscal

years (October 1-September 30) 2005-07 by source and by firm, respectively. There were no CDSOA

disbursement and claims for Federal fiscal year 2008 and years prior to 2005. Also, there were no

disbursements in connection with the antidumping duty order/finding with respect to PC strand from

Brazil and Japan.

THE SUBJECT MERCHANDISE

Commerce’s Scope

Commerce defined the scope of the imported product subject to the antidumping duty orders on

PC strand from Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand as follows:

. . . steel strand produced from wire of non-stainless, non-galvanized steel, which is

suitable for use in prestressed concrete (both pre-tensioned and post-tensioned)

applications. The product definition encompasses covered and uncovered strand and all

types, grades, and diameters of PC strand.43

Commerce defined the scope of the imported products subject to the antidumping duty finding on

PC strand from Japan as follows:

. . . steel wire strand, other than alloy steel, not galvanized, which is stress-relieved and

suitable for use in prestressed concrete.44
I-23

Table I-7

PC strand: CDSOA disbursements, by source and firm, and total claims, Federal fiscal years 

2005-071

Item

Federal fiscal year

2005 2006 2007

Disbursements (dollars)

India:

 American 0 445 0

 Insteel 0 0 0

 Sumiden 0 0 0

 Total, India 0 445 0

Korea:

 American 1,307 14,762 2,768

 Insteel 3,672 0 9,321

 Sumiden 1,973 0 3,822

 Total, Korea 6,953 14,762 15,911

Mexico:

 American 1,651 0 0

 Insteel 4,639 0 0

 Sumiden 2,493 0 0

 Total, Mexico 8,783 0 0

Thailand:

 American 0 0 2,180

 Insteel 0 0 7,340

 Sumiden 0 0 3,010

 Total, Thailand 0 0 12,530

Total:

 American 2,958 15,207 4,949

 Insteel 8,312 0 16,661

 Sumiden 4,466 0 6,832

 Total, all countries 15,736 15,207 28,442

Claims (dollars)

American 52,850,900 96,199,462 141,685,900

Insteel 148,511,752 0 476,996,392

Sumiden 79,798,989 0 195,589,153

 Total 281,161,641 96,199,462 814,271,445

 1 There were no disbursements in connection with the antidumping duty order/finding concerning PC strand from Brazil and

Japan. In addition, there were no CDSOA disbursements and claims for Federal fiscal year 2008 and years prior to 2005. 

Note.--Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s CDSOA Annual Reports. Retrieved from

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/priority_trade/add_cvd/cont_dump/.
I-24

Tariff Treatment

PC strand 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-8 presents current tariff rates for PC strand.

Table I-8

PC strand: Tariff treatment, 2009

HTS provision Article description

Column 1

Column 22 General1 Special

Rates (ad valorem)

7312

7312.10

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 or wire

fitted with fittings or made up into

articles) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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.

Source: Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2009).
 45 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.

 46 Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand, Investigation Nos.

701-TA-432 (Final) and 731-TA-1024-1028 (Final), USITC Publication 3663, January 2004, p. I-7; Prestressed

Concrete Steel Wire Strand from China, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-464 and 731-TA-1160 (Preliminary), USITC

Publication 4086, July 2009, p. I-10.

 47 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. One-half

inch diameter grade 270 is believed to be the predominant size and grade used in the U.S. market. Prestressed

Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-432 (Final)

and 731-TA-1024-1028 (Final), USITC Publication 3663, January 2004, p. I-9; Hearing transcript, p. 42 (Wagner).

 48 Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand, Investigation Nos.

701-TA-432 (Final) and 731-TA-1024-1028 (Final), USITC Publication 3663, January 2004, p. I-7.

 49 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.

 50 Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand, Investigation Nos.

701-TA-432 (Final) and 731-TA-1024-1028 (Final), USITC Publication 3663, January 2004, p. I-7; Hearing

transcript, p. 43 (Wagner).

 51 Portland Cement Association web site, http://www.cement.org/basics/concreteproducts_prestressed.asp,

accessed June 10, 2009.

 52 PC strand may be sold to pre- and post-tensioners for the same purpose—to impart compressive forces into

concrete so that it can withstand tensile forces without cracking. Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from

China, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-464 and 731-TA-1160 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 4086, July 2009, p. I-10.

 53 Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand, Investigation Nos.

701-TA-432 (Final) and 731-TA-1024-1028 (Final), USITC Publication 3663, January 2004, p. I-7.

I-25

THE 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.45 Nominal diameters of PC strand

typically range from 0.25 to 0.70 inch46 and generally have three grade designations: 250, 270, and 300.47

PC strand is used in the construction of prestressed concrete structural components to introduce

compression into the concrete.48 This compression offsets or neutralizes forces within the concrete that

occur when it is subjected to loads.49 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.50 One of the most widespread uses of prestressed concrete, however, is

parking garages.51

PC strand may be pre-tensioned or post-tensioned.52 Pre-tensioned PC strand is tensioned (pulled

tightly and slightly elongated) using a calibrated tensioning apparatus, and concrete is cured around the

PC strand.53 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

between the concrete and the PC strand to hold the concrete in compression. Most pre-tensioned concrete
 54 Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from China, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-464 and 731-TA-1160

(Preliminary), USITC Publication 4086, July 2009, p. I-10.

 55 Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand, Investigation Nos.

701-TA-432 (Final) and 731-TA-1024-1028 (Final), USITC Publication 3663, January 2004, p. I-7.

 56 Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from China, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-464 and 731-TA-1160

(Preliminary), USITC Publication 4086, July 2009, p. I-10.

 57 Portland Cement Association web site, http://www.cement.org/buildings/post_tensioned_splash.asp, accessed

June 10, 2009. 

 58 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.

 59 Post-Tensioning Institute, “PTI Tonnage Report: Summary of Post-Tensioning Industry Shipments in North

America 1972-2007,” 2008, p. 1.

 60 Indented PC strand can increase the bond between the PC strand and concrete. Indenting increases the surface

area of the strand and provides a different shape to the surface, which causes it to bond to concrete better than a

smooth strand. This is most often used when end users have a shorter length end product where “the development of

a bond between the strand and the concrete mechanically comes into question, then indenting the strand can give

them some aided bond characteristics.” An example of such an end use is in railroad ties, which require relatively

short lengths of PC strand to secure a short section of concrete. Hearing transcript, p. 118 (Wagner).

 61 Both the epoxy coated and the plastic coated product provide a corrosion barrier or protection against

corrosion. Hearing transcript, p. 119 (Cornelius).

 62 Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand, Investigation Nos.

701-TA-432 (Final) and 731-TA-1024-1028 (Final), USITC Publication 3663, January 2004, p. I-8.

I-26

elements are prefabricated in a factory and must be transported to the construction site.54 Pre-tensioned

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

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.55

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.56 The concrete component is cast in a way that allows PC strand to 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.57 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.58 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.59

Depending on the application, PC strand will be either uncoated or coated (with plastic or 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.60 In contrast, post-tensioning applications

may require uncoated or coated PC strand. Plastic-coated PC strand is lubricated with grease and encased

in a plastic tube, whereas epoxy-coated PC strand is coated with epoxy.61 

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.62 For external post-tensioning

applications, coated PC strand or galvanized (zinc-coated) PC strand may be used to protect against
 63 Galvanized (zinc-coated) PC strand, which accounts for less than one percent of the overall market for PC

strand, is rarely used in concrete. It is used mostly in perimeter railing, such as on garage parking decks or other

open structures to form a protective barrier. Galvanized PC strand is employed in these uses because it is a “very

tough product and a very high tensioned product.” The production cost of the galvanized product is estimated to be

two times the cost of production of non-gavanized PC strand, although it is not currently being produced by the

largest domestic producers of PC strand. Galvanized PC strand was not included in the original scope of the order

because there was no import issue with respect to galvanized PC strand at that time. At least two countries subject to

these orders under review (Korea and Mexico) are believed to have produced and exported zinc-coated PC strand to

the United States since the imposition of the orders. Hearing transcript, pp. 120-122 (Wagner), pp. 121-122

(Cornelius), and p. 121 (Cannon); domestic producers’ prehearing brief, p. 18; and emails from *** to Mary Messer,

October 21, 2009 and October 22, 2009.

 64 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 Publication 3663, January 2004, p. I-8.

 65 The American Society for Testing and Materials (“ASTM”) specifies mechanical properties for finished PC

strand, but does not specify the 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

Conshohocken, 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

Conshohocken, PA: ASTM, 2009, Section 1, vol. 01.04, pp. 514-517.

 66 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. Hearing transcript, p. 119 (Wagner).

I-27

corrosion.63 Whether it is used uncoated or coated, PC strand of various suppliers is interchangeable

within each physical size, physical configuration, and grade.64

Manufacturing Process

PC strand is produced from hot-rolled, high-carbon steel wire rod65 through a production process

consisting of four distinct steps: drawing, stranding, stabilizing, and packaging. 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.66

After drawing, the wire undergoes stranding. During the stranding process, 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
 67 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 Conshohocken, PA: ASTM, 2009,

Section 1, vol. 01.04, pp. 514-517.

 68 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 interview, ***, June 29, 2009.

 69 Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from China, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-464 and 731-TA-1160

(Preliminary), USITC Publication 4086, July 2009, p. I-12.

 70 Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand From Japan, Investigation No. AA1921-188 (Second Review), USITC

Publication 3699, June 2004, pp. 5-7.

 71 In the 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

(continued...)

I-28

stressed-relieved PC strand) requires only thermal treatment.67 Finally, if coating is required, the PC

strand is either lubricated with grease and encased in a plastic tube, or coated with epoxy.68

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.69

DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT ISSUES

Although the Commission did not make a domestic like product determination per se in its

original determination concerning Japan in 1979, it found that the appropriate definition of the domestic

like product in its expedited first and second five-year reviews of the antidumping duty finding

concerning Japan in 1999 and 2004, respectively, to be the same as Commerce’s scope, that is, all steel

wire strand, other than alloy steel, not galvanized, which has been stress-relieved and is suitable for use in

prestressed concrete. In its original determination and its expedited first and second reviews of the

antidumping duty finding concerning Japan, the Commission defined the domestic industry as all

producers of PC strand.70

In its original 2003 determinations concerning Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand, the

Commission found the domestic like product to be all PC strand co-extensive with Commerce’s scope,

that is, steel strand produced from wire of non-stainless, non-galvanized steel that is suitable for use in

prestressed concrete (both pre-tensioned and post-tensioned) applications and that encompasses covered

and uncovered strand and all types, grades, and diameters of PC strand. It also defined the domestic

industry as all producers of PC strand and determined that plastic coating did not constitute sufficient

production-related activity to qualify coaters as members of the domestic PC strand industry.71
 71 (...continued)

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 Publication 3663, January 2004, pp. 7-12.

 72 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.

 73 Conference transcript of preliminary phase investigations concerning PC strand from China, pp. 12-13

(Cannon).

 74 Domestic producers’ prehearing brief, pp. 4-5.

 75 Washburn began producing PC strand in the United States shortly before the filing of the 1978 complaint. U.S.

industry data in the original investigation did not include Washburn, whose production was estimated at the time to

be negligible. Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan, Investigation No. AA1921-188, USITC

Publication 928, November 1978, pp. A-8 and A-12.

I-29

The domestic and respondent interested parties (including the Mexican respondents) indicated in

their responses to the Commission’s notice of institution in these current reviews that they agree with the

Commission’s definitions of the domestic like product and domestic industry.72 In addition, domestic

producers’ counsel indicated at the conference in the recently-completed preliminary phase investigations

concerning PC strand from China that they agreed with the Commission’s definition of the domestic like

product and testified that “no significant technological or marketing changes have occurred in the

production of PC strand since those earlier findings to alter that result.”73 Finally, none of the parties to

the current reviews requested in their comments in response to the Commission’s draft questionnaires the

collection of information regarding the domestic like product or domestic industry and no party raised

domestic like product or domestic industry issues in their briefs or at the hearing. To the contrary, the

domestic interested parties commented in their prehearing brief that they agree with the definition of the

domestic like product used in the Commission’s questionnaires and set forth in the Commission’s

prehearing report.74

U.S. MARKET PARTICIPANTS

U.S. Producers

The domestic PC strand industry has experienced substantial changes since the Commission’s

original investigation concerning imports of PC strand from Japan conducted in 1978. Since that time,

closures, openings, and acquisitions have changed the composition of the domestic industry. In 1978, six

firms operating six facilities (none west of the Rocky Mountains) were producing PC strand in the United

States: integrated producers Armco Steel Corp. (“Armco”), Kansas City, MO; Bethlehem Steel Corp.

(“Bethlehem”), Sparrows Point, MD; and CF&I Steel Corp. (“CF&I”), Pueblo, CO; and nonintegrated

producers American Spring Wire Corp. (“American”), Bedford Heights, OH; Florida Wire & Cable Co.

(“FW&C”), Jacksonville, FL; and Washburn Wire Products Co. (“Washburn”), New York, NY.75

Between 1978 and 1998, Insteel, Sumiden, and Shinko Wire America, Inc. (“Shinko”) entered the U.S.
 76 Sumiden and Shinko are subsidiaries of Japanese PC strand producers Sumitomo and Shinko Wire,

respectively.

 77 Rettco (the “toller” or “toll producer”) produces PC strand under an exclusive 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.

 78 On August 29, 1986, Commerce revoked the finding with respect to imports produced by Sumitomo Electric

Ind., Ltd. and exported by the Sumitomo Corp. 51 FR 30894, August 29, 1986.

I-30

PC strand industry.76 During the same time period, Armco, Bethlehem, CF&I, Shinko, and Washburn

exited the PC strand industry. In January 2000, Insteel acquired the common stock of PC strand producer

FW&C. In addition, Strand-Tech Martin, Inc. (“Strand-Tech”) began producing PC strand in

Summerville, SC during 1999-2000. Sivaco Georgia LLC (“Sivaco”) also began production of PC strand

in Newnan, GA, shortly thereafter; however, it shut down its operations in 2003. During ***, two PC

strand producers in Mexico set up PC strand production operations in the United States. PCS, owned by

WireCo World Group and related to Mexican PC strand producer Camesa, began production of PC strand

at its Rosenberg, TX, site in ***; however, production and shipments at that facility ceased by ***. 

EMC’s Arizona facility, owned by Mexican PC strand producer Cablesa, began production of PC strand

in ***; however, production at that facility ceased in *** 2007. RettCo Steel, LLC (“Rettco”)/MMI

StrandCo. (“MMI”) commenced PC strand operations in 2005. A summary of changes in the U.S.

industry since the Commission’s original investigation concerning PC strand imports from Japan is

presented in figure I-1.

There are currently five U.S. producers of PC strand: American, Insteel, Rettco/MMI,77 StrandTech, and Sumiden. Presented in table I-9 is a list of current domestic producers of PC strand and each

company’s position on the finding/orders, production location(s), related and/or affiliated firm(s), and

share of 2008 PC strand production.

As indicated in table I-9, *** currently operating domestic producers of PC strand support the

continuation of the finding/orders subject to these reviews. Domestic production of PC strand is

concentrated in the Southeast (Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and Tennessee), Midwest (Ohio), Central

Southwest (Texas), and Pacific Coast (California). ***, the largest domestic PC strand producer, operates

*** PC strand production facilities located in the *** area of the United States. 

The current U.S. producers are not related to any subject foreign producers or U.S. importers of

PC strand from the subject countries. However, two U.S. producers reported being related to foreign

producers that are not subject to the finding/orders: *** Sumiden is related to Sumitomo Electric

Industries, Ltd. (“Sumitomo”)78 ***.
I-31

Figure I-1

PC strand: Openings, closings, and consolidations of U.S. producers, 1978-2009

1978 1979-98 1999-2000 2001-04 2005-09

Bethlehem 

(closed in the late 1970s)

CF&I 

(closed in the late 1970s)

Washburn 

(closed in the early 1980s)

American

Florida Wire & Cable (“FW&C”)

Insteel

Armco (acquired FW&C in January 2000)

(sold to Wire Rope Corp.

of America (“Wireco”) in

the 1980s)

Insteel

(acquired Wireco’s

PC strand business

and opened in 1994)

Sumiden

(opened in 1979)

Shinko 

(opened in 1979,

closed in 1996)

Strand-Tech

Sivaco

(closed in 2003)

Rettco/MMI

(Rettco acquired

Sivaco plant and

opened in early

2005; formed

alliance with MMI in

July 2005)

EMC

(opened in ***/closed in *** 2007)

PCS

(opened in ***/

closed in ***)

Source: Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan, Investigation No. AA 1921-188 (Final), USITC Publication 928,

November 1978; Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Japan, Investigation No. AA 1921-188 (Review), USITC

Publication 3156, February 1999; Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand From Japan, Investigation No. AA1921-188 (Second

Review), USITC Publication 3699, June 2004; Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand From China, Investigation Nos.

701-TA-464 and 731-TA-1160 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 4086, July 2009; email from *** to Mary Messer, June 26, 2009;

email from *** to Mary Messer, November 3, 2009; responses to Commission questionnaires; and Rettco company web site,

http://www.rettco.com/ndex.html, accessed September 14, 2009.
I-32

Table I-9

PC strand: U.S. producers, positions on the finding/orders, U.S. production locations, related

and/or affiliated firms, and shares of 2008 U.S. production

Firm

Position on

finding/

orders

U.S. production

location(s)

Related and/or affiliated

firms

Share of

production

(percent)

American Support

Bedford Heights, OH

Houston, TX *** ***

Insteel Support

Gallatin, TN

Sanderson, FL

Wholly owned by Insteel

Industries, Inc. (US) ***

MMI1 *** Houston, TX *** (2

)

Rettco1 *** Newnan, GA *** ***

Strand-Tech *** Summerville, SC *** ***

Sumiden Support

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; Prestressed Concrete Steel

Wire Strand from China, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-464 and 731-TA-1160 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 4086,

July 2009.

U.S. Importers

In the mid- to late-l970s (i.e., the period examined in the original investigation concerning PC

strand from Japan), the subject merchandise was imported into the United States principally by eight large

importing companies, although several smaller companies made occasional purchases from Japan. 

Companies engaged in importing PC strand into the United States included some of Japan’s largest

trading houses, such as Kawasho, Mitsubishi, and Mitsui. In the Commission’s first review of the order

concerning Japan instituted in 1998, the domestic interested parties identified three firms that they

believed to be importers of PC stand from Japan: Mitsubishi, Nippon, and Mitrans. In addition to these

three firms, the domestic interested parties identified two more U.S. importers of subject merchandise

from Japan in their response to the Commission’s notice of initiation in the second review of the Japanese

order instituted in 2004: Mitsui and Nissho Iwai.

In response to Commission questionnaires sent to importers in the final phase of the original 2004

investigations concerning Brazil, Korea, India, Mexico, and Thailand, 12 firms supplied usable data, 8 of

which imported PC strand from the countries subject to those investigations. The eight firms and the

countries from which they imported subject merchandise are as follows: Crispin Co. (“Crispin”) (Brazil

and Korea), Trefilarbed Inc. (Brazil), Tata, Inc. (“Tata”) (India), Kiswire Trading, Inc. (Korea), Camesa,

Inc. (Mexico), Cablesa (Mexico), Universal Products Group, Inc. (Mexico), and Cementhai SCT (USA),

Inc. (“Cementhai”) (Thailand). 

In these current reviews of the orders concerning PC strand, the domestic interested parties

identified 54 U.S. firms that they believe imported the subject merchandise into the United States during
 79 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, exh. 10.

 80 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. 7.

 81 The Commission sent questionnaires to firms that 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 2003, based on a review of data

provided by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

 82 The Commission questionnaires defined converters as firms that cover PC strand.

I-33

the review period.79 The Mexican interested parties identified an additional 14 firms that they believe

imported the subject merchandise from Mexico.80

Importer questionnaires were sent to 68 possible importers of PC strand, as well as to all U.S.

producers of PC strand.81 Usable questionnaire responses were received from 22 companies. Responding

U.S. importers represented *** percent of total imports from Brazil, *** percent of total imports from

India, *** percent of total imports from Japan, *** percent of total imports from Korea, *** percent of

total imports from Thailand, and over 100 percent of total imports from all other countries combined

during 2003-08 under HTS statistical reporting numbers 7312.10.3010 and 7312.10.3012. None of the

responding firms reported imports of subject merchandise from Mexico during 2003-08. Table I-10 lists

all responding U.S. importers of PC strand, their locations, and their shares of U.S. imports, by source,

during 2003-08. As the table illustrates, there were only six responding importers of subject merchandise

during the period of review: ***. *** were the largest importers of PC strand from nonsubject countries. 

U.S. Purchasers

Twenty-one purchasers, accounting for 21.6 percent of U.S. apparent consumption of PC strand

in 2008, provided purchaser questionnaire responses. Suncoast, *** the self-proclaimed largest

purchaser, reported PC strand purchases of $*** (*** percent of U.S. apparent consumption) in 2008. 

Suncoast, located in Houston, Texas, characterized itself *** as a converter82 and construction firm for

post-tensioned applications. The next largest responding purchasers were ***. Each of the top three

responding purchasers (***) characterized themselves as both converters and construction firms, and all

three supply post-tension applications.

Overall, six of the twenty-one responding purchasers reported that they are construction firms, six

manufacture prestressed/precast concrete products, three are both converters and construction firms, three

are converters, one is a converter and fabricator of PC strand, one provides ground control for the mining

industry, and one supplies manufactured post-tensioned cable to government contractors. Concerning

applications, ten purchasers reported supplying post-tension applications, eight supplied pre-tension

applications, and three supplied both post-tension and pre-tension applications. The responding

purchasers are relatively geographically dispersed, although five of the responding purchasers are located

in Texas and three are located in California.

APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION AND MARKET SHARES

Table I-11 presents apparent U.S. consumption for the review period and table I-12 presents U.S.

market shares for the same period. Apparent U.S. consumption of PC strand, as shown at tables I-11 and

I-12, 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.
I-34

Table I-10

PC strand: U.S. importers, U.S. locations, source(s) of imports, and shares of official imports during 2003-08

Firm Location(s)

Source of

imports

Share of 2003-08 official import statistics (percent)

Brazil India Japan Korea Mexico Thailand Other

A.G. Royce Metal

Marketing (dba

Concrete Reinforcing

Products) Sunrise, FL *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

ArcelorMittal

International Americas Chicago, IL *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

BlueLinx Corp. Atlanta, GA *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Cementhai SCT USA,

Inc. Torrance, CA *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Corus America, Inc. Schaumberg, IL *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Crispin Co. (The) Houston, TX *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Davis Wire Corp. Irwindale, CA *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Freyssinet, Inc.

Aurora, IL

Norcross, GA

Sterling, VA *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Global Steel Sales

Corp. Atlanta, GA *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Insteel Wire Products

Co. Mount Airy, NC *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Metal One America,

Inc. Rosemont, IL *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Nedri Spanstaal

Venlo,

Netherlands *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Nucor Steel

Birmingham, Inc. Birmingham, AL *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

OM Industrial

Products Corp. Houston, TX *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Pacific Coast Steel San Diego, CA *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Precision Sure-Lock Dallas, TX *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Stemcor USA, Inc. New York, NY *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Sumiden Wire

Products Corp.

Dickson, TN

Stockton, CA *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Tata, Inc. New York, NY *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Westco Systems Inc.

San Francisco,

CA *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

WireCo WorldGroup

Kansas City,

MO *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Wire Source LLC

(The) Alpharetta, GA *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total, all *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 1 Less than 0.05 percent.

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce import statistics.
I-35

Table I-11

PC strand: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. imports, and apparent U.S. consumption, 2003-08,

January-June 2008, and January-June 2009

Item

Calendar year January-June

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

U.S. producers’ U.S.

shipments 564,035 573,700 621,842 627,436 582,801 529,972 325,484 183,024

U.S. imports from–

 Brazil 21,511 449 0 0 0 0 0 0

 India 3,210 34 2 2 235 209 0 0

 Korea 36,934 316 258 3,958 2,831 3,325 1,661 86

 Mexico 38,257 867 555 1,526 2,283 1,514 759 2,214

 Thailand 6,791 5,800 624 45 0 0 0 0

 Subtotal, 5 subject

 countries 106,703 7,466 1,439 5,530 5,349 5,048 2,421 2,300

 Japan1 768 1,545 1,564 1,580 1,952 1,380 1,224 0

 Subtotal, 6 subject

 countries 107,471 9,011 3,003 7,111 7,301 6,429 3,644 2,300

 Nonsubject countries2 134,423 276,723 282,247 477,667 390,402 406,312 228,681 43,806

 Total U.S. imports 241,894 285,733 285,250 484,778 397,703 412,741 232,325 46,106

Apparent U.S. consumption 805,929 859,433 907,092 1,112,214 980,504 942,713 557,809 229,130

Table continued on following page.
I-36

Table I-11–Continued

PC strand: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. imports, and apparent U.S. consumption, 2003-08,

January-June 2008, and January-June 2009

Item

Calendar year January-June

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Value (1,000 dollars)

U.S. producers’ U.S.

shipments 153,420 254,156 301,420 297,410 268,344 333,721 179,133 97,946

U.S. imports from–

 Brazil 4,610 168 0 0 0 0 0 0

 India 704 41 17 9 81 156 0 0

 Korea 7,995 167 196 1,506 1,399 2,201 1,081 54

 Mexico 11,534 290 187 729 1,036 885 377 997

 Thailand 1,572 1,819 240 25 0 0 0 0

 Subtotal, 5 subject

 countries 26,415 2,485 640 2,268 2,516 3,241 1,458 1,051

 Japan1 399 876 1,092 1,100 1,343 916 874 0

 Subtotal, 6 subject

 countries 26,813 3,361 1,732 3,368 3,859 4,157 2,333 1,051

 Nonsubject countries2 34,990 95,994 122,471 164,334 134,966 211,890 102,835 19,839

 Total U.S. imports 61,803 99,355 124,203 167,702 138,825 216,047 105,168 20,889

Apparent U.S. consumption 215,223 353,511 425,623 465,112 407,169 549,768 284,301 118,835

1

 According to ***, *** accounted for *** of all U.S. imports of product under the applicable HTS statistical reporting numbers from Japan

during the period examined in these reviews. However, *** did not import subject PC strand from Japan during the period. Rather, the

merchandise it imports from Japan under the applicable HTS statistical reporting numbers is galvanized strand, which is not subject to these

reviews. After extracting the import data for ***, U.S. imports from Japan are as follows: ***. 2

 Major nonsubject countries exporting PC strand to the United States during 2003-08 include Argentina, Belgium, Canada, China,

France, Hungary, Indonesia, Italy, Malaysia, Netherlands, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, and Taiwan. The largest nonsubject suppliers of

imported PC strand to the United States during 2008 were China, Canada, Portugal, and Italy.

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.
I-37

Table I-12

PC strand: U.S. consumption and market shares, 2003-08, January-June 2008, and January-June 2009

Item

Calendar year January-June

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Apparent U.S. consumption 805,929 859,433 907,092 1,112,214 980,504 942,713 557,809 229,130

Value (1,000 dollars)

Apparent U.S. consumption 215,223 353,511 425,623 465,112 407,169 549,768 284,301 118,835

Share of quantity (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S.

shipments 70.0 66.8 68.6 56.4 59.4 56.2 58.4 79.9

U.S. imports from--

 Brazil 2.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 India 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Korea 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.0

 Mexico 4.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 1.0

 Thailand 0.8 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Subtotal, 5 subject 13.2 0.9 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 1.0

 Japan1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.0

 Subtotal, 6 subject 13.3 1.0 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.0

 Nonsubject2 16.7 32.2 31.1 42.9 39.8 43.1 41.0 19.1

 Total imports 30.0 33.2 31.4 43.6 40.6 43.8 41.6 20.1

Share of value (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S.

shipments 71.3 71.9 70.8 63.9 65.9 60.7 63.0 82.4

U.S. imports from--

 Brazil 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 India 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Korea 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.0

 Mexico 5.4 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.8

 Thailand 0.7 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Subtotal, 5 subject 12.3 0.7 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.9

 Japan1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.0

 Subtotal, 6 subject 12.5 1.0 0.4 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.9

 Nonsubject2 16.3 27.2 28.8 35.3 33.1 38.5 36.2 16.7

 Total imports 28.7 28.1 29.2 36.1 34.1 39.3 37.0 17.6

 1 According to ***. Therefore, the shares presented for subject merchandise from Japan are overstated by the amounted of nonsubject galvanized strand

imports.

 2

 Major nonsubject countries exporting PC strand to the United States during 2003-08 include Argentina, Belgium, Canada, China, France, Hungary,

Indonesia, Italy, Malaysia, Netherlands, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, and Taiwan. The largest nonsubject suppliers of imported PC strand to the United

States during 2008 were China, Canada, Portugal, and Italy.

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics.
 83 Domestic producers’ prehearing brief, pp. 38-39; and figure II-1 of this report.

 84 The domestic interested parties pointed out that apparent U.S. consumption of PC strand declined at a faster

pace than the rate of decline in overall construction spending in 2009, reflecting primarily the inventory overhang by

imports from China, which they claim further reduced demand for PC strand in the United States during 2009. The

domestic interested parties added that although most of the Chinese PC strand import overhang has now been

“worked off,” they are not currently seeing any significant increase in the demand for PC strand. Additionally, they

testified that the U.S. stimulus package “has had no discernable impact on demand for PC strand, nor will Buy

American provisions in the stimulus package, or otherwise, increase demand for our product or protect us from

competition with unfairly traded imports.” Hearing transcript, pp. 29-30 (Woltz).

 85 Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from China, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-464 and 731-TA-1160

(Preliminary), USITC Publication 4086, July 2009, p. IV-10.

 86 Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from China, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-464 and 731-TA-1160

(Preliminary), USITC Publication 4086, July 2009, p. IV-10.

 87 As previously mentioned, the subject import data as calculated from official import statistics are overstated by

the entry of nonsubject merchandise (e.g., galvanized strand) under the applicable HTS statistical reporting numbers

for the subject PC strand.

I-38

The demand for PC strand is derived from demand for prestressed concrete which, in turn, is

derived from demand in the construction industry, including infrastructure, housing, and

commercial/institutional construction. According to data published by the U.S. Census Bureau, U.S.

private residential construction spending, which peaked in August 2005, trended downward thereafter.83

The apparent U.S. consumption of PC strand, in terms of quantity, followed the same general trend.84 In

terms of quantity, apparent U.S. consumption of PC strand increased from 2003 to 2006, but fell

thereafter to a level that was still 17.0 percent higher in 2008 than was reported for 2003. Apparent U.S.

consumption was 58.9 percent lower on the basis of quantity during the first half of 2009 than in the

comparable period of 2008. Slab-on-grade fabrication connected to residential construction reportedly

declined and the use and need for PC strand associated with it likewise declined since 2006, which was

the peak year for U.S. residential construction. The demand for other end uses of PC strand reportedly

remained relatively steady, but recently has been affected by the downturn in the global economy.85

In terms of value, apparent U.S. consumption increased by 155.4 percent from 2003 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 2008.86

The share of apparent U.S. consumption (on the basis of quantity) accounted for by domestic PC

strand producers fell overall from a high of 70.0 percent in 2003 to a low of 56.2 percent in 2008;

however, the share of apparent U.S. consumption held by the domestic producers during the first six

months of 2009 was noticeably higher than the share held in the comparable period of 2008. Likewise,

the combined share of apparent U.S. consumption (on the basis of quantity) accounted for by the six

countries subject to these reviews fell from a period high of 13.3 percent in 2003 to 1.0 percent in 2004. 

The aggregate share held by the six subject countries remained at 1.0 percent or below for the remainder

of the period examined in these reviews.87 On the other hand, nonsubject countries (dominated by China)

gained U.S. market share during the period examined in these reviews. The share of apparent U.S.

consumption (on the basis of quantity) held by nonsubject countries increased overall from a low of 16.7

percent in 2003 to a high of 43.1 percent in 2008; however, the share of apparent U.S. consumption held

by nonsubject countries during the first six months of 2009 was noticeably lower than the share held in

the comparable period of 2008.
 1 Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from China, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-464 and 731-TA-1160

(Preliminary), USITC Publication 4086, July 2009, p. II-1. 

 2

 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.

 3

 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 the 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. Most pre-tensioned concrete elements are prefabricated in a factory

and must be transported to the construction site. 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.1

 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.2

CHANNELS OF DISTRIBUTION

U.S. shipments of PC strand by U.S. producers and importers to post-tensioners/converters,3

 other

end users, and other distributors are shown in table II-1. U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of PC strand

were evenly divided between sales to post-tensioners/converters and other end users during 2003-06. 

During 2007-09, however, domestic PC strand producers have sold an increasingly greater share to other

end users. U.S. importers only reported U.S. shipments of subject country PC strand during 2003 and

2004, with the vast majority of these shipments going to post-tensioners/converters. U.S. importers of PC

strand from all other countries (primarily China) likewise sold the vast majority of their PC strand to posttensioners/converters during January 2003-June 2009. Additional discussion of cumulation

considerations appears in Part IV of this report, beginning on page IV-7.

U.S. producers’ shipments of PC strand to post-tensioners/converters fell from a period high of

*** pounds in 2005 to a period low of *** pounds in 2008, and were lower in January-June 2009 (at ***)

than in January-June 2008 (at *** pounds). At the same time, U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of

nonsubject country PC strand to post-tensioners/converters increased *** from *** pounds in 2005 to ***

pounds in 2006, before declining to *** pounds in 2008. Overall, total U.S. shipments of PC strand to

post-tensioners/converters accounted for an increasing share of the U.S. PC strand market during 2003-

06, increasing from *** pounds in 2003 to *** pounds in 2006, before falling to *** pounds in 2007 and

to *** pounds in 2008 (figure II-1). Total U.S. shipments of PC strand to other end users showed less

variation during the same period, ranging from *** pounds in 2003 to *** pounds in 2007. 
II-2

Table II-1

PC strand: U.S. producers’ and importers’ U.S. shipments, by sources and channels of

distribution, 2003-08 and January-June 20091

Item

Period

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Jan.-June

2009

Share of quantity (in percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of PC strand to:

 Post-tensioners/converters 48.7 46.6 50.7 46.7 40.6 36.7 34.1

 Other end users 51.3 53.4 49.3 53.3 59.4 63.3 65.9

 Other distributors 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of PC strand from Brazil to:

 Post-tensioners/converters *** (2

) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Other end users *** (2

) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Other distributors *** (2

) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of PC strand from India to:

 Post-tensioners/converters *** (2

) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Other end users *** (2

) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Other distributors *** (2

) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of PC strand from Korea to:

 Post-tensioners/converters *** *** (2

) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Other end users *** *** (2

) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Other distributors *** *** (2

) (2) (2) (2) (2)

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of PC strand from Thailand to: 

 Post-tensioners/converters *** (2

) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Other end users *** (2

) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Other distributors *** (2

) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

Table continued on following page.
II-3

Table II-1--Continued

PC strand: U.S. producers’ and importers’ U.S. shipments, by sources and channels of

distribution, 2003-08 and January-June 20091

Item

Period

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Jan.-June

2009

Share of quantity (in percent)

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of PC strand from all other countries to: 

 Post-tensioners/converters 95.4 95.9 93.4 96.9 98.0 97.8 88.4

 Other end users 3.6 3.3 5.8 2.5 2.0 2.2 11.6

 Other distributors 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

 1 U.S. importers did not report U.S. shipments of imports of PC strand from Japan or Mexico during January

2003-June 2009.

 2 Not applicable.

Note.– In the original investigations, U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of PC strand (uncoated and coated) to posttensioners/converters accounted for between *** and *** percent of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, while U.S.

producers’ U.S. shipments to other end users accounted for between *** and *** percent of U.S. producers’ U.S.

shipments during 2000-02. U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments ***.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and the original investigation

staff report.

Figure II-1

PC strand: Total U.S. shipments of PC strand, by channels of distribution, 2003-08

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1 ,0 00,000

1 ,2 00,000

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

(1,000 pounds)

P o s t-te n s io n e rs /co n ve rte rs Other end us ers Other dis tributors
 4

 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-4

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 742.3 million pounds in 2003

to 903.8 million pounds in 2008, and was steady at 454.7 million pounds in January-June 2008 and 456.3

million pounds in January-June 2009. However, U.S. producers’ capacity utilization rates fluctuated

between 77.9 percent and 83.0 percent during 2003-06, then fell to 61.8 percent in 2008, and were 37.8

percent in January-June 2009 (compared to 72.0 percent in January-June 2008).

Alternative markets

U.S. producers’ export shipments accounted for a relatively small share of their total shipments

during January 2003-June 2009. U.S. producers’ export shipments, as a share of total shipments,

fluctuated between *** percent and *** percent during 2003-08, and were *** percent in January-June

2009 compared to *** percent in January-June 2008. Principal U.S. export markets include ***.

Inventory levels

U.S. producers’ inventory levels, relative to shipments, increased over the period. The ratio of

U.S. producers’ inventories to total shipments increased unevenly from *** percent in 2003 to ***

percent in 2008. U.S. producers’ annualized inventory ratios were *** higher in January-June 2009 (***

percent) than in January-June 2008 (*** percent).

Production alternatives

Only one of the responding U.S. producers (***) reported that it was 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 

Two of the five responding U.S. producers reported that there have been instances when they

have refused, declined, or been unable to supply PC strand since January 1, 2003. ***.4

 ***.
 5

 Belgo’s principal export markets in 2008 were ***.

II-5

Subject Imports from Brazil

The Commission received a questionnaire response from Belgo, the sole Brazilian PC strand

producer in 2008. Based on available information, Belgo has the ability to respond to changes in demand

with moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of PC strand to the U.S. market if the antidumping

duty order on PC strand from Brazil were revoked. The main contributing factor to Belgo’s moderate

degree of responsiveness is the available levels of unused capacity. Factors that would inhibit Belgo’s

supply responsiveness include relatively high levels of capacity utilization, relatively low levels of

exports to alternate markets, and relatively low inventory levels.

Industry capacity

Belgo’s capacity utilization rates fluctuated between *** and *** percent during 2003-08, as

capacity levels were *** and production levels varied. Although Belgo’s capacity utilization rates were

***, its excess capacity of *** pounds in 2008 indicates that Belgo has some ability to increase

production of PC strand from current capacity if the antidumping duty order on PC strand from Brazil

were revoked.

Alternative markets

Belgo increasingly focused on shipping PC strand to its home market, with its home market

shipments accounting for *** percent of its total shipments in 2008. Belgo’s export shipments to markets

other than the United States accounted for a declining share of its total shipments, falling to *** percent

in 2008.5 Belgo’s current focus on its home market suggests that it has relatively little ability to shift PC

strand shipments to the United States from alternate export markets.

Inventory levels

Belgo’s reported inventories, relative to total shipments, *** during 2003-08. Belgo’s relatively

low inventory levels indicate that it does not have the ability to use inventories as a means of increasing

shipments of PC strand to the U.S. market.

Production alternatives

***.

Supply constraints

***.

Subject Imports from India

The Commission received a questionnaire response from one Indian PC strand producer, Usha

Martin, accounting for an estimated *** percent of total Indian production of PC strand in 2008. Based

on available information, Usha Martin has the ability to respond to changes in demand with moderate-tohigh changes in the quantity of shipments of PC strand to the U.S. market if the antidumping duty order

on PC strand from India were revoked. The main contributing factors to Usha Martin’s moderate-to-high
II-6

degree of responsiveness are the available levels of unused capacity and inventory, tempered by the ***

share of Indian PC strand shipments sold in the home market.

Industry capacity

Usha Martin’s capacity utilization rates fell *** percent in 2004, then increased steadily to ***

percent in 2008. Although Usha Martin’s capacity utilization rates were ***, its excess capacity of ***

pounds in 2008 indicates that it has some ability to increase production of PC strand from current capacity

if the antidumping duty order on PC strand from India were revoked.

Alternative markets

Usha Martin’s export shipments of PC strand to countries other than the United States accounted

for *** of its total shipments of PC strand during 2004 and 2008, *** portion of its total shipments of PC

strand during 2003 and 2005-07. Usha Martin’s *** indicates that it has a moderate ability to shift PC

strand shipments to the United States from alternate export markets.

Inventory levels

Usha Martin’s inventories, as a ratio to total shipments, ranged widely, from a low of *** percent

in 2008 to a high of *** percent in 2005. Usha Martin’s current inventory levels indicate that it has some

ability to use inventories as a means of increasing shipments of PC strand to the U.S. market.

Production alternatives

Usha Martin reported that, since 2003, it *** produce other products on the same equipment and

machinery used to produce PC strand, and *** switch between production of PC strand and production of

other products in response to relative changes in price.

Supply constraints

Usha Martin reported that ***.

Subject Imports from Japan

The Commission received usable questionnaire responses from two Japanese PC strand

producers, Tesac and Tokyo Rope, accounting for an estimated *** percent of total Japanese PC strand

production in 2008. Based on available information, these Japanese producers have the ability to respond

to changes in demand with low-to-moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of PC strand to the U.S.

market if the antidumping duty finding on PC strand from Japan were revoked. The main contributing

factors to the low to moderate degree of supply responsiveness are these Japanese PC strand producers’

relatively low capacity utilization rates, lack of alternate markets, relatively low inventory levels, and

inability to shift production to and from other products. Responding Japanese producers’ levels of

available excess capacity indicate some ability to increase production in response to revocation of the

antidumping duty finding on Japanese PC strand.

Industry capacity

Reported Japanese capacity utilization rates fell from a high of *** percent in 2003 to ***

percent in 2006. Since 2006, capacity for these firms was reduced by over *** pounds, and capacity
II-7

utilization rose to *** percent in 2008. Although capacity utilization rates were ***, excess capacity of

*** pounds in 2008 indicates that the responding Japanese producers have some ability to increase

production of PC strand from current capacity if the antidumping duty finding on PC strand from Japan

were revoked.

Alternative markets

Responding Japanese producers reported *** export shipments of PC strand between 2003 and

2008. *** exports indicates that these Japanese producers have *** ability to shift PC strand shipments

to the United States from alternate export markets.

Inventory levels

Reported Japanese producers’ inventories as a ratio to total shipments peaked in 2004 at ***

percent, before decreasing to *** percent in 2008. Responding Japanese producers’ current ***

inventory levels indicate that they have *** ability to use inventories as a means of increasing shipments

of PC strand to the U.S. market.

Production alternatives

Both responding Japanese producers reported that, since 2003, they *** other products on the

same equipment and machinery used to produce PC strand. Responding Japanese producers also reported

that they *** switch between production of PC strand and production of other products in response to

relative changes in price.

Supply constraints

*** reported *** constraints on production of PC strand.

Subject Imports from Korea

The Commission received questionnaire responses from two Korean PC strand producers, Dong 

Il and Young Heung, accounting for an estimated *** percent of total Korean production in 2008. Based

on available information, these Korean producers have the ability to respond to changes in demand with

moderate-to-high changes in the quantity of shipments of PC strand to the U.S. market if the antidumping

duty order on PC strand from Korea were revoked. The main contributing factors to the moderate-to-high

degree of supply responsiveness are the available levels of unused capacity and the *** share of Korean

PC strand shipments that could be diverted from other export markets to the United States.

Industry capacity

Reported Korean capacity utilization rates rose steadily from *** percent in 2003 to *** percent

in 2007, then declined *** percent in 2008. Reported Korean excess capacity of *** pounds in 2008

indicates that these Korean producers have some ability to increase production of PC strand from current

capacity if the antidumping duty order on PC strand from Korea were revoked.

Alternative markets

Reported Korean exports as a share of total shipments fell irregularly from *** percent of

shipments in 2003 to *** percent in 2008. However, even with the declining focus on export markets,
 6

 ***.

 7

 Aceros Camesa reported that ***. Deacero reported that ***.

II-8

reported Korean exports of ***. Furthermore, with the exception of 2003, reported Korean exports to

countries other than the United States accounted for over *** percent of reported Korean total exports

each year. Despite these Korean producers’ reduced focus on export markets, *** of these firms’ Korean

exports to countries other than the United States indicates that these Korean producers have the ability to

shift PC strand shipments to the United States from alternate markets.

Inventory levels

Reported Korean inventories as a ratio to total shipments ranged from a low of *** percent in

2005 to a high of *** percent in 2008. These Korean producers’ *** indicate that they have limited

ability to use inventories as a means of increasing shipments of PC strand to the U.S. market.

Production alternatives

*** reported that, since 2003, they *** other products on the same equipment and machinery

used to produce PC strand. *** also reported that they are *** to switch between production of PC strand

and production of other products in response to relative changes in price.

Supply constraints

*** reported *** constraints on production of PC strand.6

Subject Imports from Mexico

The Commission received usable questionnaire responses from two Mexican PC strand

producers, Aceros Camesa and Deacero, accounting for an estimated 100 percent of total Mexican

production of PC strand in 2008. Based on available information, Mexican producers have the ability to

respond to changes in demand with moderate-to-high changes in the quantity of shipments of PC strand to

the U.S. market if the antidumping duty order on PC strand from Mexico were revoked. The main

contributing factors to the moderate-to-high degree of supply responsiveness are Mexican producers’ ***

and increasing levels of unused capacity.

Industry capacity

Reported Mexican capacity utilization rates increased irregularly from *** percent in 2003 to ***

percent in 2006. In 2007 Mexican capacity ***, causing capacity utilization to decline to *** percent in

2008.7 Mexican producers’ excess capacity of *** pounds in 2008 indicates that they are able to increase

production of PC strand *** from current capacity if the antidumping duty order on PC strand from

Mexico were revoked.

Alternative markets

Reported Mexican exports to countries other than the United States grew unevenly from ***

percent of shipments in 2003 to *** percent of shipments in 2008. Mexican producers’ growing export

focus, particularly in 2008, indicates that Mexican producers have some ability to shift PC strand

shipments to the United States from alternate markets.
II-9

Inventory levels

Reported Mexican producers’ inventories as a ratio to total shipments ranged from a low of ***

percent in 2006 to a high of *** percent in 2004. These *** inventory levels indicate that Mexican

producers do not have the ability to use inventories as a means of increasing shipments of PC strand to the

U.S. market.

Production alternatives

*** reported that it produces *** on the same equipment and machinery used to produce PC

strand, but also reported that it is *** in response to changes in relative price. *** reported that *** can

be produced on the same machinery that is used to produce PC strand, but *** has ***. 

Supply constraints

*** reported that constraints on production of PC strand include ***. *** reported that

constraints that limit production capacity of PC strand include ***.

Subject Imports from Thailand

The Commission received a questionnaire response from one Thai PC strand producer, Thai

Special Wire, accounting for an estimated *** percent of total Thai production of PC strand in 2008. 

Based on available information, Thai Special Wire has the ability to respond to changes in demand with

moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of PC strand to the U.S. market if the antidumping duty

order on PC strand from Thailand were revoked. The main contributing factors to Thai Special Wire’s

moderate degree of responsiveness are the available levels of excess capacity and inventory.

Industry capacity

Thai Special Wire’s reported capacity utilization rates increased from a low of *** percent in

2003 to *** percent in 2005, fell again to *** percent in 2007, then increased to *** percent in 2008. 

Thai Special Wire’s capacity utilization rates were *** and its excess capacity of *** pounds in 2008

indicates that this Thai producer has some ability to increase production of PC strand from current

capacity if the antidumping duty order on PC strand from Thailand were revoked.

Alternative markets

Thai Special Wire reported *** 2008. In 2008, *** exports were to Asia, and these exports

accounted for ***. *** level of exports indicates that it has *** ability to shift PC strand shipments to the

United States from alternate export markets.

Inventory levels

Thai Special Wire’s inventories, as a ratio to total shipments, ranged widely, from a low of ***

percent in 2004 to a high of *** percent in 2006. Thai Special Wire’s 2008 inventory level of ***

percent indicates that it has some ability to use inventories as a means of increasing shipments of PC

strand to the U.S. market.
 8

 *** reported that, during 2007-08, energy and scrap metal prices rose, resulting in higher PC strand costs. ***

reported that the U.S. steel rod supply has changed over the past two years. Some suppliers have exited the high

carbon rod business and some steel companies have closed, thinning the supply chain and driving higher pricing. 

*** also noted fluctuations in scrap steel pricing and a weak global economy. *** reported that during 2003-04

there was a shortage of domestic steel wire rod; in 2008, there was a dramatic increase in steel wire rod costs

because of the Chinese export tax on steel wire rod; and that these cost increases all but forced domestic producers

out of the market. *** reported that, during 2005-08, there were dramatic changes in PC strand prices due to the

apparent shortage of steel wire rod. *** reported that production of steel wire rod has been consolidated, which has

affected the U.S. market.

 9

 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.” Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire

Strand from China, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-464 and 731-TA-1160 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 4086, July

2009, p. II-6.

II-10

Production alternatives

Thai Special Wire reported that, since 2003, *** produce other products on the same equipment

and machinery used to produce PC strand, and *** to switch between production of PC strand and

production of other products in response to relative changes in price.

Supply constraints

Thai Special Wire reported that there were *** constraints on its production of PC strand.

Factors Affecting Supply

U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers were asked if there have been any changes in factors

affecting supply (such as changes in the availability or prices of energy or labor; transportation

conditions; production capacity and/or methods of production; technology; export markets; or alternative

production opportunities) that affected the availability of U.S.-produced PC strand in the U.S. market

since 2003. Only one of five responding U.S. producers reported changes in factors affecting supply. 

***.

Twelve of 17 responding importers reported changes in factors affecting supply. Cited changes

include changes in U.S. steel prices, fluctuating export rebates from China, heavy demand for PC strand

in the Middle East, increases in ocean freight rates, energy price volatility, large volumes of imported PC

strand from China in the U.S. market since 2003, and price increases in the U.S. market due to the

antidumping duties imposed on the subject countries.

Six of 19 responding purchasers reported changes in factors affecting supply. Cited changes

include fluctuations in energy and scrap metal prices, and shortages in steel wire rod supplies that led to

increases in steel wire rod prices.8

U.S. 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

elasticity.9

 However, the somewhat limited number of substitute products reduces the elasticity of

demand for PC strand.
 10 In addition, the Architecture Billings Index (“ABI”), a leading indicator of U.S. construction activity, fell to

41.7 in August, down slightly from 43.1 in July. This score indicates a decline in demand for design services (any

score below 50 indicates a decrease in billings). “While there have been occasional signs of optimism over the last

few months, the overwhelming majority of architects are reporting that banks are extremely reluctant to provide

financing for projects, and that new equity requirements and conservative appraisals are making it even more

difficult for developers to get loans,” said American Institute of Architects’ Chief Economist Kermit Baker. “Until

the anxiety within the financial community eases, these conditions are likely to continue.” Regional ABI averages

were: Northeast (45.2), South (44.1), Midwest (42.0), and West (37.5). ABI sector index breakdowns were:

commercial/index (45.6), multi-family residential (43.4), mixed practice (41.4), and institutional (37.5). 

“Architecture Billings Index Points to Continued Struggles for Construction Industry,” Archinnovations, September

24, 2009.

(continued...)

II-11

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-2.

Figure II-2

Construction: Monthly values of construction put in place, by type, January 2003-August 2009

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/const/www/totpage.html.

Monthly values of private residential construction trended upward, peaking at $60.1 billion in

August 2005, began trending downward in 2006, then trended sharply downward over the rest of the

period. Monthly values for public construction and private nonresidential construction trended upward

over the January 2003-August 2009 period, despite some leveling off in 2009.10 Private residential

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

millions of dollars

Private residential Private nonresidential Public
 10 (...continued)

http://www.archinnovations.com/news/architecture-practice/architecture-billings-index-points-to-continued-struggle

s-for-construction-industry/

 11 Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from China, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-464 and 731-TA-1160

(Preliminary), USITC Publication 4086, July 2009, p. II-7.

 12 The PTI-defined regions differ from the regions used in USITC questionnaires. The PTI Rocky Mountain

states and Southwest zone includes CO, KS, MT, ND, NE, NM, OK, SD, TX, and WY. The PTI West Coast zone

includes AK, AZ, CA, HI, ID, NV, OR, UT, and WA. The PTI Southeast zone includes AL, AR, FL, GA, LA, MS,

NC, SC, TN. The PTI Midwest zone includes IL, IN, IA, KY, MI, MN, MO, OH, and WI. The PTI Northeast zone

includes CT, DE, MA, ME, MD, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT, VA, and WV. Post-Tensioning Institute, PTI Tonnage

Report: Summary of Post-tensioning Industry Shipments in North America (1972-2007), 2008, pp. 4-8.

 13 Ibid., p. 5.

II-12

construction reportedly uses more slabs-on-grade, a post- tensioned application, than public construction

and private nonresidential construction. This suggests that the demand for post-tensioning applications

has decreased since 2005-06.

Business Cycles

Demand for PC strand is cyclical because it is a construction material, and demand for residential

and non-residential construction is cyclical. 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-2. Therefore, U.S. demand for PC strand is generally higher during April-September than during

October-March.11

Ten of 19 responding purchasers reported that the PC strand market is subject to business cycles

or conditions of competition that are distinctive to PC strand. In general, these purchasers noted that

demand for PC strand depends on demand for construction, which tends to follow general economic

trends. These purchasers also noted that demand for PC strand is influenced by the cost and availability

of raw materials (wire rod). Only 4 of 19 responding purchasers reported that the emergence of new

markets for PC strand since 2003 affected PC strand business cycles. One purchaser, ***, maintained

that these business cycles tend to last 3-4 years.

Regional Demand for Post-Tensioned PC Strand

Data compiled by the Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI) indicate that U.S. shipments of PC strand

for post-tensioning uses were ***.12 Post-tensioning shipments of PC strand to ***. Post-tensioning

shipments to ***.13

Consumption

Available data indicate that apparent U.S. consumption of PC strand increased by 38.0 percent

from 805.9 million pounds in 2003 to a high of 1.1 billion pounds in 2006, then fell by 15.2 percent to

942.7 million pounds in 2008. Overall, apparent U.S. consumption of PC strand was 17.0 percent higher

in 2008 than it was in 2003. Apparent U.S. consumption was 229.1 million pounds in January-June 2009

compared to 557.8 million pounds in January-June 2008.
 14 Insteel reported in its 10-Q for the period ending July 20, 2009 that “ Our visibility for business conditions

through the remainder of 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 timing and

magnitude of the impact of the additional federal infrastructure-related funding provided for under the American

Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Although we expect nonresidential construction, our primary demand driver, to

decrease 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-13

Demand Trends

When asked how the U.S. demand for PC strand had changed since January 1, 2003, two U.S.

producers reported that U.S. demand had decreased, one reported that U.S. demand had increased, and

one reported that U.S. demand had fluctuated. Among the 17 responding importers, seven reported that

U.S. demand had fluctuated, five reported that U.S. demand had decreased, and five 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 2003 to mid-2008, then sharply

declining demand for commercial and residential construction since then due to the economic conditions

in the United States.

Most responding purchasers (11) reported that U.S. demand for PC strand had fluctuated since

January 2003, four reported that U.S. demand had decreased, three reported that U.S. demand had

increased, and two reported no change in demand. In general, purchasers reported that U.S. demand for

PC strand was influenced by changes in the overall condition of the U.S. economy and by U.S.

construction activity in particular.

Purchasers were asked if their purchasing patterns for PC strand from domestic, subject, and

nonsubject sources had changed since 2003. Eight of 18 responding purchasers reported that their

purchases of PC strand from domestic producers fluctuated, six reported that their domestic product

purchases were constant, and five reported that their domestic product purchases increased. No

responding purchaser reported that their purchases of PC strand from domestic producers decreased since

2003. Most purchasers that reported fluctuating purchases of domestic PC strand cited changes in U.S.

construction market conditions.

In general, responding purchasers reported that their purchases of PC strand from subject country

sources decreased since 2003. One purchaser, ***, reported that it discontinued purchases of Korean PC

strand after the 2003 antidumping duty order was imposed. In contrast, six of 12 responding purchasers

reported that their purchases of nonsubject Chinese PC strand increased since 2003, three reported that

their Chinese product purchases fluctuated, and three reported that their Chinese product purchases were

constant. As with domestic product purchases, no responding purchaser reported that its purchases of

Chinese PC strand decreased since 2003. Purchasers that reported increased purchases of Chinese PC

strand cited increased work on projects not subject to “Buy America(n)” provisions.

Anticipated Demand

U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers were asked how they anticipate U.S. demand for PC

strand will change in the future. Most U.S. producers and importers reported that demand is expected to

continue to decline in the near term (at least the next 12 months), and will only recover when U.S.

demand for construction recovers.14 Several importers expect the eventual recovery to be sluggish. Most

responding purchasers expect that demand will either increase or fluctuate in the future, as the U.S. 

economy recovers and infrastructure spending increases.
 15 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Web site. 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/ (accessed September 10, 2009).

 16 OpenCongress Web site. http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1/show (Accessed October 7, 2009).

 17 USAspending Web site. http://www.usaspending.gov/index.php (Accessed October 7, 2009).

 18 Hearing transcript, p. 69 (Woltz).

 19 Ibid., pp. 69-70 (Woltz). According to the GAO, the top ARRA highway category was pavement improvement

or widening, which received $8.7 billion, or 64 percent of total highway obligations. Petitioners’ posthearing brief,

exhibit 8.

 20 Ibid., p. 70 (Woltz). Other U.S. steel firms agree with this assessment. Patrick Mcfadden of Nucor

stated “we don’t think that steel is going to be seriously affected by the ARRA until the latter half of 2010 at the

earliest.” Robert Risser of the Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute dubbed ARRA “the Asphalt Resurfacing

Recovery Act.” Stan Hasselbusch of L.B. Foster estimated that only $16 billion of the $270 billion in infrastructure

spending will be spent on steel. AMM, “Steel is not Feeling One Bit Stimulated by Government: Experts, Execs,”

October 7, 2009.

II-14

Federal spending on infrastructure is a factor that impacts U.S. demand for PC strand. On August

10, 2005, President George W. Bush signed into law the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). SAFETEA-LU guarantees funding for

highways, highway safety, and public transportation totaling $244.1 billion over 2005-09. Highway

authorizations under SAFETEA-LU for fiscal year 2009 include $6.6 billion for the Surface

Transportation Program, $6.3 billion for the National Highway System, $5.2 billion for the Interstate

Maintenance Program, and $4.5 billion for the Bridge Program.15

On February 17, 2009, President Barack H. Obama signed into law the American Recovery and

Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). ARRA is estimated by the Congressional Budget office to cost $787

billion over the 2009-2019 period.16 For fiscal year 2009, ARRA provided $17.4 billion worth of federal

funds to the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) through grants and cooperative agreements. The

top five DOT programs receiving ARRA funding in fiscal 2009 were the Highway Planning and

Construction program ($12.6 billion), Federal Transit Formula Grants ($3.1 billion), the Airport

Improvement program ($763 million), Federal Transit Capital Investment Grants ($656 million), and

Formula Grants for Other Than Urbanized Areas ($313 million). The top five DOT recipients of ARRA

funding in fiscal 2009 were the California Department of Transportation ($1.6 billion), the Florida

Department of Transportation ($1.1 billion), the Texas State Department of Highways ($726 million), the

New York State Department of Transportation ($650 million), and the Pennsylvania Department of

Transportation ($604 million).17

However, at the Commission’s hearing, petitioners maintained that the U.S. PC strand industry is

not currently benefitting from the ARRA stimulus package.18 U.S. producers reported that a

disproportionate share of the stimulus funding is going to “shovel ready” projects such as resurfacing and

re-paving highways, that do not use PC strand.19 As a result, they contend that the stimulus funding is

unlikely to have any effect on the U.S. PC strand industry in 2009, and only minimal effect in 2010.20
 21 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-15

Substitute Products

No U.S. producers and only two of 19 responding importers reported substitutes for PC strand. 

The importers that reported substitute products cited rebar as a possible substitute. Both importers that

named rebar as a possible substitute also reported that changes in rebar prices did not affect prices for PC

strand.21

Only three of 21 responding purchasers reported substitutes for PC strand, with all three citing

rebar as a possible substitute product. Two purchasers that named rebar as a possible substitute reported

that changes in rebar prices did not affect prices for PC strand, whereas one purchaser reported that PC

strand prices follow rebar prices.

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 12-25 percent for hollow core planks, piling, girders, and double tees. U.S.

importers of Chinese PC strand reported that PC strand accounts for 65-100 percent of the cost of end-use

products for post-tensioning applications such as residential slabs, versus 25 percent for prestressed

applications.

Purchasers reported a wide range of PC strand end-use products, including piling, post-tensioning

cables, prestressed concrete beams, wall panels, double tees, bridge girders, precast planks, and residential

and commercial concrete reinforcing. Cost share estimates varied widely, from 3-4 percent for

prestressed concrete products such as wall panels to 70-100 percent for end-use products such as bridge

girders, barrier cable systems, and truss systems.

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. 
 22 “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).

II-16

However, the existence of substantial end-use markets subject to “Buy America(n)” provisions reduces

that substitutability.22

Factors Affecting Purchasing Decisions

Table II-2 summarizes the purchasers’ responses concerning the top three factors they consider in

their purchasing decisions. As indicated in the table, price was cited most frequently as the primary factor

in buying decisions, followed by quality. Quality was the most frequently cited second factor, followed

closely by availability. Price and availability were the most frequently cited third factors.

Table II-2

PC strand: Ranking factors used in purchasing decisions by U.S. purchasers

Factor

Number of firms reporting

Number one factor Number two factor Number three factor

Price 11 3 5

Quality 7 7 1

Availability 0 6 5

Extension of credit 1 1 0

Delivery 0 3 4

Contracts/traditional supplier 1 0 1

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
II-17

Purchasers were asked to rate the importance of 15 factors in their purchasing decision (table II3). Twenty-one purchasers rated “quality meets industry standards” very important; 19 firms rated

product consistency very important; and 19 firms rated price very important. In contrast, 10 firms

reported that minimum quantity requirements were not an important factor and six firms reported that

product range was not an important factor.

Table II-3

PC strand: Importance of purchase factors, as reported by U.S. purchasers 

Factor

Very important Somewhat important Not important

Number of firms responding

Availability 17 4 0

Delivery terms 14 6 1

Delivery time 17 4 0

Discounts offered 10 9 2

Extension of credit 6 12 3

Price 19 2 0

Minimum qty requirements 4 7 10

Packaging 9 10 2

Product consistency 19 2 0

Quality meets industry

standards 21 0 0

Quality exceeds industry

standards 7 13 1

Product range 1 13 6

Reliability of supply 18 3 0

Technical support/service 7 14 0

U.S. transportation costs 8 12 1

Note.--Not all purchasers responded for each factor.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Purchasers were asked for a country-by-country comparison on the same 15 factors (table II-4). 

In general, for U.S. PC strand compared to subject countries’ PC strand, most responding purchasers

reported that U.S. PC strand was superior in terms of delivery time and technical support/service and

inferior in terms of price (i.e., higher-priced). For nearly all other factor comparisons, most responding

purchasers rated U.S. and subject country PC strand as comparable. For U.S. PC strand compared to

Chinese PC strand, most responding purchasers reported that U.S. PC strand was superior in terms of

delivery time and technical support and service and inferior in terms of price. For nearly all other factor

comparisons, most responding purchasers rated U.S. and Chinese PC strand as comparable. For U.S. PC

strand compared to other nonsubject countries’ PC strand, most responding purchasers reported that U.S.

PC strand was superior in terms of delivery time, minimum quantity requirements, and U.S. transportation

costs. For nearly all other factor comparisons, most responding purchasers rated U.S. and other

nonsubject countries’ PC strand as comparable.
II-18

Table II-4

PC strand: Comparisons between U.S.-produced and subject and nonsubject countries as

reported by U.S. purchasers

Factor

U.S. vs

Brazil

U.S. vs

India

U.S. vs

Japan

U.S. vs

Korea

U.S. vs

Mexico

U.S. vs

Thailand

S C I SC ISC I S C I S C I S C I

Availability 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 3 0 1 4 0 1 3 0 1 2 0

Delivery terms 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 1 4 0 1 3 0 1 2 0

Delivery time 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 2 0 3 2 0 2 2 0 2 1 0

Discounts offered 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 3 1 0 5 0 1 3 0 0 3 0

Extension of credit 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 3 1 1 4 0 0 4 0 0 3 0

Minimum quantity

requirements 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 3 1 0 5 0 0 4 0 0 3 0

Packaging 0 3 0 0 3 0 1 3 0 1 4 0 0 4 0 0 3 0

Price 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 3 1 0 2 3 0 1 3 0 1 2

Product consistency 0 3 0 0 3 0 1 3 0 0 5 0 1 3 0 0 3 0

Product range 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 4 0 1 4 0 2 2 0 1 2 0

Quality exceeds industry

standards 0 3 0 0 3 0 1 4 0 0 5 0 2 2 0 0 3 0

Quality meets industry

standards 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 5 0 1 3 0 0 3 0

Reliability of supply 1 2 0 0 3 0 1 3 0 2 3 0 2 2 0 1 2 0

Technical support/service 2 1 0 2 1 0 1 3 0 3 2 0 3 1 0 2 1 0

U.S. transportation costs 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 4 0 0 4 0 1 2 0

Table continued on following page.
II-19

Table II-4--Continued

PC strand: Comparisons between U.S.-produced and subject and nonsubject countries as

reported by U.S. purchasers

Factor

U.S. vs. China U.S. vs. Other Nonsubject

S CISCI

Availability 4 6 0 2 2 0

Delivery terms 5 5 0 1 3 0

Delivery time 8 2 0 3 0 1

Discounts offered 1 6 3 1 2 1

Extension of credit 1 8 1 1 2 1

Minimum qty requirements 3 6 1 2 1 1

Packaging 4 6 0 0 3 1

Price 0 4 6 0 2 2

Product consistency 3 7 0 0 4 0

Product range 3 5 1 1 3 0

Quality exceeds industry standards 3 6 0 1 3 0

Quality meets industry standards 2 8 0 1 3 0

Reliability of supply 4 6 0 0 4 0

Technical support/service 8 2 0 1 3 0

U.S. transportation costs 3 4 2 2 1 1

Note.--S=first listed country’s product is superior; C=both countries’ products are comparable; I=first listed country’s

product is inferior. Data shown only for comparisons made by at least 3 purchasers. A rating of superior means that

price/U.S. transportation cost is generally lower. For example, if a firm reported “U.S. superior,” it meant that the

price of U.S. product was generally lower than the price of the imported product.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

When asked if certain grades/types/sizes of PC strand were available from only a single source,

17 of 21 responding purchasers answered “No.” Purchasers were also asked if they or their customers

ever specifically requested PC strand from one country over other possible sources. Seven of 21

responding purchasers reported that they sometimes specifically order U.S. PC strand, citing factors such

as “Buy America(n)” provisions and a desire to support the domestic industry.

Asked whether or not they required their suppliers to become certified or qualified with respect to

the quality, chemistry, strength, or other performance characteristics of the PC strand they purchase, 17 of

21 responding purchasers reported that they did. When qualifying a new supplier, most purchasers

consider the quality of the product (e.g., meet or exceed specifications), price, and delivery time and

reliability. Other factors considered include payment terms, product reliability, financial strength of the

supplier, and mill certification.

When purchasers were asked what characteristics they consider when determining the quality of

PC strand, most require PC strand be certified to industry specifications (e.g., ASTM A416). Other

factors cited include the surface condition and appearance, manufacturing and process control, packaging

and product consistency, and certification by the Post-Tensioning Institute.

Purchasers were asked if buying PC strand that is produced in the United States is an important

factor in their firm’s purchases of PC strand. Sixteen of 21 responding purchasers reported that buying
 23 For a more detailed discussion of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments see Part III: Condition of the U.S. Industry.

II-20

U.S. product is an important factor since purchases of domestic product are required by law or regulation

(e.g., government purchases under “Buy America(n)” provisions). The reported shares of these firm’s PC

strand purchases subject to “Buy America(n) requirements varied widely (from one to 100 percent),

although five purchasers reported that at least 75 percent of their purchases were subject to “Buy

America(n)” restrictions.

During January 2003-June 2009, more than two-thirds of U.S. producers’ total U.S. shipments of

PC strand (quantity basis) were for pre-tensioned applications, slightly more than one-half of which were

subject to “Buy America(n)” restrictions. Of the less than one-third of U.S. producers’ total shipments

that were destined for post-tensioned applications during January 2003-June 2009, *** percent were

subject to “Buy America(n) restrictions. In the aggregate, almost one-half of the quantity of U.S.

producers’ total U.S. shipments were subject to “Buy America(n)” restrictions during January 2003-June

2009.23

Comparison of Domestic Products and Subject Imports

In order to determine whether U.S.-produced PC strand can generally be used in the same

applications as imports from Brazil, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand, U.S. producers and

importers were asked whether the products can “always,” “frequently,” “sometimes,” or “never” be used

interchangeably (table II-5).

When comparing U.S. product with individual subject product, all five responding producers and

nearly all responding importers reported that U.S.-produced PC strand can “always” or “frequently” be

used interchangeably with subject product. The majority of responding purchasers reported that U.S.-

produced PC strand can “always” or “frequently” be used interchangeably with subject product.

Producers and importers were also asked to compare U.S.-produced PC strand with imports from

Brazil, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand in terms of product differences other than price such as

quality, availability, product range, and technical support. Again, firms were asked whether these product

differences are always, frequently, sometimes, or never significant (table II-6). All five responding

producers reported that differences other than price between PC strand produced in the United States and

subject countries were “never” a significant factor in their firm’s sales of the products. Conversely, for

nearly all comparisons (except for Japan) most importers reported that non-price differences were either

“always” or “frequently” a significant factor in their firm’s sales of the product.

Comparison of Domestic Products and Nonsubject Imports

All five responding U.S. producers, all 15 responding importers, and 11 of 14 responding

purchasers indicated that PC strand produced in the United States and nonsubject countries were “always”

or “frequently” used interchangeably. All five responding U.S. producers reported that non-price

differences were “never” significant. Conversely, 7 of 10 responding importers reported that non-price

differences were either “always” or “frequently” significant.
II-21

Table II-5

PC strand: Perceived interchangeability of products produced in the United States and in other

countries by country pairs1

Country pair

Number of U.S. 

producers reporting

Number of U.S.

importers reporting

Number of U.S.

purchasers reporting

A F S N A F S N A F S N

 U.S. vs. subject countries:

U.S. vs. Brazil 5 0 0 0 6 5 0 0 5 1 0 2

U.S. vs. India 5 0 0 0 7 5 0 0 5 0 0 2

U.S. vs. Japan 5 0 0 0 7 5 0 0 5 1 0 2

U.S. vs. Korea 5 0 0 0 7 5 0 0 6 1 0 2

U.S. vs. Mexico 5 0 0 0 7 3 1 0 5 0 0 2

U.S. vs. Thailand 5 0 0 0 7 3 0 0 5 0 0 2

Subject country comparisons: 

Brazil vs. India 5 0 0 0 6 3 0 0 4 0 0 1

Brazil vs. Japan 5 0 0 0 6 3 0 0 4 0 0 1

Brazil vs. Korea 5 0 0 0 6 3 0 0 4 0 0 1

Brazil vs. Mexico 5 0 0 0 6 3 1 0 4 0 0 1

Brazil vs. Thailand 5 0 0 0 6 2 0 0 4 0 0 1

India vs. Japan 5 0 0 0 6 4 0 0 4 0 0 1

India vs. Korea 5 0 0 0 6 4 0 0 4 0 0 1

India vs. Mexico 5 0 0 0 6 2 1 0 4 0 0 1

India vs. Thailand 5 0 0 0 6 2 0 0 4 0 0 1

Japan vs. Korea 5 0 0 0 6 4 0 0 4 0 0 1

Japan vs. Mexico 5 0 0 0 7 3 0 0 4 0 0 1

Japan vs. Thailand 5 0 0 0 6 3 0 0 4 0 0 1

Korea vs. Mexico 5 0 0 0 6 4 0 0 4 0 0 1

Korea vs. Thailand 5 0 0 0 6 3 0 0 4 0 0 1

Mexico vs. Thailand 5 0 0 0 6 3 1 0 4 0 0 1

U.S./subject country vs. nonsubject

U.S. vs. nonsubject 5 0 0 0 7 8 0 0 8 3 1 2

Brazil vs. nonsubject 5 0 0 0 6 3 0 0 4 0 0 1

India vs. nonsubject 5 0 0 0 6 3 0 0 4 0 0 1

Japan vs. nonsubject 5 0 0 0 6 3 0 0 4 0 0 1

Korea vs. nonsubject 5 0 0 0 6 3 0 0 4 1 0 1

Mexico vs. nonsubject 5 0 0 0 6 1 1 0 4 0 0 1

Thailand vs. nonsubject 500062004001

 1 Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked if PC strand produced in the United States and in other

countries is used interchangeably.

Note.--A = Always, F = Frequently, S = Sometimes, N = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
II-22

Table II-6

PC strand: Perceived significance of differences other than price between products produced in

the United States and in other countries, by country pairs1

Country comparison

Number of 

U.S. producers reporting

Number of 

U.S. importers reporting

A F S N A F S N

 U.S. vs. subject countries:

U.S. vs. Brazil 0 0 0 5 3 1 1 1

U.S. vs. India 0 0 0 5 3 1 2 1

U.S. vs. Japan 0 0 0 5 3 1 1 3

U.S. vs. Korea 0 0 0 5 3 2 2 1

U.S. vs. Mexico 0 0 0 5 3 1 2 1

U.S. vs. Thailand 0 0 0 5 3 1 1 1

Subject country comparisons: 

Brazil vs. India 0 0 0 5 1 2 1 0

Brazil vs. Japan 0 0 0 5 1 2 1 0

Brazil vs. Korea 0 0 0 5 1 2 1 0

Brazil vs. Mexico 0 0 0 5 1 2 1 0

Brazil vs. Thailand 0 0 0 5 1 2 0 0

India vs. Japan 0 0 0 5 1 2 1 1

India vs. Korea 0 0 0 5 1 2 1 1

India vs. Mexico 0 0 0 5 1 2 1 0

India vs. Thailand 0 0 0 5 1 2 0 1

Japan vs. Korea 0 0 0 5 1 2 1 1

Japan vs. Mexico 0 0 0 5 1 2 1 0

Japan vs. Thailand 0 0 0 5 1 2 0 1

Korea vs. Mexico 0 0 0 5 1 2 1 0

Korea vs. Thailand 0 0 0 5 1 2 0 1

Mexico vs. Thailand 0 0 0 5 1 2 0 0

U.S./subject country vs. nonsubject

U.S. vs. nonsubject 0 0 0 5 5 2 3 0

Brazil vs. nonsubject 0 0 0 5 1 2 1 0

India vs. nonsubject 0 0 0 5 1 2 1 0

Japan vs. nonsubject 0 0 0 5 1 2 1 0

Korea vs. nonsubject 0 0 0 5 1 2 1 0

Mexico vs. nonsubject 0 0 0 5 1 2 2 0

Thailand vs. nonsubject 00051200

 1 Producers and importers were asked if differences other than price between PC strand produced in the United

States and in other countries were a significant factor in their sales of the products.

Note.--“A” = Always, “F” = Frequently, “S” = Sometimes, “N” = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
II-23

Comparison of Subject Imports and Nonsubject Imports

All five responding U.S. producers indicated that PC strand produced in subject and nonsubject

countries were “always” used interchangeably. Most responding importers reported that PC strand

produced in subject and nonsubject countries were “always” used interchangeably, and nearly all reported

that subject and nonsubject PC strand are either “always” or “frequently” used interchangeably. Most

responding purchasers reported that PC strand produced in subject and nonsubject countries were

“always” used interchangeably. All five responding U.S. producers reported that non-price differences

were “never” significant. Conversely, in general, about half of the responding importers reported that

non-price differences were “frequently” significant.

ELASTICITY ESTIMATES

U.S. Supply Elasticity

The domestic supply elasticity for PC strand measures the sensitivity of the quantity supplied by

the U.S. producers to changes in the U.S. market price for PC strand. The elasticity of domestic supply

depends on several factors, including the level of excess capacity, the existence of inventories, the

availability of alternate markets for U.S.-produced PC strand, and the ability of U.S. producers to switch

between production of PC strand and other products. Previous analysis of these factors indicates that the

U.S. industry has the ability to substantially increase or decrease shipments to the U.S. market based on

available excess capacity and inventory levels. An estimate in the range of 3 to 5 is suggested.

U.S. Demand Elasticity

The U.S. demand elasticity for PC strand measures the sensitivity of the overall quantity

demanded to a change in the U.S. market price of PC strand. This estimate depends on factors discussed

earlier, such as the existence, availability, and commercial viability of substitute products, as well as the

component share of PC strand in the final cost of end-products in which it is used. The lack of available

substitute products suggests an inelastic demand. However, the relatively large component share of PC

strand in the final cost of its end products indicates a more elastic demand. On balance, it is likely that

the aggregate demand for PC strand is moderately inelastic, with values ranging from -0.5 to -1.0.

Substitution Elasticity

The elasticity of substitution depends upon the extent of product differentiation between the

domestic and imported PC strand. Product differentiation, in turn, depends upon such factors as quality

and condition of sale (availability, delivery terms and time, product range, technical support/service, etc.). 

Based on available information indicating that price was the primary factor in purchasers’ buying

decision, and that the domestic and imported products can frequently be used interchangeably and were

comparable with respect to most purchasing decision factors, the elasticity of substitution between U.S.-

produced and imported PC strand is likely to be in the range of 3 to 5.
 
 1

 Hearing transcript, p. 33 (Woltz) and pp. 35-36 (Cornelius).

III-1

PART III: CONDITION OF THE U.S. INDUSTRY

OVERVIEW

Since the Commission’s original 1978 investigation concerning imports of PC strand from Japan,

the U.S. industry has experienced substantial changes, marked by several closures, openings, and

acquisitions. In 1978, there were six firms producing PC strand in the United States: Armco, Bethlehem,

CF&I, American, FW&C, and Washburn. By 2009, the following firms reported domestic production of

PC strand: American, Insteel, Rettco/MMI, Strand-Tech, and Sumiden. Changes in the composition of

the domestic PC strand industry that occurred from 1978 to 2009 were illustrated in Part I of this report in

figure I-1.

Background

Completed responses to the Commission’s questionnaire in these current reviews were received

from all domestic PC strand producers currently in operation. Two domestic firms – PCS (Rosenberg,

TX) and EMC (Phoenix, AZ) – produced PC strand in the United States during a portion of the period for

which information was collected in these reviews. Although producer questionnaire responses were not

completed by these two firms and the aggregated data presented for the domestic industry in this report do

not include these two domestic PC strand producers, certain information (including limited data) was

provided to the Commission by related PC strand producers in Mexico and are presented separately in

this section of the report, as appropriate. 

Existing Operations

Domestic producers were asked to indicate whether their firm had experienced any plant

openings, relocations, expansions, acquisitions, consolidations, closures, prolonged shutdowns,

production curtailments, revised labor agreements, or any other change in the character of their operations

or organization relating to the production of PC strand since January 1, 2003. All currently operating

domestic producers indicated in their questionnaire responses that they had experienced such changes

since 2003 and provided details concerning these changes. Their responses are presented in table III-1.

Table III-1

PC strand: Changes in the character of U.S. operations

* * * * * * *

The two *** domestic PC strand producers, Insteel and Sumiden, testified at the Commission’s

hearing in these reviews that they have experienced prolonged shutdowns and production curtailments in

their facilities that produce PC strand. Sumiden testified that both its California and Tennessee PC strand

production facilities plants experienced shutdowns or curtailed production in late 2003 and again in 2009. 

Insteel testified that it has been forced to idle equipment and lay off employees (many long-term) at both

its Florida and Tennessee PC strand facilities.1

In addition, although producer questionnaire responses were not completed by PCS (Rosenberg,

TX) and EMC (Phoenix, AZ), the information that follows concerning the operating history and status of

these two PC strand producers was provided to the Commission by related PC strand producers in

Mexico. 
 2 Emails from *** to Mary Messer, June 26, 2009 and June 30, 2009.

 3

 Hearing transcript, pp. 196-197 (Gomez).

 4

 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.

 5

 Production and shipments were estimated for PCS by Camesa as totalling *** pounds in 2005. Emails from ***

to Mary Messer, June 26, 2009, June 30, 2009, and October 26, 2009.

 6 Emails from *** to Mary Messer, June 26, 2009 and June 30, 2009.

 7

 Cablesa has since been acquired by Deacero. Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petition, Prestressed

Concrete Steel Wire Strand from China, exh. INJURY-4; and Mexican producers’ posthearing brief, p. 6, fn. 13.

 8

 Deacero estimated EMC’s production and shipments for 2005 and 2006 to be *** pounds and *** pounds,

respectively. Email from *** to Mary Messer, October 26, 2009.

 9

 Mexican producers’ posthearing brief, p. 6, fn. 13; Emails from *** to Mary Messer, June 26, 2009 and June

30, 2009; and Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from China, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-464 and 731-TA-1160

(Preliminary), USITC Publication 4086, July 2009, p. III-1.

III-2

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

 In hearing testimony, Camesa explained that it shut

down its Texas PC strand facility and shipped its PC strand lines to Mexico because it was faced with

“growing capacity on the U.S. manufacturer side” and “the presence of China” in the United States.3

Camesa, owned by WireCo World Group, currently operates a wire rope production facility at that former

Rosenberg PC strand site.4

 Production and shipments were estimated for PCS by Camesa as totalling ***

pounds in 2006.5

 There were no reported production and shipments of PC strand by PCS subsequent to

2006.6

 

EMC’s Phoenix, AZ, facility, formerly owned by Mexican PC strand producer Cablesa,7

 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.8

 Production at that facility ceased in *** 2007 when Cablesa’s U.S.

subsidiary defaulted on rent payments and the landlord seized the production equipment and premises. In

compliance with a judgment granted to the landlord, the production equipment at the Arizona facility was

auctioned by the landlord in October 2007. Deacero pointed out that it “did not own Cablesa at the time

that the Phoenix operation was established, was not in any way involved in the operation of that plant,

and had nothing to do with Cablesa’s default on the lease agreement.”9

Anticipated Changes in Existing Operations

The Commission requested that domestic producers provide a copy of their company business

plans or other internal documents that describe, discuss, or analyze expected future market conditions for

PC strand. None of the domestic producers reported that they had any such plan or other internal

documents concerning PC strand. 

The Commission also asked domestic producers to report anticipated changes in the character of

their operations relating to the production of PC strand. *** reported that they do not anticipate any

operational changes, while *** provided responses detailing such anticipated changes. The responses

provided by *** are presented in table III-2.
 10 Hearing transcript, p. 32 (Woltz).

 11 Domestic producers’ prehearing brief, p. 40. Details regarding the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act

appear in Part II of this report.

 12 The aggregate data presented for capacity, production, and capacity utilization are for toll producer Rettco and

producers American, Insteel, Strand-Tech, and Sumiden.

 13 Insteel and Sumiden testified at the Commission’s hearing in these reviews that, “absent dumped imports,”

additional capacity to produce PC strand could relatively easily and quickly (approximately 7-8 months) be

commissioned to meet the entire domestic demand for PC strand. Hearing transcript, p. 95 (Wagner) and p. 96

(Cornelius).

 14 Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from China, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-464 and 731-TA-1160

(Preliminary), USITC Publication 4086, July 2009, pp. III-2-III-3 (citing conference transcript, pp. 84-85 (Woltz)).

III-3

Table III-2

PC strand: Anticipated changes in the character of U.S. operations

* * * * * * *

Insteel indicated at the Commission’s hearing in these reviews that it anticipates further declines

in its PC strand shipments for 2010 due to the anticipated “severe downward trend” in nonresidential

construction (the company’s primary demand driver) and the continued weakness in residential

construction.10 The domestic interested parties also indicated that they do not anticipate an increase in the

demand for PC strand associated with the U.S. stimulus package, as many states are being forced to

eliminate or postpone infrastructure projects as a result of the economic downturn.11

U.S. PRODUCERS’ CAPACITY, PRODUCTION, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION

U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization data for PC strand are presented in

table III-3.12 These data show an overall 21.8-percent increase in capacity during 2003-08. The U.S.

producers’ capacity to produce PC strand of 903.8 million pounds in 2008 was equivalent to 95.9 percent

of total apparent U.S. consumption of PC strand.13 Although domestic production of PC strand increased

from 2003 to 2006, it fell thereafter. Likewise, capacity utilization fluctuated upward from 2003 to 2006,

but fell in the remaining periods. Although U.S. producers’ aggregate capacity to produce PC strand was

higher during the first half of 2009 than in the comparable period in 2008, their aggregate production and

capacity utilization were substantially lower.

Four U.S. producers reported increases in capacity during the review period. Rettco began

producing PC strand during 2005 and reported an increase in its capacity to produce PC strand *** as it

was ramping up its production. 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

2004, 2007, 2008, and January-June 2009. ***. Insteel’s capacity increase of 70 million pounds is

explained by the company’s expansion of its 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.14 ***.
 15 Emails from *** to Mary Messer, June 26, 2009, and June 30, 2009. Combined annual production for these

two domestic producers for 2004 and 2005 was *** pounds and *** pounds, respectively. Email from *** to Mary

Messer, October 26, 2009. Capacity data for 2004 and 2005 were not provided for these two firms.

 16 Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from China, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-464 and 731-TA-1160

(Preliminary), USITC Publication 4086, July 2009, pp. III-3 - III-4.

 17 Hearing transcript, p. 119 (Cornelius).

III-4

Table III-3

PC strand: U.S. capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 2003-08, January-June 2008, and JanuaryJune 20091

Item

Calendar year January-June--

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Capacity (1,000 pounds) 742,295 754,653 791,653 810,653 902,782 903,795 454,684 456,277

Production (1,000

pounds) 578,004 608,562 621,919 673,195 601,732 558,885 327,355 172,375

Capacity utilization

(percent) 77.9 80.6 78.6 83.0 66.7 61.8 72.0 37.8

 1 Capacity (production capability) data are 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 capacity and production data for EMC and PCS, the two domestic PC strand

facilities that were shuttered during ***. Production and capacity data for *** for these two firms are as follows: *** pounds of

capacity during ***, *** pounds of capacity in ***, *** pounds of production in ***, and *** pounds of production in ***. *** for these

two firms were not provided.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires; and emails from *** to Mary Messer, June 26,

2009, and June 30, 2009.

The *** capacity and production data presented in table III-3, however, do not include the data of

the two domestic PC strand facilities that were closed in *** (i.e., PCS and EMC). Estimated combined

capacity of these two firms to produce PC strand was approximately *** pounds during *** and ***

pounds in *** and the combined annual production was approximately *** pounds in *** and ***

pounds during ***.15

Covered/Coated PC Strand

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

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 sales16 and that it accounts for less than one

percent of the overall market for PC strand.17

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. Otherwise, none of the domestic PC strand producers grease and cover bare PC

strand in-house and none perform post-tensioning services. Instead, these services are largely performed
 18 Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from China, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-464 and 731-TA-1160

(Preliminary), USITC Publication 4086, July 2009, pp. III-3 - III-4.

 19 Ibid.

 20 Hearing transcript, pp. 118-119 (Wagner).

III-5

by domestic purchasers of bare strand.18 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,

estimated that the incremental cost of the greased and plastic-covered strand to be 4 to 4.5 cents per foot,

equivalent to approximately 20 percent of the total cost to produce the covered strand (based on the

prevailing price of bare PC strand).19 

Indented PC Strand

Insteel was the only domestic PC strand producer that reported the production of indented PC

strand. 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.

PC strand made from indented wire is typically specified for certain pre-tensioning applications,

especially those incorporating short lengths of strand, in which an enhanced bond between the cured

concrete and the PC strand is required. Indenting the PC strand increases its surface area and provides a

different shape to the surface which causes it to bond to concrete better than a smooth strand. A typical

use for indented PC strand includes securing railroad ties in relatively short sections of concrete. Insteel

testified that “it is not a very attractive product” and that “the market is extremely small.”20

Constraints on Capacity

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. Three of the five producers

indicated that the stranding operations machinery was the production constraint at their facilities, whereas

one producer indicated that it was specifically the cleaning/pickling operation that was the production

constraint for its production facility. In response to the Commission’s request for a description of the

constraints that set the limits on production capacity, *** responded “***.”

Alternative Products

*** 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, *** 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.
 21 The aggregate data presented for U.S. producers’ shipments are for tollee MMI and producers American,

Insteel, Strand-Tech, and Sumiden.

 22 Hearing transcript, p. 30 (Woltz).

III-6

U.S. PRODUCERS’ DOMESTIC SHIPMENTS, 

COMPANY TRANSFERS, AND EXPORT SHIPMENTS

Data on U.S. producers’ shipments of PC strand are presented in table III-4.21 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 reviews. Export shipments, which accounted for *** 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 increased, in

terms of quantity, in each year from 2003 to 2006, but fell thereafter. Export shipments fluctuated

upward during 2003-08 but were *** lower during the first half of 2009 as compared with the first half of

2008. 

The unit value of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments fluctuated upward from a low of $272 per 1,000

pounds in 2003 to a high of $630 per 1,000 pounds in 2008. The average unit value of U.S. shipments

was $550 per 1,000 pounds during the first half of 2008, then increased to $756 per 1,000 pounds during

the second half of 2008, before falling to $535 per 1,000 pounds during the first half of 2009. The unit

value of exports also fluctuated upward from a low of $*** to a high of $***. The average unit value of

exports was $*** per 1,000 pounds during the first half of 2008, then increased to $*** per 1,000 pounds

during the second half of 2008, before falling to $*** per 1,000 pounds during the first half of 2009. 

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, on a quantity basis during January 2003-June 2009, more

than two-thirds of U.S. producers’ total U.S. shipments of PC strand were for pre-tensioned applications,

slightly more than one-half of which were subject to “Buy America(n)” restrictions. Of the less than onethird of U.S. producers’ total U.S. shipments that were destined for post-tensioned applications during

January 2003-June 2009, *** percent were subject to “Buy America(n)” restrictions. In the aggregate,

almost one-half of the quantity of U.S. producers’ total U.S. shipments were subject to “Buy America(n)”

restrictions during January 2003-June 2009. At the Commission’s hearing in these reviews, domestic

producer Insteel testified that “Buy America(n)” projects requiring PC strand, most of which are for U.S.

Department of Transportation (“DOT”) projects, have accounted for a consistent portion of its sales over

the past decade and that it does not anticipate “any real change in that percentage as a result of the new

stimulus package except to the extent that private nonresidential demand for PC strand falls off at a more

rapid rate than the DOT-related Buy America demand falls.”22
III-7

Table III-4

PC strand: U.S. producers’ shipments, by types, 2003-08, January-June 2008, and January-June 20091

Item

Calendar year January-June--

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

U.S. commercial

shipments 564,035 573,700 621,842 627,436 582,801 529,972 325,484 183,024

Export shipments2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value (1,000 dollars)

U.S. commercial

shipments 153,420 254,156 301,420 297,410 268,344 333,721 179,133 97,946

Export shipments2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value (per 1,000 pounds)

U.S. commercial

shipments $272 $443 $489 $474 $460 $6303 $5503 $535

Export shipments2 *** *** *** *** *** ***3 ***3 ***

Total shipments *** *** *** *** *** ***3 ***3 ***

Share of quantity (percent)

U.S. commercial

shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Export shipments2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total shipments 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 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 ***.

 3

 As calculated using the January-December and January-June data provided for 2008, the average unit values of U.S.

commercial shipments, export shipments, and total shipments for July-December 2008 were $*** per 1,000 pounds, $*** per 1,000

pounds, and $*** per 1,000 pounds, respectively.

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, 2003-08, January-June

2008, and January-June 2009

* * * * * * *

The U.S. producers’ data provided also show a shift away from serving customers using PC

strand in post-tensioned applications in favor of pre-tensioning customers. In 2003, *** percent of the

domestic producers’ U.S. shipments were for pre-tensioned applications. By 2008, this share had

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-ongrade post-tension market due to pricing deterioration resulting from low-priced Chinese import
 23 Insteel Industries Inc., “Investor Presentation,” June 2009, p. 8.

 24 Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from China, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-464 and 731-TA-1160

(Preliminary), USITC Publication 4086, July 2009, p. III-7.

 25 Ibid.

 26 Ibid.

 27 Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from China, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-464 and 731-TA-1160

(Preliminary), USITC Publication 4086, July 2009, p. III-7.

 28 The aggregate data presented for U.S. producers’ inventories are for tollee MMI and producers American,

Insteel, Strand-Tech, and Sumiden.

 29 Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from China, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-464 and 731-TA-1160

(Preliminary), USITC Publication 4086, July 2009, p. III-8.

III-8

competition and ongoing weakness in housing-related demand.”23 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.”24 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.25 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.”26

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 to support anticipated sales in excess of capacity during the summer

months. Often, 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 domestic

producers reported that their PC strand inventory does not distinguish between products destined for

post-tensioned or pre-tensioned applications.27 

Data collected in these reviews on domestic producers’ end-of-period inventories of PC strand are

presented in table III-6.28 U.S. producers’ inventories, which were equivalent to between *** and ***

percent of U.S. producers’ total shipments during 2003-08, fluctuated upward in terms of quantity during

the period examined in these reviews. U.S. producers’ inventories were 75.0 percent higher at the end of

2008 than they were at the end of 2003 and were 7.6 percent higher in June 2009 than in June 2008. Endof-period inventories as a ratio to total shipments were also higher at the end of the first half of 2009,

equivalent to *** percent of U.S. producers’ total annualized shipments. *** accounted for *** of the

inventories held at the end of the first half of 2009 and *** together accounted for *** of the inventories

held at that time. 

U.S. PRODUCERS’ IMPORTS AND PURCHASES

U.S. producers’ imports and purchases of PC strand are presented in table III-7. *** of the U.S.

PC strand producers directly imported or domestically purchased imported PC strand from the six

countries subject to these reviews during the period examined. As shown, one U.S. producer (Insteel)

directly imported the subject merchandise from China,29 another domestic producer (***) domestically

purchased *** PC strand from U.S. importers, and a third domestic producer (***) reported direct imports

of PC strand from ***. 
 30 Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from China, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-464 and 731-TA-1160

(Preliminary), USITC Publication 4086, July 2009, p. III-8.

 31 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

Table III-6

PC strand: U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories, 2003-08, January-June 2008, and January-June 2009

Item

Calendar year January-June1--

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Inventories (1,000 pounds) 38,343 59,605 44,596 68,014 61,262 67,082 47,677 51,281

Ratio to production (percent) 6.6 9.8 7.2 10.1 10.2 12.0 7.3 14.9

Ratio to U.S. shipments (percent) 6.8 10.4 7.2 10.8 10.5 12.7 7.3 14.0

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.

Table III-7

PC strand: U.S. producers’ imports and purchases, 2003-08, January-June 2008, and January-June 2009

* * * * * * *

Insteel indicated that it decided to import PC strand from China in 2006 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 terminated the pilot program after only a few 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

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCERS’ EMPLOYMENT, WAGES, AND PRODUCTIVITY

The U.S. producers’ employment data for PC strand are presented in table III-8.31 In the

aggregate, U.S. PC strand producers reported an increase in the number of production and related workers

employed in the manufacture of PC strand during 2003-06, but declines in 2007 and 2008. The number

of hours worked by these employees, as well as the total and hourly wages paid and unit labor costs,

followed the same overall trend. Productivity increased from 2003 to 2004, fell from 2004 to 2007, and

again increased in 2008. All employment indicators, with the exception of unit labor costs, during the

first half of 2009 were lower than the comparable period in 2008. Unit labor costs were 9.9 percent

higher during January-June 2009 than in January-June 2008. 
 32 Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from China, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-464 and 731-TA-1160

(Preliminary), USITC Publication 4086, July 2009, p. III-10.

 33 AMM, “Insteel laying off 15 at PC strand plant,” November 13, 2008; and Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire

Strand from China, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-464 and 731-TA-1160 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 4086, July

2009, p. III-10.

 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. 

Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from China, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-464 and 731-TA-1160 (Preliminary),

USITC Publication 4086, July 2009, p. III-10.

III-10

Table III-8

PC strand: U.S. producers’ employment-related data, 2003-08, January-June 2008, and January-June 2009

Item

Calendar year January-June--

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Production and related workers (PRWs) 315 335 364 385 357 331 337 253

Hours worked by PRWs (1,000 hours) 762 744 784 856 771 694 392 244

Wages paid to PRWs (1,000 dollars) 11,658 12,764 14,302 16,963 14,145 13,264 7,933 4,592

Hourly wages $15.30 $17.17 $18.24 $19.82 $18.34 $19.11 $20.25 $18.79

Productivity (pounds produced per hour) 758.3 818.5 793.2 786.7 780.1 805.0 835.7 705.3

Unit labor costs (per 1,000 pounds) $20.17 $20.97 $23.00 $25.20 $23.51 $23.73 $24.23 $26.64

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.

The domestic producers testified at the conference in the recently completed preliminary

investigations concerning PC strand from China that declining sales and shipments and the resulting

reductions in production led to the permanent layoff of many U.S. workers manufacturing PC strand. 

They attributed these declines in sales and shipments to “imports from China that consistently undercut

our prices.”32 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 had expected the increase in the number of jobs at its Tennessee

facility to offset the job losses at its Florida facility, but by the time the new investments were

operational, it was forced to reduce 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.33 34
 35 The U.S. firms are American, Insteel, MMI, RettCo, Strand-Tech, and Sumiden. 

 36 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 III-9.

III-11

FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE OF THE U.S. PRODUCERS

Background

Six U.S. firms provided financial data on their operations on PC strand.35 These data are believed

to account for the vast majority of U.S. operations on PC strand since 2003. 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 MMI’s sales of PC strand.36 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 III-9,

while selected financial data, by firm, are presented in table III-10. The domestic industry experienced

increasing operating income from 2003 to 2005, followed by decreasing operating income thereafter,

including an operating loss in January-June 2009. Both total net sales quantity and value increased

irregularly from 2003 to 2008, with net sales quantity declining from 2006 to 2008 while net sales value

continued to increase irregularly. Both net sales quantity and value were lower in January-June 2009 than

in January-June 2008, although the reduction in net sales value was greater than the reduction in net sales

quantity. Thus, the per-unit net sales value generally increased from 2003 to 2008, but was lower in

January-June 2009 than in January-June 2008 (although still higher than in full years 2003 to 2007). The

per-unit cost of goods sold (“COGS”) increased irregularly from 2003 to 2008 due primarily to increased

raw material costs, but overall increased to a lesser degree than per-unit revenue during this time.

Although per-unit revenue, costs, and operating income were higher in 2008 as compared to

2003, from 2005 to 2007, per-unit operating income declined as per-unit revenue declined more than perunit costs, while from 2007 to 2008 both per-unit revenue and costs increased by nearly the same amount

and thus per-unit operating income remained essentially unchanged. In January-June 2009, reported perunit raw material costs were lower compared to full year 2008 and January-June 2008. Other factory

costs showed a marked increase in January-June 2009, and were the primary contributor to the reported

operating loss in that period.
III-12

Table III-9

PC strand: Results of operations of U.S. producers, 2003-08, January-June 2008, and January-June 2009

Item

Fiscal year January-June

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Total net sales 564,937 610,678 605,636 661,470 613,704 589,793 341,238 188,242

Value ($1,000)

Total net sales 150,480 249,170 299,892 312,046 283,088 354,082 191,146 100,343

COGS 135,503 193,659 235,830 248,909 230,394 302,334 153,600 101,280

Gross profit/(loss) 14,977 55,511 64,062 63,137 52,694 51,748 37,546 (937)

SG&A expenses 9,887 13,251 13,233 14,648 13,317 13,795 7,128 6,603

Operating income/(loss) 5,090 42,260 50,829 48,489 39,377 37,953 30,418 (7,540)

Interest expense 2,917 3,657 3,051 2,037 3,193 1,820 1,087 980

CDSOA income 0 0 69 173 0 17 0 0

Other income/(expense) 390 (26) 1,207 1,321 819 1,392 804 172

Net income/(loss) 2,563 38,577 49,054 47,946 37,003 37,542 30,135 (8,348)

Depreciation 5,386 5,879 6,018 6,612 7,602 8,550 4,382 4,220

Cash flow 7,949 44,456 55,072 54,558 44,605 46,092 34,517 (4,128)

Ratio to net sales (percent)

 COGS:

 Raw materials 65.6 62.4 61.3 60.9 62.1 70.9 68.0 69.3

 Direct labor 5.8 4.0 3.7 4.4 4.5 3.5 3.2 3.3

 Other factory costs 18.6 11.3 13.7 14.5 14.7 10.9 9.2 28.3

 Total COGS 90.0 77.7 78.6 79.8 81.4 85.4 80.4 100.9

Gross profit/(loss) 10.0 22.3 21.4 20.2 18.6 14.6 19.6 (0.9)

SG&A expenses 6.6 5.3 4.4 4.7 4.7 3.9 3.7 6.6

Operating income/(loss) 3.4 17.0 16.9 15.5 13.9 10.7 15.9 (7.5)

Net income/(loss) 1.7 15.5 16.4 15.4 13.1 10.6 15.8 (8.3)

Unit value (per 1,000 pounds)

Total net sales $266 $408 $495 $472 $461 $600 $560 $533

 COGS:

 Raw materials 175 255 303 287 287 426 381 370

 Direct labor 16 16 18 21 21 21 18 18

 Other factory costs 49 46 68 69 68 65 51 151

 Total COGS 240 317 389 376 375 513 450 538

Gross profit/(loss) 27 91 106 95 86 88 110 (5)

SG&A expenses 18 22 22 22 22 23 21 35

Operating income/(loss) 9 69 84 73 64 64 89 (40)

Net income/(loss) 5 63 81 72 60 64 88 (44)

Number of firms reporting

Operating losses 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2

Data 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5

Table continued on next page.
 37 Insteel reported inventory adjustments in ***. Insteel’s operating margins ***. E-mail correspondence from

***, August 28, 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. 

Gross profit for the quarter was also unfavorably impacted by the reductions in shipments and selling prices, the

consumption of higher cost inventory that was purchased prior to the recent collapse in steel prices and the

escalation in unit conversion costs resulting from reduced operating schedules at our manufacturing facilities.” See

Insteel’s Form 10-Q, July 20, 2009, p.18, and hearing transcript pp. 99-101. 

 38 E-mail correspondence from ***, July 1, 2009, and August 31, 2009. ***. E-mail correspondence from ***,

August 31, 2009. 

III-13

Table III-9--Continued

PC strand: Results of operations of U.S. producers, 2003-08, January-June 2008, and January-June 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 2003-

08 would be ***, ***, ***, ***, ***, and *** percent, respectively, and operating income margins for January-June 2008 and JanuaryJune 2009 would be *** and *** 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 III-10

PC strand: Results of operations of U.S. producers, by firm, 2003-08, January-June 2008, and January-June

2009

* * * * * * *

While the overall industry’s trends are reflected in the previous discussion, several firms *** on

the aggregate results presented in table III-9. Insteel, which represented approximately *** percent of

aggregate net sales quantities and values in 2008 and *** percent in January-June 2009, reported

inventory adjustments in ***. These adjustments generally ***; however, the ***.37

***, which represented approximately *** percent of aggregate net sales quantities and values in

2008 and *** percent in January-June 2009, stated that ***.38
 39 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. 

III-14

Variance Analysis

A variance analysis for PC strand is presented in table III-11.39 The information for the variance

analysis is derived from table III-9. The analysis shows that the increase in operating income from 2003

to 2008 is primarily attributable to the favorable price variance that more than offset an unfavorable net

cost/expense variance (that is, prices rose to a greater extent than costs/expenses). The decline in

operating income in January-June 2009 relative to January-June 2008 is attributable to unfavorable price,

net cost/expense, and volume variances (that is, prices declined, costs/expenses increased, and volume

declined).

Table III-11

PC strand: Variance analysis on operations of U.S. producers, 2003-08, and January-June 2008-09

Item

Between fiscal years Jan.-

June

2003-08 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

Value ($1,000)

 Total net sales:

 Price variance 196,981 86,506 52,779 (15,493) (6,425) 82,024 (5,102)

 Volume variance 6,621 12,184 (2,057) 27,647 (22,533) (11,030) (85,701)

 Total net sales variance 203,602 98,690 50,722 12,154 (28,958) 70,994 (90,803)

Cost of sales:

 Cost variance (160,869) (47,185) (43,770) 8,662 541 (80,917) (16,547)

 Volume variance (5,962) (10,971) 1,599 (21,741) 17,974 8,977 68,867

 Total cost variance (166,831) (58,156) (42,171) (13,079) 18,515 (71,940) 52,320

Gross profit variance 36,771 40,534 8,551 (925) (10,443) (946) (38,483)

SG&A expenses:

 Expense variance (3,473) (2,563) (91) (195) 273 (997) (2,671)

 Volume variance (435) (801) 109 (1,220) 1,058 519 3,196

 Total SG&A variance (3,908) (3,364) 18 (1,415) 1,331 (478) 525

Operating income variance 32,863 37,170 8,569 (2,340) (9,112) (1,424) (37,958)

Summarized as:

 Price variance 196,981 86,506 52,779 (15,493) (6,425) 82,024 (5,102)

 Net cost/expense variance (164,342) (49,748) (43,861) 8,467 814 (81,913) (19,218)

 Net volume variance 224 412 (349) 4,686 (3,501) (1,534) (13,638)

Note.-- Unfavorable variances are shown in parentheses; all others are favorable.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 40 E-mail correspondence from ***, June 22 and 23, 2009, and October 13, 2009. See also conference transcript

for Investigation Nos. 701-TA-464 and 731-TA-1160 (Preliminary), Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from

China, June 17, 2009, p. 84 (Woltz). In the firm’s 2008 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. 

 41 E-mail correspondence from ***, June 22 and 23, 2009, and October 13, 2009.

III-15

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 III-12. Four firms provided capital expenditure data, while only

two firms provided data on R&D expenses. Capital expenditures for PC strand increased irregularly from

2003 to 2008, but were lower in January-June 2009 than in January-June 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 since 2006 primarily reflect

***.40 According to Sumiden, R&D expenses since 2006 primarily reflect ***.41

Table III-12

PC strand: Capital expenditures and research and development expenses of U.S. producers, 2003-08,

January-June 2008, and January-June 2009

* * * * * * *

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 III-13. From 2003 to 2008, the total assets for PC strand increased

irregularly from $112.4 million in 2003 to $202.7 million in 2008. ROI increased by 32.1 percentage

points from 2003 to 2005, but then declined by 17.9 percentage points from 2005 to 2008. Much of the

increase in current assets relates to increases in the selling prices and inventory values for PC strand. 
III-16

Table III-13

PC strand: Asset values and return on investment of U.S. producers, 2003-08

Item

Fiscal year

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Value of assets: Value ($1,000)

Current assets:

 Cash and equivalents 2,246 3,126 3,722 12,135 8,154 15,262

 Accounts receivable, net 22,469 37,066 39,819 37,765 35,722 42,804

 Inventories 20,280 34,301 34,541 56,734 41,047 73,013

 Other 4,036 1,708 1,824 1,543 2,166 1,652

 Total current assets 49,031 76,201 79,906 108,178 87,089 132,731

Property, plant and equipment:

Original cost 103,970 105,109 108,599 125,101 133,761 142,408

Less: accumulated depreciation 44,737 48,717 53,942 60,126 64,151 74,759

Equals: book value 59,233 56,392 54,658 64,974 69,611 67,648

Other non-current assets 4,158 3,785 4,490 3,725 2,526 2,287

 Total assets 112,422 136,378 139,053 176,877 159,226 202,666

Operating income or (loss) 5,090 42,260 50,829 48,489 39,377 37,953

Share (percent)

Return on investment 4.5 31.0 36.6 27.4 24.7 18.7

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 1

 As indicated earlier in Part I of this report, the bulk (*** percent) of all U.S. imports of product entering the

United States under the applicable HTS statistical reporting numbers from Japan during the period examined in these

reviews are nonsubject galvanized strand imported by ***. If these known nonsubject imports are extracted from the

data, the coverage of questionnaire responses is *** percent.

 2

 Camesa and Deacero, the only PC strand producers in Mexico, reported that they have not exported the subject

merchandise to the United States since ***.

 3

 Although Commerce, in 1990, extended Treasury’s “discontinuance” of the order with respect to Kawasaki

Steel Techno-Wire Co., Ltd., the successor company to Kawatetsu, the discontinuance does not apply to JFE

Techno-Wire, the apparent successor firm to Kawasaki Steel Techno-Wire, because a changed-circumstances review

has not been conducted by Commerce concerning Kawasaki Steel Techno-Wire's successor-in-interest. Therefore,

JFE Techno-Wire is covered by the antidumping duty order on PC strand from Japan. Steel Wire Strand for

Prestressed Concrete from Japan, Investigation No. AA1921-188, USITC Publication 928, November 1978, p. A-2;

Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete From Japan: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 55 FR 28796, July 13, 1990; Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete From Japan: 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty, Administrative Review and Revocation In Part, 51 FR 30894, August 29, 1986;

staff telephone interview, ***, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, October 2, 2009;

and domestic producers’ prehearing brief, p. 26.

 4

 Also, there have been *** imports of PC strand from Kawasaki Steel Techno-Wire’s successor company JFE

Techno-Wire.

IV-1

PART IV: U.S. IMPORTS AND THE FOREIGN INDUSTRIES

U.S. IMPORTS

The Commission sent questionnaires to 68 firms that were believed to have imported PC strand

since 2003, and received usable data from 22 companies. Based on official Commerce statistics for

imports of PC strand under HTS statistical reporting numbers 7312.10.3010 and 7312.10.3012 for the

period 2003-08, importers’ questionnaire data accounted for the following shares of total imports:

• *** percent of total imports from Brazil;

• *** percent of total imports from India;

• *** percent of total imports from Japan;1

• *** percent of total imports from Korea;

• 0.0 percent of total imports from Mexico;2

• *** percent of total imports from Thailand; and

• over 100 percent of total imports from all other countries combined.

Due to less-than-complete questionnaire coverage for U.S. PC strand imports as compared to

official import statistics, the import data presented in the body of this report are derived from official

Commerce statistics for PC strand under HTS statistical reporting numbers 7312.10.3010 and

7312.10.3012. 

Two PC strand producers in Japan are excluded from the antidumping duty finding: Kawasaki

Steel Techno-Wire (successor company to Kawatetsu) and Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd.3

 However,

based on a review of data provided by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”), there have been

*** imports of PC strand from these two excluded companies since 2003.4

 However, according to

proprietary Customs data, *** of all U.S. imports of merchandise entering the United States under the

applicable HTS statistical reporting numbers from Japan during the period examined in these reviews are

nonsubject galvanized strand imported by ***. 
 5

 Email from *** to Mary Messer on October 21, 2009.

 6

 The four U.S. importers and the countries from which they imported were ***.

 7

 The U.S. importer and the countries from which it imported was ***.

IV-2

Camesa and Deacero, the only PC strand producers in Mexico, reported that together they

exported *** pounds of PC strand to the United States during *** but that they have not exported the

subject merchandise to the United States since ***. However, official U.S. import statistics indicate the

presence of imported merchandise from Mexico in every annual period from 2003 to the present. 

According to proprietary Customs data, *** accounted for *** of total U.S. imports of PC strand during

*** and *** accounted for *** of the total. *** was responsible for *** imports of merchandise from

Mexico entering the United States under HTS statistical reporting number 7312.10.3010 and

7312.10.3012. The Mexican producers explain that the product that was exported under the applicable

HTS numbers for PC strand after *** was not subject PC strand but was nonsubject galvanized PC strand. 

Therefore, the U.S. import statistics for merchandise entering the United States under the applicable HTS

statistical reporting numbers from Mexico after *** are believed to cover nonsubject merchandise.5

Regardless, no U.S. importer questionnaire responses were provided to the Commission indicating U.S.

imports of subject merchandise corresponding to the foreign producers’ exports of PC strand to the

United States for ***.

Four U.S. importers reported entering or withdrawing PC strand from bonded warehouses6

 and

one U.S. importer reported entering or withdrawing PC strand from a foreign trade zone.7

 No importers

reported imports of PC strand under the temporary importation under bond program.

Imports of PC strand from each of the subject countries and from all nonsubject countries for the

annual periods 2003-08, January-June 2008, and January-June 2009 appear in table IV-1. The combined

quantity of imports from the subject countries fell from a high of 107.5 million pounds in 2003 to a low

of 3.0 million pounds in 2005. Imports from the subject countries then increased to 7.3 million pounds in

2007 before falling throughout the remainder of the period examined in these reviews. *** of the U.S.

importers responding to the Commission’s questionnaire in these reviews reported arrangements for the

importation of PC strand from any of the six subject countries for delivery after June 30, 2009. 

Imported product from Korea and Mexico contributed substantially to the aggregate subject

import increase in 2006-07, after the imports from those two countries fell markedly following the

imposition of the orders in 2004. Official import statistics indicate that subject imports from Brazil

totally ceased after the imposition of the order in 2004 and subject imports from India, Korea, Mexico,

and Thailand were noticeably lower after the imposition of the orders, dropping to virtually nil for India

in 2004-06 and for Thailand during 2006-08. Imports from Japan, which accounted for 0.5 percent or less

of total U.S. imports throughout the period examined, increased from 2003 to 2007, then fell in 2008 and

were nil in January-June 2009. The ratio of U.S. imports of PC strand from the 6 subject countries to

U.S. production of PC strand was 18.6 percent during 2003 (prior to the imposition of the subject orders,

except for Japan). This ratio did not exceed 1.5 percent during the remainder of the period examined in

these reviews.
IV-3

Table IV-1

PC strand: U.S. imports, by sources, 2003-08, January-June 2008, and January-June 2009

Source

Calendar year January-June

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Brazil 21,511 449 0 0 0 0 0 0

India 3,210 34 2 2 235 209 0 0

Korea 36,934 316 258 3,958 2,831 3,325 1,661 86

Mexico 38,257 867 555 1,526 2,283 1,514 759 2,214

Thailand 6,791 5,800 624 45 0 0 0 0

 Subtotal, 5 subject 106,703 7,466 1,439 5,530 5,349 5,048 2,421 2,300

Japan 768 1,545 1,564 1,580 1,952 1,380 1,224 0

 Subtotal, 6 subject 107,471 9,011 3,003 7,111 7,301 6,429 3,644 2,300

China 38,472 138,692 167,653 391,367 353,937 381,652 215,453 31,609

Other nonsubject 95,951 138,031 114,594 86,301 36,465 24,660 13,228 12,198

 Subtotal, nonsubject 134,423 276,723 282,247 477,667 390,402 406,312 228,681 43,806

Total imports 241,894 285,733 285,250 484,778 397,703 412,741 232,325 46,106

Value (1,000 dollars)

1

Brazil 4,610 168 0 0 0 0 0 0

India 704 41 17 9 81 156 0 0

Korea 7,995 167 196 1,506 1,399 2,201 1,081 54

Mexico 11,534 290 187 729 1,036 885 377 997

Thailand 1,572 1,819 240 25 0 0 0 0

 Subtotal, 5 subject 26,415 2,485 640 2,268 2,516 3,241 1,458 1,051

Japan 399 876 1,092 1,100 1,343 916 874 0

 Subtotal, 6 subject 26,813 3,361 1,732 3,368 3,859 4,157 2,333 1,051

China 9,980 46,899 68,806 127,617 115,843 194,276 94,881 11,889

Other nonsubject 25,010 49,094 53,666 36,717 19,123 17,614 7,954 7,950

 Subtotal, nonsubject 34,990 95,994 122,471 164,334 134,966 211,890 102,835 19,839

Total imports 61,803 99,355 124,203 167,702 138,825 216,047 105,168 20,889

Table continued on following page.
IV-4

Table IV-1--Continued

PC strand: U.S. imports, by sources, 2003-08, January-June 2008, and January-June 2009

Source

Calendar year January-June

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Unit value (per 1,000 pounds)

Brazil $214 $373 (2

) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

India 219 1,208 $7,934 $5,265 $344 $746 (2

) (2)

Korea 216 527 759 380 494 662 $651 $624

Mexico 301 335 337 478 454 584 496 450

Thailand 231 314 385 543 (2

) (2) (2) (2)

 Average, 5 subject 248 333 444 410 470 642 602 457

Japan 519 567 698 696 688 663 715 (2

)

 Average, 6 subject 249 373 577 474 529 647 640 457

China 259 338 410 326 327 509 440 376

Other nonsubject 261 356 468 425 524 714 601 652

 Average, nonsubject 260 347 434 344 346 521 450 453

Average, total imports 255 348 435 346 349 523 453 453

Ratio of import quantity to U.S. production (percent)

Brazil 3.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

India 0.6 (3

) (3) (3) (3) (3) 0.0 0.0

Korea 6.4 0.1 (3

) 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 (3)

Mexico 6.6 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.2 1.3

Thailand 1.2 1.0 0.1 (3

) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Subtotal, 5 subject 18.5 1.2 0.2 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.7 1.3

Japan 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.0

 Subtotal, 6 subject 18.6 1.5 0.5 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.3

China 6.7 22.8 27.0 58.1 58.8 68.3 65.8 18.3

Other nonsubject 16.6 22.7 18.4 12.8 6.1 4.4 4.0 7.1

 Subtotal, nonsubject 23.3 45.5 45.4 71.0 64.9 72.7 69.9 25.4

Total imports 41.9 47.0 45.9 72.0 66.1 73.9 71.0 26.7

 Table continued on following page.
IV-5

Table IV-1--Continued

PC strand: U.S. imports, by sources, 2003–08, January-June 2008, and January-June 2009

Source

Calendar year January-June

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Share of quantity (percent)

Brazil 8.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

India 1.3 (3

) (3) (3) 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0

Korea 15.3 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.2

Mexico 15.8 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.3 4.8

Thailand 2.8 2.0 0.2 (3

) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Subtotal, 5 subject 44.1 2.6 0.5 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.0 5.0

Japan 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.0

 Subtotal, 6 subject 44.4 3.2 1.1 1.5 1.8 1.6 1.6 5.0

China 15.9 48.5 58.8 80.7 89.0 92.5 92.7 68.6

Other nonsubject 39.7 48.3 40.2 17.8 9.2 6.0 5.7 26.5

 Subtotal, nonsubject 55.6 96.8 98.9 98.5 98.2 98.4 98.4 95.0

Total imports 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of value (percent)

Brazil 7.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

India 1.1 (3

) (3) (3) 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0

Korea 12.9 0.2 0.2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.3

Mexico 18.7 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.4 4.8

Thailand 2.5 1.8 0.2 (3

) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Subtotal, 5 subject 42.7 2.5 0.5 1.4 1.8 1.5 1.4 5.0

Japan 0.6 0.9 0.9 0.7 1.0 0.4 0.8 0.0

 Subtotal, 6 subject 43.4 3.4 1.4 2.0 2.8 1.9 2.2 5.0

China 16.1 47.2 55.4 76.1 83.4 89.9 90.2 56.9

Other nonsubject 40.5 49.4 43.2 21.9 13.8 8.2 7.6 38.1

 Subtotal, nonsubject 56.6 96.6 98.6 98.0 97.2 98.1 97.8 95.0

Total imports 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1 Landed, duty-paid.

 2

 Not applicable.

 3

 Less than 0.05 percent.

Note.–*** of all U.S. imports from Japan are nonsubject galvanized strand imported by ***. In addition, since the only PC strand

producers in Mexico reported that they have not exported the subject merchandise to the United States since ***, the U.S. imports

from Mexico after *** are believed to cover nonsubject merchandise.

Source: Import data presented are from official Commerce statistics under HTS statistical reporting numbers 7312.10.3010 and

7312.10.3012; U.S. production data used in the ratio calculation presented are compiled from data submitted in response to

Commission questionnaires.
 8

 Hearing transcript, pp. 29-31 (Woltz), pp. 97-98 (Wagner), and p. 99 (Cornelius).

IV-6

Between 2003 and 2008, the share of the quantity of total U.S. imports held by subject imports

fell from a high of 44.4 percent in 2003 to a low of 1.1 percent in 2005, before rising to 1.8 percent in

2007 and 1.6 percent in 2008. The share held by subject imports during the first half of 2009 was 5.0 

percent. Imports of PC strand from nonsubject sources (largely China) grew initially from 55.6 percent of

total imports in 2003 to 98.9 percent in 2005, then remained relatively stable between 98 and 99 percent

during 2006-08. The nonsubject sources held a 95.0-percent share of total U.S. imports during the first

half of 2009. Major nonsubject countries exporting PC strand to the United States during 2003-08

include Argentina, Belgium, Canada, China, France, Hungary, Indonesia, Italy, Malaysia, Netherlands,

Portugal, South Africa, Spain, and Taiwan. The largest nonsubject suppliers of imported PC strand to the

United States during 2008 were China, followed distantly by Canada, Portugal, and Italy.

The unit values of imported PC strand from all sources increased from $255 per 1,000 pounds in

2003 to $435 per 1,000 pounds in 2005, before falling back to $346-349 per 1,000 pounds in 2006-07. A

noticeable increase in the unit values of imports to $523 per 1,000 pounds was reported for 2008. The

unit values of subject imports followed a similar trend but were higher than the average unit values for

total imports in all periods except for 2003.

U.S. IMPORTERS’ INVENTORIES

Table IV-2 presents data relating to U.S. importers’ inventories of PC strand. U.S. importers

responding to the Commission’s questionnaire reported little or no imports and no inventories of PC

strand produced in Brazil, India, and Mexico during the period examined in these reviews. Relatively

minor amounts of inventories of subject imports were held by U.S. importers of PC strand from Korea

and Thailand only at yearend *** and only *** pounds of PC strand imported from Japan were held in

inventory during ***. 

Table IV-2

PC strand: U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of imports, by source, 2003-08, January-June

2008, and January-June 2009

* * * * * * *

Inventories of nonsubject imports (primarily from China) were substantially higher than subject

import inventories. These inventories increased from 2003 to 2006, but were lower than the 2006 level at 

yearend 2007-08. Nonsubject U.S. imports held in inventory at mid-year 2009 were higher than the level

reported at mid-year 2008. Relative to import quantity, inventories of nonsubject imports increased from

a low of *** percent of imports in 2003-04 to *** percent of imports in 2008. The ratio of nonsubject

inventories to import quantity was *** percent during the first half of 2009. The domestic interested

parties testified at the Commission’s hearing in these reviews that the “huge” inventory overhang of

imports from China has been “worked off” somewhat since the May 2009 filing of the petition

concerning PC strand imports from China and the domestic producers have once again begun to take sales

inquiries from customers that had for a period of years been exclusively purchasing the imported product. 

They indicated that they optimistically anticipated that the inventory of imports from China held in the

United States will be exhausted by yearend 2009.8
 9

 Foreign producers of PC strand in India, Japan, and Mexico also reported *** for exports of PC strand to the

United States, by application, for the period examined in these reviews. 

 10 Data provided by subject foreign producers in Korea indicate that a majority (*** percent) of exports to the

United States during 2003 and *** subsequent exports to the United States were for post-tensioned applications. 

Data provided by the foreign producer in Brazil indicate that exports to the United States during the period examined

in these reviews were ***. Foreign producers of PC strand in Thailand reported *** for exports of PC strand to the

United States, by application, for the period examined in these reviews.

IV-7

CUMULATION CONSIDERATIONS

In assessing whether subject imports are likely to compete with each other and with the domestic

like product with respect to cumulation, the Commission generally has considered the following four

factors: (1) the degree of fungibility, including specific customer requirements and other quality-related

questions; (2) presence of sales or offers to sell in the same geographic markets; (3) common channels of

distribution; and (4) simultaneous presence in the market. Channels of distribution and fungibility

(interchangeability) are discussed in Part II of this report. Additional information concerning fungibility,

geographical markets, and simultaneous presence in the market is presented below.

Fungibility

U.S. producers, importers, and foreign producers were asked to provide data concerning their

U.S. shipments of PC strand, by application. As indicated in table III-5, more than two-thirds of U.S.

producers’ total U.S. shipments of PC strand were for pre-tensioned applications (on the basis of quantity)

and less than one-third were destined for post-tensioned applications during January 2003-June 2009. 

The U.S. producers’ data show a shift away from serving customers using the PC strand in post-tensioned

applications in favor of pre-tensioning customers. In 2003, *** percent of the domestic producers’ U.S.

shipments were for pre-tensioned applications. By 2008, this share had increased to *** percent of total

U.S. shipments by domestic producers.

U.S. importers of PC strand from Brazil, Korea, Thailand, and nonsubject countries (primarily

China) 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 are presented in table IV-3 (Brazil), table IV-4

(Korea), table IV-5 (Thailand), and table IV-6 (nonsubject countries). *** data for U.S. shipments of PC

strand, by application, were provided by U.S. importers of PC strand from India, Japan, and Mexico for

the period examined in these reviews.9

 

As the data in tables IV-3 through IV-6 show, *** U.S. shipments of U.S. imports from Brazil

and Thailand and *** U.S. shipments of U.S. imports from Korea reported during the period examined in

these reviews were for uncovered (bare) PC strand for post-tensioned applications.10 Specifically, U.S.

shipments of U.S. imports from Korea for uncovered (bare) PC strand for post-tensioned applications

ranged from *** to *** percent during ***. The remaining amount was destined for pre-tensioned

applications. 

Table IV-3

PC strand: U.S. shipments of U.S. imports from Brazil, by application, 2003-08, January-June 2008,

and January-June 2009

* * * * * * *
 11 During each period for which data were gathered in these reviews, “Buy America(n)” purchases accounted for

the following shares of total apparent U.S. consumption: ***. Calculated from data presented in tables I-12 and III5.

 12 During each period for which data were gathered in these reviews, “Buy America(n)” purchases accounted for

the following shares of domestic producers’ total U.S. PC strand shipments: ***. Calculated from data presented in

table III-5.

 13 Pre-tensioned applications accounted for the following percentages of total PC strand subject to “Buy

America(n)” restrictions during the period for which data were gathered in these reviews: ***. Calculated from data

presented in table III-5.

IV-8

Table IV-4

PC strand: U.S. shipments of U.S. imports from Korea, by application, 2003-08, January-June

2008, and January-June 2009

* * * * * * *

Table IV-5

PC strand: U.S. shipments of U.S. imports from Thailand, by application, 2003-08, January-June

2008, and January-June 2009

* * * * * * *

Table IV-6

PC strand: U.S. shipments of U.S. imports from nonsubject countries (primarily China), by

application, 2003-08, January-June 2008, and January-June 2009

* * * * * * *

*** of U.S. shipments of U.S. imports from nonsubject countries (primarily China) reported

during the period examined in these reviews were for uncovered (bare) PC strand for post-tensioned

applications. U.S. shipments of U.S. imports from nonsubject countries (primarily China) for uncovered

(bare) PC strand for post-tensioned applications ranged from *** to *** percent during 2003-08, with

almost all of the remaining amount destined for pre-tensioned applications. A very minor amount of U.S.

import from nonsubject countries was reported for covered/coated post-tensioned applications during

2003. During the first six months of 2009, the U.S. importers from nonsubject countries showed a shift

away from post-tensioned applications (*** percent) toward pre-tensioned applications (*** percent).

“Buy America(n)” provisions applied to approximately one-third of total apparent U.S.

consumption of PC strand during the period examined in these reviews.11 Whereas imported PC strand is

not eligible for use in applications which are covered by “Buy America(n)” provisions, an increasing

share of domestic producers’ total U.S. shipments of PC strand were made under these provisions during

the period examined in these reviews. During 2008, *** percent of domestic producers’ total U.S.

shipments of PC strand were subject to “Buy America(n)” restrictions (table III-5).12 Most

(approximately *** percent) of sales of PC strand that were subject to “Buy America(n)” restrictions were

used in pre-tensioned applications.13 On the other hand, *** subject imports were sold for post-tensioned

applications where both “Buy America(n)” sales and the domestic industry presence were less prevalent.

Geographic Markets

PC strand produced in the United States is shipped nationwide. Information summarizing the

regional shipment of imported PC strand is presented in table IV-7. Additional information on

geographic markets may be found in Part V of this report. 
Table IV-7

PC strand: U.S. imports from subject countries, by Customs district, January 2003-June 2009

Customs district Brazil1 India2 Japan3 Korea4 Mexico5 Thailand6

Total,

subject

countries China

Other

nonsubject

countries

n

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

HoustonGalveston, TX 13,540 485 0 6,690 0 0 20,715 678,218 163,102 

Los Angeles, CA 2,409 2,883 8,565 39,251 0 11,832 64,940 539,455 91,901 Miami, FL 2,939 48 0 0 0 0 2,987 91,352 88,257 

Seattle, WA 40 0 188 148 22 1,383 1,781 15,932 94,908 San Francisco, CA 0 235 0 552 0 0 787 54,919 777 Laredo, TX 0 0 0 0 46,547 0 46,547 0 0 New Orleans, LA 1,188 0 0 0 0 0 1,189 10,255 14,667 Tampa, FL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,168 11,761 Philadelphia, PA 0 0 0 125 0 0 125 22,379 217 Charleston, SC 0 0 37 0 0 0 37 13,015 10,860 All others 1,843 41 0 943 644 45 3,517 66,688 31,750 Total 21,960 3,692 8,790 47,708 47,214 13,260 142,625 1,503,382 508,199 

1 The “other” ports of entry for PC strand from Brazil were Baltimore, MD, New York, NY, and San Juan, PR.2 The “other” ports of entry for PC strand from India were New York, NY and St. Louis, MO.3 There were no “other” ports of entry for PC strand from Japan.4 The “other” ports of entry for PC strand from Korea were Baltimore, MD, Honolulu, HI, New York, NY, and St. Louis, MO.5 The “other” port of entry for PC strand from Mexico was El Paso, TX.6 The “other” port of entry for PC strand from Thailand was Columbia-Snake, OR.

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics.

IV-9
 14 U.S. imports of PC strand from Japan were already subject to an antidumping finding in 2003. However, in

1977, the leading port of entry for PC strand imports was Houston, TX, followed by New Orleans, LA, and Los

Angeles, CA. Fully one-quarter of PC strand imports from Japan in 1977 entered the United States through the West

Coast or Hawaii (Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, and Honolulu). Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed

Concrete from Japan: Inv. No. AA1921-188, OP2-B-178, November 3, 1978, p. A-22, table 4. 

 15 Although official import statistics of Commerce indicate that PC strand entered the United States from Mexico

throughout the entire period examined in these reviews, Camesa and Deacero, the only PC strand producers in

Mexico, reported that they have not exported the subject merchandise to the United States since ***. Mexican

producers’ prehearing brief, p. 10; and Supplemental Response to Commission’s Notice of Institution by the Mexican

Producers, 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 2, 2009, p. 2.

IV-10

As information presented in table IV-7 illustrates, the top Customs district for subject imports

from India, Japan, Korea, and Thailand during the period examined in these reviews was Los Angeles and

the top Customs districts for subject imports from Brazil and Mexico were located in Texas.14 Whereas

PC strand imports from Brazil, India, Japan, Korea, and Thailand entered the United States in Customs

districts located in several states, almost all imports of PC strand from Mexico entered the United States

through Customs districts located in Texas. Since 2003, more than 93 percent of the subject merchandise

entered the United States through Customs districts located in California and Texas. Although imports of

PC strand from nonsubject countries entered through Customs districts located throughout several states,

the top Customs districts for these nonsubject imports were located in California and Texas.

Presence in the Market

Table IV-8 presents data on the monthly entries of U.S. imports of PC strand, by source, during

2003-08 and January-June 2009. PC strand produced in each of the subject countries was generally

present in several months during 2003 and 2004. From 2005 to 2008, after the imposition of the orders

concerning Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand, the presence of subject imports in the market

appeared more sporadic, with no monthly entries for imports of PC strand for the following: Brazil (2005-

08 and January-June 2009), India (January-June 2009), Japan (January-June 2009), and Thailand (2007-

08 and January-June 2009).15 Nonsubject imports from China and all other nonsubject sources combined

were present in almost every month throughout the entire period examined in these reviews.
IV-11

Table IV-8

PC strand: U.S. imports, monthly entries into the United States, by sources, 2003-08 and JanuaryJune 2009

Country

Calendar year

JanuaryJune

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Brazil 7 2 0 0 0 0 0

India 8 5 2 1 2 2 0

Japan 6 1096760

Korea 10 5 5 10 10 12 1

Mexico 11 10 7 4 9 6 5

Thailand 9 8 1 1 0 0 0

China 9 12 12 12 12 12 6

All others 12 12 12 12 12 12 6

Source: Compiled from official statistics of Commerce.

THE SUBJECT FOREIGN INDUSTRIES

Capacity

The aggregate capacity to produce PC strand in the six countries subject to these reviews is

believed to have grown by approximately 20 percent since 2002, primarily due to capacity increases in

India and Thailand, and to a lesser extent in Mexico and Korea. Table IV-9 presents comparative

information available for 2002 from the original investigations concerning Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico,

and Thailand and for 2003 from the second five-year review concerning Japan. Also presented are either

2008 capacity data compiled from Commission questionnaire responses in these current reviews or 2009

capacity estimates provided by the domestic interested parties participating in these reviews. As these

data show, the 2008/09 aggregate estimated capacity to produce PC strand in these six subject countries

(1.253 million pounds) is 38.6 percent greater than the 2008 U.S. capacity to produce PC strand (0.904

million pounds) and 32.9 percent greater than the 2008 apparent U.S. consumption of PC strand (0.943

million pounds). For comparison purposes, total 2008 production of PC strand in China (a country not

subject to these reviews but subject to an ongoing antidumping duty investigation at the Commission) is

believed to be approximately 5.1 billion pounds and overall capacity to produce PC strand in the

European Union (also not subject to these reviews) was reported to be 2.7 billion pounds in 2007.
IV-12

Table IV-9

PC strand: Comparison of capacity data of the subject countries, 2002/03 and 2008/09

Item 2002/03 2008/09

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Brazil:

 Belgo Bekaert *** ***

India:

 TISCO (predecessor of Tata) *** ***1

 Indore Wire (2) (2)

 Ramsarup Lohh Udyog *** ***1

 Usha Martin ***3 ***

 Subtotal, India *** ***

Japan:4

 JFE Techno-Wire (formerly Kawatetsu

 and then Kawasaki Techno-Wire) (5

) ***1

 Tokyo Rope ***3 ***

 Sumitomo (5

) (5)

 Tesac ***3 ***

 Shinko (6

) ***1

 Suzuki (6) ***1

 Subtotal, subject Japan ***6 ***

Korea:

 Kiswire *** ***1 7

 Manho *** ***1 7

 Dong Il *** ***

 Young Heung *** ***

 Subtotal, Korea *** ***7

Mexico:

 Camesa *** ***

 Deacero (formerly Cablesa) *** ***

 Subtotal, Mexico *** ***

Thailand:

 Bangkok Steel Wire *** (8

)

 Siam Industrial Wire *** ***1

 Siam Wire *** (8)

 Thai Wire *** ***1

 Rayong Wire *** ***1

 Thai Special Wire ***3 ***

 Subtotal, Thailand *** ***

Total, six subject countries 1,037,544 1,252,993

 1 A response to the Commission’s questionnaire was not provided by the firm in these reviews. The data presented were

estimated by the domestic interested parties and are for annual capacity for 2009.

 2

 Indore Wire began production of PC strand in India during the last quarter of 2002. Capacity data for Indore Wire are not

known. Domestic interested parties indicated that the firm continues to produce PC strand.

 3

 The company did not provide a separate questionnaire response in the original investigation. Capacity data presented are

for 2003 and were provided in the firms’ questionnaire responses in these reviews.

 4

 2002 data presented for Japan are for calendar year 2003.

 5

 Company not subject to the order under review.

 6

 Individual company data were not provided in the Commission’s second review of the finding; Japan data presented were

provided by domestic producer Sumiden in that review for the entire Japanese industry subject to the finding and do not sum to

the individual company data presented.

 7

 Korean PC strand producer Dong Il provided much lower capacity estimates for Kiswire (*** pounds) and Manho (***

pounds). The domestic interested parties’ estimates are presented in this table because they appear to be in agreement with

public characterizations of the firms’ capacity levels. If Dong Il’s estimates are used in the aggregate calculation instead, the

subtotal for Korea for 2009 would be *** pounds, *** percent lower than the 2002 capacity level.

 8

 Capacity data are not known. Domestic interested parties indicated that Bangkok Steel Wire and Siam Wire continue to

produce PC strand but did not give any indication as to the firms’ capacity level.

Source: Staff Report, December 19, 2003 (INV-AA-191); Staff Report, May 10, 2004 (INV-BB-058); questionnaire responses

submitted in the original investigations and these reviews; and domestic producers’ prehearing brief, exh. 6.
 16 Note that the data presented in table IV-12 are for the six-digit HTS classification that includes all stranded

wire, ropes, and cables of iron or steel (not electrically insulated). Therefore, the data presented include a substantial

amount of product that is not PC strand.

IV-13

Actual and Anticipated Changes in Capacity

Foreign producers were asked to indicate whether their firm had experienced any plant openings,

relocations, expansions, acquisitions, consolidations, closures, prolonged shutdowns, production

curtailments, revised labor agreements, or any other change in the character of their operations or

organization relating to the production of PC strand since January 1, 2003. Four responding PC strand

producers from three subject countries indicated in their questionnaire responses that they had

experienced such changes since 2003 and provided details concerning these changes. Their responses are

presented in table IV-10. The foreign producers were also asked to indicate whether their firm anticipated

any changes in the character of their operations or organization relating to the production of PC strand in

the future. None of the responding foreign producers anticipated such changes.

Table IV-10

PC strand: Changes in the character of subject foreign operations

* * * * * * *

Exports

As shown in table IV-11, China is, by far, the world’s largest exporter of product exported under

HTS number 7312.10 (stranded wire, ropes and cables of iron or steel, not electrically insulated),

followed by Korea. Not only was China the largest country exporter in 2008, it had the largest increase in

exports during 2003-08 (595.1 percent). Of the six countries subject to the current reviews, Korea was

the largest country exporter during 2003-08, followed by Japan, Thailand, and India. Four of the six

subject countries showed increases in exports in 2008 over 2003 levels: India (53.6 percent), Korea (9.6

percent), Mexico (41.9 percent), and Thailand (68.5 percent).

Net Trade Balance

Available Global Trade Atlas data concerning the net trade balance reported for stranded wire,

ropes, and cables of iron or steel (not electrically insulated) for each subject country is presented in table

IV-12. These data show that, in the aggregate, the six subject countries were net exporters of stranded

wire, ropes, and cables of iron or steel (not electrically insulated) during 2003-08.16 Four subject

countries (India, Japan, Korea, and Thailand) were consistently net exporters since 2003 and one subject

country (Brazil) was a net exporter until 2008, when its imports of the product surpassed its exports. 

Mexico was the only subject country that remained a net importer of the product in every year since 2003.
IV-14

Table IV-11

Stranded wire, ropes, and cables of iron or steel, not electrically insulated: Reported worldwide exports

from subject countries, top 10 nonsubject countries, and all other countries, 2003-08

Exporting country 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Brazil 97,522 90,033 85,282 90,802 75,376 53,265

India 89,905 113,274 126,202 124,136 113,259 138,054

Japan 195,345 229,772 207,588 190,774 195,795 168,022

Korea 582,957 624,492 637,281 625,690 657,297 638,859

Mexico 34,254 27,230 34,302 33,118 36,288 48,621

Thailand 125,620 117,628 141,681 172,279 200,227 211,702

 Subtotal, subject

 countries 1,125,603 1,202,428 1,232,337 1,236,798 1,278,241 1,258,523

China 334,261 596,553 807,243 1,363,994 1,823,793 2,323,358

United States 111,233 101,188 118,265 138,765 156,586 180,970

Turkey 88,592 102,254 104,563 101,743 93,277 113,884

South Africa 91,162 103,491 83,608 86,415 87,848 86,595

Canada 74,114 77,431 90,010 85,725 85,201 80,788

Russia 48,974 48,274 71,735 74,935 74,817 79,757

Indonesia 22,318 10,656 15,110 26,830 18,654 47,175

Argentina 33,463 32,823 30,940 37,174 37,615 39,942

Ukraine 39,281 35,301 33,061 34,940 40,142 29,834

Chile 0 0 0 12,864 12,535 14,816

 Subtotal, top 10

 nonsubject countries 843,397 1,107,972 1,354,536 1,963,384 2,430,467 2,997,120

 All other countries 1,688,996 1,892,331 1,867,925 2,102,578 2,277,399 2,218,730

 World 3,657,996 4,202,731 4,454,798 5,302,760 5,986,107 6,474,373

Source: Global Trade Atlas, HTS 7312.10, excluding data for Malaysia which appear questionable, retrieved July 27, 2009.
IV-15

Table IV-12

Stranded wire, ropes, and cables of iron or steel, not electrically insulated: Subject country exports, imports,

and trade balances, 2003-08

Country

2003 2004 2005

Exports Imports

Trade

balance Exports Imports

Trade

balance Exports Imports

Trade

balance

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Brazil 97,522 27,632 69,890 90,033 33,020 57,013 85,282 35,289 49,993

India 89,905 5,910 83,995 113,274 8,256 105,018 126,202 8,126 118,076

Japan 195,345 100,818 94,527 229,772 117,569 112,203 207,588 143,309 64,279

Korea 582,957 64,134 518,823 624,492 67,136 557,356 637,281 123,217 514,064

Mexico 34,254 55,034 (20,780) 27,230 95,313 (68,083) 34,302 236,654 (202,352)

Thailand 125,620 23,177 102,443 117,628 32,133 85,495 141,681 38,210 103,471

 Total 1,125,603 276,705 848,898 1,202,428 353,427 849,001 1,232,337 584,805 647,532

Country

2006 2007 2008

Exports Imports

Trade

balance Exports Imports

Trade

balance Exports Imports

Trade

balance

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Brazil 90,802 46,668 44,134 75,376 66,565 8,811 53,265 80,707 (27,442)

India 124,136 14,708 109,428 113,259 20,592 92,667 138,054 45,944 92,110

Japan 190,774 153,119 37,655 195,795 160,082 35,713 168,022 166,403 1,619

Korea 625,690 149,474 476,216 657,297 258,202 399,095 638,859 285,735 353,124

Mexico 33,118 82,400 (49,282) 36,288 81,264 (44,976) 48,621 86,628 (38,007)

Thailand 172,279 35,593 136,686 200,227 36,451 163,776 211,702 53,347 158,355

 Total 1,236,798 481,962 754,836 1,278,241 623,156 655,085 1,258,523 718,764 539,759

Note.–Because of rounding, exports minus imports may not equal the trade balance. Positive numbers presented for “trade

balance” show net exports and numbers in parentheses presented for “trade balance” show net imports.

 

Source: Compiled from data obtained from the Global Trade Atlas for HTS codes: 7312.10.
 17 The trade data for Mexico, which was accessed by the Mexican interested parties in these reviews at

http://www.economia-snci.gob.mx:8080/siaiWeb/siaviMain.jsp, are for subheading 7312.10.08 (non-galvanized 

7-wire cables of a diameter equal or less than 19mm) of the Tariff Schedule of Mexico. The Mexican interested

parties indicated that the only product that is properly classified under this subheading is nongalvanized PC strand. 

Mexican producers’ posthearing brief, p. 10, fn. 19; and emails from *** to Mary Messer, October 15, 2009 and

October 21, 2009.

 18 The Mexican interested parties noted that data showing exports to the United States under this subheading

during January-May 2009 were misclassified and are actually “guy strand,” not PC strand. Mexican producers’

posthearing brief, p. 11. Guy strand is used in overhead electrical and telecommunications systems to provide

stability to the poles that hold up the overhead utilities and to serve as a sheild for the electrical and

telecommunications lines against lightning strikes. Guy strand is wire strand coated with zinc, aluminum, or copper,

whereas PC strand is either uncoated, plastic coated, or epoxy coated. Guy strand and PC strand are manufactured in

accordance with different ASTM specifications and they are not interchangeable in end use applications. Email

from *** to Mary Messer, October 16, 2009; and email from *** to Mary Messer, October 21, 2009.

 19 Mexican producers’ posthearing brief, pp. 11-12 and 16-22.

IV-16

Although net trade balance information specific to PC strand are not available for five of the six

countries subject to these reviews, the Mexican interested parties provided the Commission with such

data as compiled by the Unidad de Practicas Comerciales Internacionales (International Trade Practices

Unit) of the Government of Mexico.17 These net trade balance data for Mexico, which are more specific

to PC strand than are the Global Trade Atlas data, show that Mexico was a net importer of PC strand

during the second half of 2007 (imports (2.918 million pounds) and exports (0.075 million pounds)),

during calendar year 2008 (imports (5.996 million pounds) and exports (0.378 million pounds)), and

during the first five months of 2009 (imports (3.006 million pounds) and exports (zero)).18 The Mexican 

interested parties explained that Mexico has been a net importer of PC strand because the home market

demand for the product continues to increase due to (1) the dedication of financial resources by the

Government of Mexico through the National Infrastructure Program for investment in the creation of

infrastructure projects, such as highways, railroads, ports, and airports, and (2) the development of new

end-use applications for PC strand in Mexico. It added that the United States is the largest supplier of PC

strand to the Mexican market, accounting for 38.9 percent of total imports of PC strand into Mexico

during the first five months of 2009.19

Tariff or Non-Tariff Barriers to Trade

The Commission asked producers of PC strand in the subject countries to identify tariff or nontariff barriers to trade (for example, antidumping or countervailing duty findings or remedies, tariffs,

quotas, or regulatory barriers) concerning their exports of PC strand to countries other than the United

States. The Commission also asked the subject foreign producers to identify ongoing investigations in

countries other than the United States that could result in tariff or non-tariff barriers to trade for their

exports of PC strand. The foreign producers indicated in their responses that they are not aware of such

tariff or non-tariff barriers to trade concerning their exports of PC strand to countries other than the

United States nor are they aware of any ongoing investigations in countries other than the United States

that could result in tariff or non-tariff barriers to trade for their exports of PC strand.

However, the domestic interested parties in these reviews indicated that barriers to trade for

subject imports of PC strand apply to two subject countries, Korea and India. They reported that South

Africa initiated its sunset reviews in 2006 and issued the results of its reviews of outstanding antidumping

duty orders on stranded wire, ropes and cables (including PC strand) imported from China, Germany,

Korea, and the United Kingdom and countervailing duty orders on stranded wire, ropes, and cables

(including PC strand) imported from India in February 2009. The product covered by the orders is

defined as “stranded wire, of iron or steel, not electrically insulated, of a diameter exceeding 8 mm
 20 Domestic producers’ prehearing brief, pp. 62-63 and exh. 19.

 21 Staff Report, December 19, 2003 (INV-AA-191), p. VII-1.

 22 Belgo Bekaert Arames company web site, http://www.belgobekaert.com.br/, accessed on September 2, 2009.

 23 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. 6.

IV-17

(excluding that of wire plated, coated or clad with tin).” Concerning South Africa’s sunset reviews on

imports from Korea and India (the two countries subject to the Commission’s current PC strand reviews),

South Africa found that absent the antidumping duty order against Korea and the countervailing duty

order against India, wire strand imports would likely lead to continued or recurrent dumping/subsidy and

injury. South Africa set the dumping rate applicable to Korean strand producers at 50.33 percent and the

countervailing duty rate applicable to producers of wire strand in India at 2.87 percent. The domestic

interested parties in these reviews argued that these South African duties on wire strand “provide a

limitation on Korean and Indian exports to third country markets that could also cause diversion of

exports to the U.S. market if revocation occurs.”20

THE INDUSTRY IN BRAZIL

Overview

In the original investigation concerning Brazil, the Commission found that Belgo Bekaert was the

only producer of PC strand in Brazil.21 Although it has undergone a change in ownership since the

original investigations, Belgo Bekaert remains the sole producer of PC strand in Brazil today. The

company is a joint venture between ArcelorMittal Brasil Long Wire (formerly known as Belgo-Mineira),

a member company of leading steel producer ArcelorMittal Group, and Bekaert, a leader in wire and

metallic coatings headquartered in Belgium.22 The domestic interested parties reported in their response

to the Commission’s notice of institution in these current reviews that PC strand is currently produced at

the same plants in Brazil as used by Belgo Bekaert at the time of the original investigations.23

On May 15, 2009, an entry of appearance was filed with the Commission in these current reviews

on behalf of Belgo Bekaert Arames Ltd. (“Belgo Bekaert”); however, on July 14, 2009, the entry of

appearance was withdrawn. In an attempt to elicit a response from Belgo Bekaert, a foreign producers’

questionnaire was sent to the firm through not only its legal counsel, but also directly to the company’s

facility in Brazil. Following the withdrawal of the entry of appearance on behalf of Belgo Bekaert, staff

requests for the Brazilian producer’s response to the Commission’s foreign producer questionnaire were

also made through joint-venture parent ArcelorMittal’s local legal counsel. Belgo Bekaert provided the

Commission with an abbreviated response (i.e., data only) to its questionnaire. Table IV-13 presents

select information available from the original investigations for 2002 and these first reviews for 2008.

Table IV-13

PC strand: Select Brazil industry data, 2002 and 2008

* * * * * * *
 24 Domestic producers’ prehearing brief, pp. 8-9; and 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. 6

and exh. 3.

IV-18

PC Strand Operations

The domestic interested parties participating in these reviews indicated that PC strand continues

to be produced at the same Belgo Bekaert plants in Brazil as used by that firm in the original

investigations, but they claim that Brazil is operating at greater capacity levels. Specifically, they

asserted that Belgo Bekaert had a capacity of 1.5 billion pounds of stranded wires in 2005 and that it was

expanding that capacity by 50 percent. They cited to ArcelorMittal’s 2008 announcements of additional

new investments totaling $1.6 billion in its Brazilian long carbon steel operations (including wire

production), $1.2 billion to expand a wire rod plant, and $5 billion in its overall steel activities in Brazil

during 2008-12. They added that plans to develop export capacity were specifically mentioned in these

announcements.24 However, Belgo Bekaert’s data submitted to the Commission in the original

investigations and these current reviews show that the firm’s capacity to produce PC strand has remained

relatively stable since the imposition of the antidumping duty order, falling by *** percent 

(table IV-13).

Data from the abbreviated questionnaire response (i.e., data only) provided by Belgo Bekaert

concerning its PC strand operations in Brazil during 2003-08, January-June 2008, and January-June 2009

are presented in table IV-14.

Table IV-14

PC strand: Brazilian capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2003-08, January-June

2008, and January-June 2009

* * * * * * *

Production Capacity in Brazil

Belgo Bekaert’s reported capacity to produce PC strand in Brazil remained constant throughout

the period examined in these reviews, whereas the firm’s production and capacity utilization for PC strand

fluctuated from period to period. The level of PC strand production reported for 2008 was *** percent

lower than the level reported for 2003 and the level reported for the first half of 2009 was *** lower than

the comparable period in 2008. The firm’s reported capacity to produce PC strand in Brazil was based on

operating *** hours per week, *** weeks per year.

Shipments of PC Strand Produced in Brazil

Total shipments of PC strand produced by Belgo Bekaert in Brazil fluctuated throughout the

period examined in these reviews, ending *** percent lower in 2008 than reported in 2003. Total

shipments were *** percent lower during the first half of 2009 than reported in the comparable period of

2008. During the period examined in these reviews, the Brazilian producer’s home market shipments

increasingly accounted for a *** share of the firm’s total shipments of PC strand as the quantity of its

export shipments fell. By 2008, Belgo Bekaert’s home market shipments of PC strand accounted for ***

percent of its total shipments, with the remaining *** percent accounted for by exports to various markets

***. Belgo Bekaert reported *** and decreasing amounts of PC strand exports to the United States
 25 Belgo Bekaert’s data reported for exports to the United States for the period examined in these reviews *** the

official U.S. import statistics, which report no imports of PC strand from Brazil after 2004.

 26 Staff Report, December 19, 2003 (INV-AA-191), pp. VII-3-5.

 27 Domestic producers’ prehearing brief, p. 14; and 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. 6

and exh. 3.

IV-19

during 2004-07.25 *** PC strand exports to the United States were reported thereafter. Principal export

markets reported by Belgo Bekaert for the period examined in these reviews include the following

countries: ***. 

According to official import statistics, imports into the United States from Brazil ceased not long

after the order was imposed in 2004. While subject imports from Brazil were 23.1 million pounds in

2002 (the final annual period examined in the Commission’s original investigations), U.S. imports from

Brazil fell to 0.4 million pounds in 2004 and dropped to zero thereafter. 

THE INDUSTRY IN INDIA

Overview

Three major producers of PC strand in India were identified by the Commission in its original

investigation: Tata Steel (formerly known as Tata Iron and Steel Co. (“TISCO”)), Usha Martin Industries

(“Usha Martin”), and Indore Wire Co., Ltd. (“Indore Wire”). TISCO was, ***, the largest producer in

India at that time, accounting for an estimated *** percent of the total production of PC strand in India

during 2002 and *** percent of all imports of the subject merchandise into the United States from India

during January 2000-June 2003. Usha Martin began production of PC strand in India during the last

quarter of 2002 but neither Indore Wire nor Usha Martin exported PC strand produced in India to the

United States at the time of the original investigations.26

The domestic interested parties reported that the same three firms that produced PC strand in

India during the original investigations continue to produce PC strand in India today. They added,

however, that a fourth company in India, Ramsarup Lohh Udyog Ltd. (“RLUL”) opened a PC strand

production line in May 2009.27

Only one PC strand producer in India (Usha Martin) responded to the Commission’s

questionnaire in these reviews. Usha Martin indicated in its questionnaire response that it accounted for

*** percent of total PC strand production in India during 2008. Table IV-15 presents available

information concerning the PC strand producers in India from the original investigations (2002) and these

first reviews (2008).

Table IV-15

PC strand: Select data for producers in India, 2002 and 2008

* * * * * * *
 28 The increase in capacity is believed to be even greater because the capacity data presented for 2008 are

believed to be understated by the amount of capacity at the PC strand production facilities of Indore Wire. Indore

Wire began producing PC strand in the last quarter of 2002.

 29 Domestic producers’ prehearing brief, pp. 12-13.

 30 Both Indian PC strand producer Tata Steel and Thai PC strand producer Siam Industrial Wire are part of the

Tata Steel Group of companies. 

 31 Domestic producers’ prehearing brief, pp. 12; and 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, pp.

7-8 and exh. 4.

 32 Indore Steel & Iron Mills, Ltd. web site at http://www.indiamart.com/indoresteels/index.html, accessed

September 2, 2009.

IV-20

PC Strand Operations

The estimated capacity to produce PC strand in India has increased substantially since the orders

were imposed; climbing by *** percent from approximately *** pounds in 2002 to approximately ***

pounds in 2008 (table IV-9).28 Data provided to the Commission by Usha Martin in these reviews

concerning its PC strand operations in India during fiscal years (April 1-March 31) 2003-08 are presented

in table IV-16. Usha Martin reported that *** business plan or any internal documents that describe,

discuss, or analyze expected future market conditions for PC strand.

Table IV-16

PC strand: Indian producer Usha Martin’s capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 

2003-08

* * * * * * *

Production Capacity in India

Usha Martin’s reported capacity to produce PC strand in India, which is based on operating ***

hours per week, *** weeks per year, remained stable from 2003 to 2007, but increased by *** percent in

2008. This *** increase in 2008 was the result of ***. Although Usha Martin reported in its

questionnaire response that it has *** additional plans to add, expand, curtail, or shut down production

capacity and/or production of PC strand in India in the foreseeable future, the domestic interested parties

reported that publicly available information indicates otherwise. The domestic interested parties cited a

press article reporting that Usha Martin has plans to increase its capacity into 2011.29

Tata Steel (previously known as TISCO), *** PC strand producer/exporter in India during the

original investigations, describes itself as “a significant wire player in Asia,” including upstream wire

production, and lists its annual capacity for its wire-making operations in India at 1.1 billion pounds.30

The domestic interested parties in these reviews estimate that Tata’s capacity to produce PC strand to be

*** pounds. In addition, Tata announced in January 2009 that it was investing $4 million in an expansion

project to increase its wire production and capacity (including PC strand) by 79.4 million pounds at

Indian Steel & Wire Products, a Tata Group member. The expansion is expected to be completed in mid2010.31

Indore Wire Co., Ltd., another producer of PC strand in India identified in the original

investigations, continues to list PC strand as a product it produces on its web site.32 A fourth PC strand

producer in India, RLUL, announced in February 2008 that it expected commercial production of wire 
 33 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, pp. 7-8 and exh. 4.

 34 Domestic producers’ prehearing brief, p. 14.

 35 Ibid.; see also domestic producers’ posthearing brief, exhibit 1, pp. 4-5.

 36 Ibid.

IV-21

products to begin at a new plant in August 2008. It was reported that this $18.8 million investment would

increase RLUL’s annual wire capacity from 518 million pounds to 1.3 billion pounds by 2010.33 The

company officially opened its PC strand production line in May 2009, with an annual capacity of 66.1

million pounds.34

Shipments of PC Strand Produced in India

Despite falling *** from 2003 to 2004, total shipments of PC strand by Usha Martin increased

over the period of review. In fact, total shipments in 2008 were *** percent higher than those reported in

2003. The Indian producer’s home market commercial shipments accounted for *** of the firms’ total

shipments of PC strand during the period of review, capturing greater than *** percent of the firm’s total

shipments during 2006 and 2007. However, by 2008, Usha Martin’s combined home market shipments

accounted for *** percent of total shipments.

Total Indian export shipments of PC strand increased from 2003 to 2004, as Usha Martin began

to develop other markets for its product, primarily ***. Total export shipments fell from 2004 to 2007

but increased *** in 2008, as the Indian producer began to expand to other export markets for its PC

strand in ***. The Indian producer’s data show *** exports of PC strand to the United States during

fiscal years 2003 to 2008. In fact, Usha Martin indicated in its questionnaire response that it has ***

exported its PC strand to the United States.

Imports of PC strand from India amounted to 14.4 million pounds in 2002. After the imposition

of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders, PC strand imports from India fell to 34,000 pounds in

2004, fell further to 2,000 pounds in 2005, and remained at relatively low volumes in subsequent years. 

The domestic interested parties argued that the export tax imposed by the Indian government on

certain long products (including wire rod) has provided a further incentive for all PC strand producers in

India to increase exports of PC strand. However, this export tax, which was increased on wire rod from

10 percent to 15 percent in July 2008, was apparently eliminated in November 2008.35 Regardless, the

domestic interested parties cite a press article in which “Usha Martin reported that it was concentrating its

efforts on production and exportation of value added products like wire strand that do not have an export

tax.”36

Alternative Products

Usha Martin reported that PC strand represented *** percent of its total 2008 company sales. 

However, in response to a question concerning the production of other products, Usha Martin reported

that it produces *** other products on the same equipment and using the same employees as used for PC

strand.
 37 Kawatetsu was excluded from the original antidumping duty finding.

 38 The antidumping duty finding was revoked with regard to Sumitomo in 1986. Domestic producer Sumiden, an

affiliate of excluded Japanese producer Sumitomo, began producing PC strand in the United States in 1979. 

Sumiden reported that the primary export markets for Sumitomo’s PC strand currently are ***. Domestic producers’

prehearing brief, p. 5; and domestic producers’ posthearing brief, exh. 1, p. 7.

 39 Tokyo Rope ceased production of PC strand in ***.

 40 Staff Report, November 3, 1978 (OP2-B-178), pp. A-9 and A-13. 

 41 As indicated earlier in this report, JFE Techno-Wire, formed from the corporate consolidation of Kawasaki

Steel Corp. and NKK Corp. in May 2002, is the successor firm to Japanese PC strand producer Kawasaki Steel

Techno-Wire. Commerce determined that Kawasaki Steel Techno-Wire was the successor-in-interest to Kawatetsu,

and that the discontinuance previously issued to Kawatetsu applied to Kawasaki Steel Techno-Wire. However, the

discontinuance that Commerce applied in 1990 to Kawasaki Steel Techno-Wire as Kawatetsu's successor-in-interest

does not apply to successor firm JFE Techno-Wire and, therefore, JFE Techno-Wire is subject to the antidumping

duty order. Staff Report, December 31, 1998 (INV-V-108), pp. I-11-I-12; Staff Report, May 10, 2004 (INV-BB058), p. I-18; JFE Holdings web site, http://www.jfe-holdings.co.jp/en, accessed October 1, 2009; staff telephone

interview with ***, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, October 2, 2009; and

domestic producers’ prehearing brief, p. 26.

 42 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, pp. 14-15.

 43 Ibid.; see also domestic producers’ prehearing brief, pp. 25-26.

IV-22

THE INDUSTRY IN JAPAN

Overview

In the original 1978 investigation concerning Japan, five Japanese companies were identified by

Treasury as having produced PC strand for export to the United States: Kawatetsu Wire Products Co.,

Ltd. (“Kawatetsu”);37 Sumitomo Electric Ind., Ltd. (“Sumitomo”);38 Shinko Wire Co., Ltd. (“Shinko”);

Suzuki Metal Co., Ltd. (“Suzuki”); and Tokyo Rope Mfg. Co., Ltd. (“Tokyo Rope”).39 Shinko was ***

exporter of PC strand to the United States during 1977, accounting for *** percent of total PC strand

exports from Japan to the United States, *** Sumitomo, Kawatetsu, Suzuki, and Tokyo Rope, accounting

for *** percent, respectively.40 At the time of the Commission’s first five-year review, five Japanese

companies were believed to be producing merchandise subject to the antidumping finding on PC strand: 

original producers Shinko, Suzuki, and Tokyo Rope, as well as Kokoku Steel Wire Co., Ltd. (“Kokoku”),

and Tesac Corp. (“Tesac”). In its response to the Commission’s notice of institution in the second fiveyear review, the domestic industry listed the following subject Japanese PC strand producers: original

producers Shinko, Suzuki, and Tokyo Rope, as well as Tesac and JFE Techno-Wire.41

The domestic interested parties reported in their response to the Commission’s notice of

institution in these current reviews that each of the producers identified in the prior sunset review, with

the exception of Tokyo Rope, continues to produce PC strand in Japan.42 They also reported that Shinko

and Suzuki are believed to have the largest capacity and production volumes of PC strand in Japan,

accounting for an estimated 57 and 24 percent of total Japanese capacity to produce PC strand,

respectively.43

The two Japanese firms believed to have the *** capacity and production volumes of subject PC

strand in Japan during the period examined in these current reviews (i.e., Tesac and Tokyo Rope)
 44 Suzuki also provided a response to the Commission’s questionnaire but did not provide any data in its response. 

The firm’s response indicated only that although it produces PC strand in Japan, it has “***.”

 45 Domestic producers’ prehearing brief, pp. 25-26.

IV-23

responded to the Commission’s questionnaire in these reviews.44 In fact, Tokyo Rope reported that it

ceased production of PC strand in ***. Tesac estimated that it accounted for *** percent of total PC

strand production in Japan during 2008 and claimed to be the *** PC strand producer in Japan. Table IV17 presents information available from the original investigation for 1977, from the first review for 1998,

from the second review for 2003, and from questionnaire responses in this third review for 2008.

Table IV-17

PC strand: Select data for producers in Japan, 1977, 1998, 2003, and 2008

* * * * * * *

PC Strand Operations

The estimated capacity to produce PC strand in Japan has fallen since the Commission’s second

(and most recent) five-year review of the antidumping duty finding; declining by *** percent from

approximately *** pounds in 2003 to approximately *** pounds in 2008 (table IV-9). Data provided by

Tesac and Tokyo Rope concerning their PC strand operations in Japan during calendar years 2003-08,

January-June 2008, and January-June 2009 are presented in table IV-18. The two Japanese producers

reported that *** business plan or any internal documents that describe, discuss, or analyze expected

future market conditions for PC strand.

Table IV-18

PC strand: Japanese producers Tesac’s and Tokyo Rope’s capacity, production, shipments, and

inventories, 2003-08, January-June 2008, and January-June 2009

* * * * * * *

Production Capacity in Japan

The combined capacity of Tesac and Tokyo Rope to produce PC strand in Japan remained stable

at *** pounds from 2003 to 2006, fell in 2007, and remained at the 2007 level during the remainder of the

period examined in these reviews. The aggregate decline in capacity was solely the result of ***. Prior

to 2007, Tokyo Rope reported its capacity to produce based on operating *** hours per week, *** weeks

per year. Tesac reported its capacity based on operating *** hours per week, *** weeks per year.

Tesac and Tokyo Rope reported that they have *** additional plans to add, expand, curtail, or shut down

production capacity and/or production of PC strand in Japan in the foreseeable future. 

The domestic interested parties estimated that the largest Japanese producer, Shinko, has

approximately *** pounds of capacity dedicated to PC strand and that *** Japanese PC strand producer,

Suzuki, has approximately *** pounds of capacity. They further estimated that the two PC strand

producers are currently operating at roughly *** percent of capacity. Japanese producer JFE

Techno-Wire, a company that remains subject to the antidumping finding even though its predecessor

companies (Kawatetsu and Kawasaki Techno-Wire) were excluded from the antidumping finding by

Commerce, was estimated to currently have approximately *** pounds of capacity to produce PC strand

in Japan and to be operating at only about *** percent of capacity.45 
 46 Staff Report, December 19, 2003 (INV-AA-191), p. VII-6.

 47 Domestic producers’ prehearing brief, p. 16; and 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. 9

and exh. 5.

IV-24

Shipments of PC Strand Produced in Japan

Total shipments of PC strand by Tesac and Tokyo Rope, comprised *** of commercial home

market shipments in Japan, fell from 2003 through 2007. While commercial home market shipments

increased in 2008, they were lower in January-June 2009 than in January-June 2008.

According to official import statistics, U.S. imports of subject and nonsubject PC strand from

Japan amounted to 176.5 million pounds in 1977 (the last full year of data examined in the original

investigation). After the imposition of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders, PC strand imports

from Japan fell. PC strand imports from Japan, which were 1.7 million pounds in 2000, fell to 494,000

pounds in 2002. These imports, which remained below 2.0 million pounds in subsequent years, increased

from 2003 to 2007, but fell somewhat in 2008 (table I-1).

Alternative Products

Tesac reported that PC strand represented *** percent of its total 2008 company sales. However,

in response to a question concerning the production of other products, Tesac and Tokyo Rope reported

that they produce *** other products on the same equipment and using the same employees as used for

PC strand.

THE INDUSTRY IN KOREA

Overview

The following four firms were identified as Korean producers of PC strand in the Commission’s

original investigations: Dong-Il; Kiswire Ltd. (“Kiswire”); Manho Rope and Wire, Ltd. (“Manho”); and

Young Heung Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. (“Young Heung”). The Commission reported that PC strand

exported to the United States by these four Korean PC strand producers accounted for *** percent of all

imports of the subject merchandise into the United States from Korea during January 2000-June 2003.46

The interested parties participating in these current reviews indicated that the same four firms identified in

the Commission’s original investigations as producers of the subject merchandise are currently the only

producers of PC strand in Korea.47

Two PC strand producers in Korea (Dong Il and Young Heung) responded to the Commission’s

questionnaire in these reviews. Based on the Korean’s producers’ questionnaire responses, it is estimated

that these two producers accounted for *** percent of total PC strand production in Korea during 2008

and *** percent of total exports of PC strand to the United States from Korea. Table IV-19 presents

available information concerning the PC strand industry in Korea from the original investigations (2002)

and these first reviews (2008).

Table IV-19

PC strand: Select data for producers in Korea, 2002 and 2008

* * * * * * *
 48 Capacity estimates were based on data provided by the domestic interested parties for non-participating Korean

producers Kiswire and Manho. Korean PC strand producer Dong Il provided much lower capacity estimates for

Kiswire (*** pounds) and Manho (*** pounds). If Dong Il's estimates are used in the aggregate calculation instead,

the subtotal for Korea for 2009 would be *** pounds, a *** percent decline from the 2002 level of *** pounds. 

 49 Domestic producers’ prehearing brief, p. 16 and exh. 3; and 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, pp. 9-10 and exh. 5.

 50 Response to Commission’s Notice of Institution by Dong Il, 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, response to items 9(a) and 10.

IV-25

PC Strand Operations

The estimated capacity to produce PC strand in Korea has remained relatively stable since the

orders were imposed; climbing by *** percent from *** pounds in 2002 to approximately *** pounds in

2008 (table IV-9).48 Aggregate data compiled from the questionnaire responses provided by two of the

four Korean PC strand producers (Dong-Il and Young Heung) concerning their PC strand operations in

Korea during 2003-08, January-June 2007, and January-June 2008 are presented in table IV-20. ***

reported *** internal documents that describe, discuss, or analyze expected future market conditions for

PC strand.

Table IV-20

PC strand: Korean producers Dong Il’s and Young Heung’s capacity, production, shipments, and

inventories, 2003-08, January-June 2008, and January-June 2009

* * * * * * *

Production Capacity in Korea

The aggregate reported capacity to produce PC strand by these two producers in Korea remained

stable throughout the period examined in these reviews, with capacity utilization generally rising from

*** percent in 2003 to *** percent in 2008. Dong Il’s and Young Heung’s reported capacity to produce

PC strand in Korea was based on operating *** hours per week, *** weeks per year. The two responding

Korean producers reported that they had *** additional plans to add, expand, curtail, or shut down

production capacity and/or production of PC strand in Korea in the foreseeable future. Korean producer

Dong-Il added ***.

In addition, the domestic interested parties indicated that Kiswire, *** PC strand producer in

Korea during the Commission’s original investigations, continues to produce and invest in the expansion

of its Korean PC strand facilities. They estimated Kiswire’s 2009 capacity to produce PC strand in Korea

to be *** pounds, a decline of *** pounds from the firm’s capacity level reported in 2002 (table IV-9).49

This estimate differs from Korean PC strand producer Dong-Il’s estimate of the reduction in capacity. In

particular, Dong Il reported that the only “notable change” in the Korean PC strand industry since the

order went into effect was a *** reduction in the capacity to produce PC strand at Kiswire’s Korean

facility. Dong-Il explained that during the second half of 2007 and the first half of 2008, Kiswire

replaced *** PC strand lines that had an annual capacity to produce *** pounds of PC strand with *** PC

strand line that currently has an annual capacity to produce *** pounds. The *** PC lines were shipped

to Kiswire’s Chinese facility for re-installation.50
 51 Manho company website, http://www.manhorope.com/eng/01_about/about04.asp, accessed on September 2,

2009.

 52 Domestic producers’ prehearing brief, p. 16.

 53 Manho company website, http://www.manhorope.com/eng/01_about/about04.asp, accessed on September 2,

2009.

 54 Response to Commission’s Notice of Institution by Dong Il, 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, response to 9(a).

 55 Response to Commission’s Notice of Institution by Dong Il, 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, response to item 4.

IV-26

Another producer, Manho, also continues to produce PC strand in Korea, as well as “rope and

special steel wire.”51 The domestic interested parties estimated Manho’s 2009 capacity to produce PC

strand at *** pounds.52 This estimate appears to be in agreement with Manho’s description of its

production capabilities on its company web site. The firms reported that its “production capacity is being

increased everyday” and that it exports to many countries, including the United States.53 Korean PC

strand producer Dong-Il, however, estimated Manho’s current production capacity (*** pounds) to be

*** (table IV-9).54

Shipments of PC Strand Produced in Korea

Total shipments of PC strand produced by Dong-Il and Young Heung in Korea increased overall

from 2003 to 2008 by *** percent, but were lower during the first six months of 2009 than reported in the

comparable period of 2008. The two Korean producers’ aggregate commercial home market shipments

accounted for *** of the firms’ total shipments of PC strand during the period of review, reaching ***

percent of the firms’ total shipments ***. *** of Young Heung’s shipments of PC strand were to the

commercial home market, with ***. Dong-Il reported that its principal export markets during the period

examined in these reviews included ***. Although the quantity of PC strand shipped to export markets

by Dong-Il was ***, the firm reported in its questionnaire response that it “***.” In its response to the

Commission’s notice of institution in these reviews, Dong-Il explained the attractiveness of the Asian

market for its PC strand: 

* * * * * * *55

U.S. imports of PC strand from Korea amounted to 63.7 million pounds in 2002. After the

imposition of the antidumping duty order, PC strand imports from Korea fell to 316,000 pounds in 2004

and remained at relatively low volumes in subsequent years. 

Alternative Products

Dong Il and Young Heung reported that PC strand represented *** and *** percent, respectively,

of their total 2008 company sales. However, in response to a question concerning the production of other

products, these producers reported that they produce *** other products on the same equipment and using

the same employees as used for PC strand.
 56 Staff Report, December 19, 2003 (INV-AA-191), pp. VII-11-VII-12.

 57 Response to Commission’s Notice of Institution by the Mexican Producers, 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, pp. 5 and 8.

 58 Hearing transcript, p. 164 (Fernandez).

IV-27

THE INDUSTRY IN MEXICO

Overview

At the time of the Commission’s original investigations, the Commission reported that the

following two firms were believed to have accounted for all production of PC strand in Mexico: Aceros

Camesa S.A. de C.V. (“Camesa”) and Cablesa, S.A. de C.V. (“Cablesa”). During 2002, Camesa *** and

Cablesa ***.56

The interested parties indicated in their responses to the Commission’s notice of institution in

these current reviews that although there have been ownership changes for the Mexican PC strand

producers since the Commission’s original investigations, the PC strand facilities in Mexico previously

owned by Camesa and Cablesa continue to produce the subject merchandise. Ownership changes for the

two PC strand producers in Mexico include the purchase of Camesa in 2005 by Wireco WorldGroup

(formerly Wire Rope Corp. of America, Inc.), headquartered in Missouri and the purchase of Cablesa on

August 1, 2007 by Deacero. The Mexican producers participating in these reviews indicated that there

currently are no other producers of the subject merchandise in Mexico aside from Camesa and Deacero.57

There are currently two PC strand producers in Mexico (i.e., Camesa and Deacero), both of which

provided responses to the Commission’s questionnaire in these reviews. Camesa was the larger of the

two Mexican producers,58 accounting for more than *** of PC strand production in Mexico during 2008. 

Table IV-21 presents available information concerning the PC strand industry in Mexico from the original

investigations (2002) and these first reviews (2008).

Table IV-21

PC strand: Select industry data for Mexico, 2002 and 2008

* * * * * * *

PC Strand Operations

Aggregate data compiled from the questionnaire responses provided by Camesa and Deacero

concerning their PC strand operations in Mexico during 2003-08, January-June 2007, and January-June

2008 are presented in table IV-22. Neither firm reported that they or any related firm had a business plan

or any internal documents that describe, discuss, or analyze expected future market conditions for PC

strand.

Table IV-22

PC strand: Mexican capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2003-08, January-June

2008, and January-June 2009

* * * * * * *
 59 Hearing transcript, p. 47 (Wagner) and p. 53 (Beck). ***. Domestic producers’ posthearing brief, p. 6, fn. 6,

and exh. 7.

 60 Hearing transcript, pp. 197-198 (Fernandez); and Mexican producers’ posthearing brief, pp. 5-6.

 61 Response to Commission’s Notice of Institution by the Mexican Producers, 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. 9.

IV-28

Production Capacity in Mexico

The aggregate reported capacity to produce PC strand in Mexico remained stable from 2003 to

2006 and increased by *** percent from 2006 to 2008. Capacity utilization generally rose from ***

percent in 2003 to *** percent in 2006 but fell thereafter. The two Mexican producers’ reported capacity

utilization during 2008 was *** percent. The reported capacity to produce PC strand in Mexico was

based on operating *** hours per week, *** weeks per year. The two responding Mexican producers

reported in their questionnaire responses in these reviews that they had *** additional plans to add,

expand, curtail, or shut down production capacity and/or production of PC strand in Mexico in the

foreseeable future. However, the domestic interested parties testified at the Commission’s hearing that

Mexican producer Deacero has an additional PC strand production line that is ready to be installed

pending the outcome of the ongoing review of the antidumping duty order concerning PC strand from

Mexico.59 Deacero confirmed the accuracy of its questionnaire response with respect to its reported

capacity and flatly denied the claim of the domestic interested parties that additional capacity was

awaiting installation.60

Deacero explained in its questionnaire response that ***. Although not reflected in the capacity

data reported for the first half of 2009, Deacero also indicated in its questionnaire response that ***. In

response to a question concerning the constraints that set the limits on PC strand production capacity,

Deacero reported that ***

Camesa reported ***. The firm explained ***. This equipment became operational in ***. 

Camesa reported *** in its capacity to produce PC strand in the first half of 2009 over the comparable

period in 2008. In response to a question concerning the constraints that set the limits on PC strand

production capacity, Camesa reported ***.

Shipments of PC Strand Produced in Mexico

Aggregate total shipments of PC strand produced by Camesa and Deacero in Mexico increased

overall from 2003 to 2008 by *** percent, but were somewhat lower during the first six months of 2009

than reported in the comparable period of 2008. The Mexican producers’ aggregate commercial home

market shipments accounted for *** of the firms’ total shipments of PC strand during 2003, with *** of

the remainder of total shipments in that year destined for the United States. However, the Mexican

producers reported that, beginning in ***, there have been no exports of PC strand to the United States. 

Instead, *** of the Mexican producers’ production of PC strand was shipped to the commercial home

market, with shipments to export markets accounting for *** of the firms’ total shipments. Principal

export markets during the period examined in these reviews included ***. Concerning its production of

PC strand, the Mexican producers reported that “***.”61 They projected that, over the next several years,

production of PC strand in Mexico will remain in Mexico to satisfy the increasing demand of the product
 62 Mexican producers’ posthearing brief, p. 18. Detailed information concerning infrastructure projects in Mexico

that are part of the National Infrastructure Program and have been included in the Mexican Government’s

Appropriations Law for fiscal year 2009 appears in the posthearing submission of the Government of Mexico.

 63 Hearing transcript, p. 183 (Levin); and questionnaire responses of Camesa and Deacero.

 64 Response to Commission’s Notice of Institution by the Mexican Producers, 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. 9.

 65 Response to Commission’s Notice of Institution by the Mexican Producers, 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. 3.

 66 As indicated earlier, Deacero and Camesa reported that they have not exported the subject merchandise to the

United States since ***.

IV-29

as a result of the Mexican government’s increased investment on infrastructure, particularly “in the

creation and broadening and remodeling of highways, railroads, ports and airports.”62

Camesa reported in its questionnaire response that ***. In fact, the Mexican producers claimed

that there have been no reported exports of PC strand from Mexico to the United States since ***;63 ***

of Deacero’s shipments of PC strand and *** of Camesa’s shipments were to the commercial home

market during the period examined in these reviews. In their response to the Commission’s notice of

institution in these reviews, the Mexican producers explained that ***.64 The Mexican producers further

explained in their response to the Commission’s notice of institution in these reviews that ***.65

U.S. imports of PC strand from Mexico amounted to 53.0 million pounds in 2002. After the

imposition of the antidumping duty order, official statistics for PC strand imports from Mexico fell to

555,000 pounds in 2005 but increased to 2.3 million pounds in 2007 before falling in 2008. Official

imports for the first half of 2009 are markedly higher than reported during the comparable period in

2008.66 

Alternative Products

Camesa and Deacero reported that PC strand represented *** and *** percent, respectively, of

their total 2008 company sales. In response to a question concerning the production of other products,

Camesa reported that from 2003 to the present it ***. The firm reported that it ***. However, Camesa

indicated that ***. Camesa did not provide any data concerning ***. Mexican producer Deacero

reported that, ***.

THE INDUSTRY IN THAILAND

Overview

The following five Thai producers of PC strand were identified in the Commission’s original

investigations: Bangkok Steel Wire Co., Ltd. (“Bangkok Steel Wire”); Siam Wire Industry Co., Ltd.

(“Siam Wire”); Thai Wire Products Public Co., Ltd. (“Thai Wire Products”); The Siam Industrial Wire

Co., Ltd. (“Siam Industrial”); and Thai Special Wire Co. Ltd. (“Thai Special Wire”). Each of these

producers, with the exception of Thai Special Wire, provided a response to the Commission’s

questionnaire in the original investigations. Based on company estimates provided in response to the

Commission’s questionnaire in the final phase of the original investigations, the responding four Thai

producers together accounted for *** of the total production of PC strand in Thailand during 2002. ***

exported PC strand to the United States during 2002. Based on ***, Siam Industrial accounted for ***
 67 Staff Report, December 19, 2003 (INV-AA-191), p. VII-17.

 68 Domestic producers’ prehearing brief, pp. 22-25; and 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. 12 and exh. 9.

 69 The domestic interested parties submitted that Thai Special Wire accounts for *** of total Thai production of

PC strand. Domestic producers’ prehearing brief, p. 22.

 70 The increase in capacity is believed to be even greater because the capacity data presented for 2008 are

believed to be understated by the amount of capacity at the PC strand production facilities of Bangkok Steel Wire

and Siam Wire, for which data were unavailable.

IV-30

exports of the subject merchandise from Thailand to the United States during 2002.67 The domestic

interested parties participating in these current reviews reported that certain ownership changes have

occurred since the time of the Commission’s original investigations and that, in addition to the same five

firms that produced the subject merchandise in Thailand during the original investigations, an additional

PC strand producer, Rayong Wire Industries (“Rayong”), owned by Eastern Wire, now exists in

Thailand.68

Only one PC strand producer in Thailand (i.e., Thai Special Wire) responded to the

Commission’s questionnaire in these reviews. Thai Special Wire, which is estimated to have accounted

for *** percent of all PC strand production in Thailand during 2008 and which *** exported PC strand to

the United States, was the only PC strand producer in Thailand that did not respond to the Commission’s

questionnaire in the original investigations.69 Table IV-23 presents available information concerning the

PC strand industry in Thailand from the original investigations (2002) and these first reviews (2008).

Table IV-23

PC strand: Select data for producers in Thailand, 2002 and 2008

* * * * * * *

PC Strand Operations

The estimated capacity to produce PC strand in Thailand has increased substantially since the

orders were imposed; climbing by *** percent from approximately *** pounds in 2002 to approximately

*** pounds in 2008 (table IV-9).70 Data from the questionnaire response of Thai Special Wire concerning

its PC strand operations in Thailand during 2003-08, January-June 2007, and January-June 2008 are

presented in table IV-24. Thai Special Wire reported that *** a business plan or any internal documents

that describe, discuss, or analyze expected future market conditions for PC strand.

Table IV-24

PC strand: Thai producer Thai Special Wire’s capacity, production, shipments, and inventories,

2003-08, January-June 2008, and January-June 2009

* * * * * * *
 71 The domestic interested parties submitted that publicly available information indicates that Thai Special Wire’s

PC strand capacity in Thailand ***. They estimated that the firm’s annual capacity to produce PC strand is

approximately *** pounds. Domestic producers’ prehearing brief, p. 23.

 72 Both Indian PC strand producer Tata Steel and Thai PC strand producer Siam Industrial Wire are part of the

Tata Steel Group of companies.

 73 Domestic producers’ prehearing brief, pp. 22-24; and 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, pp. 12-13.

IV-31

Production Capacity in Thailand

Thai Special Wire’s reported capacity to produce PC strand in Thailand remained unchanged at

*** pounds throughout the period examined in these reviews,71 whereas production and capacity

utilization rose from 2003 to 2005 but fell overall thereafter. The firm’s reported capacity utilization

during 2008 was *** percent. The reported capacity to produce PC strand in Thailand was based on

operating *** hours per week, *** weeks per year. Thai Special Wire reported that it had *** plans to

add, expand, curtail, or shut down production capacity and/or production of PC strand in Thailand in the

foreseeable future.

The domestic interested parties indicated in their response to the Commission’s notice of

institution in these reviews that the remaining four producers of PC strand in Thailand that provided

questionnaire responses in the Commission’s original investigations but did not provide a response to the

Commission’s questionnaire in these reviews continue to have substantial excess capacity to produce PC

strand, although at least one ownership change has occurred. Specifically, they noted that in 2005, 

NatSteel Asia acquired Siam Industrial Wire, a wholly owned subsidiary of Tata Steel Group.72 Siam

Industrial Wire, an export-oriented Thai producer of PC wire and PC strand, reported in 2004 that it was

“one of the world’s biggest PC Wire and PC Strand manufacturers,” with an annual production capacity

of over 330 million pounds. They estimated that Siam Industrial Wire’s capacity to produce PC strand in

2009 was *** pounds and that the company was currently operating at about *** percent capacity. The

domestic interested parties also cited Thai Wire’s web site to point out that the firm is currently a

producer of PC strand that conforms to ASTM specifications established by the United States. They

estimated that Thai Wire’s annual capacity to produce PC strand in Thailand to be *** pounds and that

the company has unused capacity of about *** pounds. They further stated that Thai PC strand producer

Siam Wire Industry currently produces PC strand “using the most modern pickling, drawing and

stranding machines” and Bangkok Steel Wire’s website indicates that the company continues to produce

PC strand and emphasizes its expansion of export markets to the United States. The domestic interested

parties were unable to provides estimates as to the capacity level at Bangkok Steel Wire and Siam Wire. 

A new entrant into the Thai PC strand industry, Rayong, is estimated by the domestic interested parties to

have an annual capacity to produce 31.7 million pounds of PC strand. They argue further that Rayong’s

parent company, Eastern Wire, has reported planned investments in company operations and that further

expansions at Rayong are likely.73

Shipments of PC Strand Produced in Thailand

Total shipments of PC strand produced by Thai Special Wire in Thailand increased from 2003 to

2005, but fell overall during the remainder of the periods examined in these reviews. The Thai producer’s

home market accounted for *** percent of the firm’s total shipments of PC strand during the entire period

for which data were requested in these reviews, with the exception of ***.
 74 Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from China, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-464 and 731-TA-1160

(Preliminary), USITC Publication 4086, July 2009, p. VII-3.

 75 Ibid.

 76 The European Union has a reported PC strand capacity of approximately 2.7 billion pounds, and was operating

at approximately 79 percent capacity utilization in 2007. Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1129/2008 of 14

November 2008, Official Journal of the European Union, November 15, 2008, L 306/5.

IV-32

Imports of PC strand from Thailand amounted to 10.7 million pounds in 2002. After the

imposition of the antidumping duty order, official statistics for PC strand imports from Thailand fell to

45,000 pounds in 2006, before falling further to zero in the following year. There were no reported

imports of PC strand from Thailand after 2006.

Alternative Products

Thai Special Wire reported that PC strand represented *** percent of its total 2008 company

sales. However, in response to a question concerning the production of other products, it reported that

*** produce other products on the same equipment and using the same employees as used for PC strand.

GLOBAL MARKET

Production

While there are five producers of PC strand in the United States there are at least 22 PC strand

producers in China.74 Other (nonsubject) countries with sizeable production of PC strand include: 

Austria (Voestalpine Austria Draht GMBH); Canada (Bekaert and Stelwire Ltd.); Germany (DWK

Drahtwerk Koln GmbH); Italy (CB Trafilati Accial, Far SPA, Italcables SPA, Redaelli Tecnasud,

Siderurgica Latina Martin, and Trafilati SPA); Portugal (Fapricela Industria de Trefilaria SA and

Tycsa–Trenzas y Cables de Acero PSC SL); Russia (Severstal Metiz); Spain (Emesa Trefileria and

Tycsa); Turkey (Celik Halat ve Tel Sanayii AS); and the United Kingdom (Carrington Wire Ltd.).

There is no comprehensive source for capacity and/or production data for all countries producing

PC strand throughout the world. Estimates, however, indicate that 5.1 billion pounds of PC strand was

produced in China in 2008.75 By comparison, there are at least 22 producers of PC strand in the countries

that comprise the European Union (EU) and production of PC strand was approximately 2.1 billion

pounds in 2007.76
 77 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.

 78 See Part V for more specific information. Trends are compiled from data submitted in response to Commission

questionnaires.

 79 Price trends for wire rod are discussed in the following section of this report.

IV-33

World Trade

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 2003-08, accounting for about one-fifth of total

global imports in 2008 (table IV-25).77 In contrast, China was the world’s leading exporter during that

same time period. China’s exports increased by nearly 600 percent from 2003 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 surpassed 1 billion pounds in 2006, and then increased by over 70 percent

to nearly 2.2 billion pounds in 2008.

Consumption

Beyond the U.S. market, other large markets for PC strand include the EU and China. There is no

comprehensive source for consumption data for all countries consuming PC strand throughout the world. 

Estimated apparent consumption of PC strand, however, was 3.7 billion pounds in China in 2008 and 2.2

billion pounds in the European Union in 2006 (table IV-26). China and several EU countries were net

exporters of PC strand throughout 2003-08.

U.S. producers and importers were asked how demand for PC strand outside the United States

had changed since January 1, 2003. One U.S. producer (***) reported that demand had 

fluctuated. *** reported that global demand for PC strand increased with the emergence of developing

countries such as China, but declined since the second half of 2008 due to the global economic crisis. 

Among importers that responded, five reported that demand had fluctuated, two reported that demand had

increased, and two 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 and fluctuations in worldwide residential and non-residential construction; firms that reported

increasing demand outside the United States cited construction of high-rise buildings in the Middle East

and Asia.

 Similarly, most purchasers reported that demand outside the United States for PC strand has

fluctuated since 2003, citing factors such as increased demand for PC strand in emerging nations such as

India and China earlier in the period, and the current global economic downturn.

Prices

There is no comprehensive source for price data for PC strand. Available information indicates

that prices of PC strand peaked in 2008. PC strand prices have since returned to pre-2008 levels.78 The

peak and subsequent decline in PC strand prices follow the peak and decline in the prices of its principal

raw material, wire rod.79
IV-34

Table IV-25

PC strand and related products: World exports, imports, and trade balance of stranded wire,

ropes, cables, and cordage, of iron or steel, by country, 2003-08

Country Calendar year

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Exports from:

 China 334,261 596,553 807,243 1,363,994 1,823,793 2,323,358

 Korea 582,957 624,492 637,281 625,690 657,297 638,859

 Spain 222,047 273,730 253,974 262,720 425,508 430,554

 Italy 230,641 296,792 291,276 346,129 349,605 366,028

 Germany 220,705 242,045 220,586 243,117 245,491 256,000

 Thailand 125,620 117,628 141,681 172,279 200,227 211,702

 United States 111,232 101,188 118,265 138,765 156,586 180,970

 Japan 195,345 229,772 207,588 190,774 195,795 168,022

 France 206,348 210,718 223,674 201,516 202,561 165,894

 Hungary 76,352 72,963 124,701 160,510 141,696 138,299

 All other countries 1,352,488 1,436,850 1,428,528 1,597,267 1,587,548 1,594,687

 Total 3,657,996 4,202,731 4,454,798 5,302,760 5,986,107 6,474,373

Imports into:

 China 146,331 151,643 143,602 148,970 131,359 130,610

 Korea 64,134 67,136 123,217 149,474 258,201 285,735

 Spain 189,849 192,076 219,977 242,993 225,938 226,091

 Italy 108,762 111,954 116,231 146,421 133,850 143,010

 Germany 221,844 278,653 279,616 316,301 367,707 381,352

 Thailand 23,177 32,133 38,210 35,593 36,451 53,347

 United States 734,037 889,275 897,575 1,115,881 1,045,989 1,064,161

 Japan 100,818 117,569 143,309 153,119 160,082 166,403

 France 169,225 194,177 188,707 205,742 222,925 222,083

 Hungary 14,411 13,115 55,651 38,338 19,083 17,985

 All other countries 1,730,064 1,913,688 2,184,299 2,359,001 2,636,410 2,689,413

 Total 3,502,652 3,961,418 4,390,394 4,911,832 5,237,997 5,380,189

Trade balance:

 China 187,930 444,910 663,641 1,215,023 1,692,433 2,192,747

 Korea 518,823 557,356 514,064 476,216 399,095 353,124

 Spain 32,198 81,654 33,997 19,727 199,569 204,463

 Italy 121,879 184,838 175,045 199,708 215,755 223,017

 Germany (1,140) (36,607) (59,030) (73,184) (122,216) (125,351)

 Thailand 102,443 85,495 103,471 136,686 163,777 158,355

 United States (622,805) (788,087) (779,309) (977,115) (889,403) (883,191)

 Japan 94,527 112,203 64,279 37,655 35,713 1,620

 France 37,123 16,541 34,967 (4,226) (20,364) (56,189)

 Hungary 61,940 59,848 69,050 122,172 122,613 120,314

 All other countries (377,576) (476,838) (755,770) (761,734) (1,048,862) (1,094,726)

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 July 27, 2009. 
IV-35

Table IV-26

PC strand: Production, exports, imports, and apparent consumption of PC strand for the 

United States, European Union, and China, 2004-08

Country Calendar year

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

United States:

 U.S. shipments 573,700 621,842 627,436 582,801 529,972

 Imports 285,733 285,250 484,778 397,703 412,741

 Apparent consumption 859,433 907,092 1,112,214 980,504 942,713

European Union:

 Block shipments 1,857,452 1,634,942 1,862,937 1,866,348 (1

)

 Imports 134,515 174,421 338,782 457,845 (1

)

 Apparent consumption 1,991,967 1,809,362 2,201,719 2,324,193 (1

)

China:

 Production (1

) (1) (1) (1) 5,100,000

 Imports2 96,293 91,187 94,596 83,413 82,937

 Exports2 378,811 512,599 866,136 1,158,109 1,475,332

 Apparent consumption (1

) (1) (1) (1) 3,707,605

 1 Not available.

 2

 The exact volume of exports from, and imports into, China of PC strand are not known. However, one estimate suggests that,

based on the product mix of U.S. imports from China entering under HTS subheading 7312.10 in 2008, PC strand accounted for

63.5 percent of the quantity of such imports, a figure subsequently applied to exports from China under the equivalent HS

subheading. See Petition Regarding Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from the People's Republic of China, Public

Version, dated May 27, 2009, p. 9 and n.29. Staff has extrapolated further and, for the limited purpose of estimating apparent

Chinese consumption of PC strand, applied a factor of .635 to Chinese exports and imports reported under HS 7312.10.

Source: Global Trade Atlas, HTS 7312.10 (retrieved July 27, 2009) (Chinese import and export data); Commission Regulation

(EC) No. 1129/2008 of 14 November 2008, Official Journal of the European Union, November 15, 2008, L 306/5 (European

Union shipment, import, and consumption data); and Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from China, Investigation Nos.

701-TA-464 and 731-TA-1160 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 4086, July 2009, p. VII-3 (Chinese production data).
 80 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-August 2009.

 81 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; AMM,

“Wire rod tightness hints at market ‘allocation’ shift.” AMM, “October Wire Rod Price Expected to Stick,”

September 17, 2009; AMM, “Ameristeel Lifting Wire Rod $25/T” September 15, 2009.

IV-36

Raw Material Prices and Supply

Wire rod is the primary raw material input into the production of PC strand. Global prices of

wire rod increased steadily throughout first and second quarter 2008, peaking in August 2008 before

declining to pre-2008 levels (figure IV-1). U.S. shipments of wire rod followed a similar pattern. 

Monthly U.S. shipments (by volume) peaked in July 2008, but decreased by 74 percent by December

2008. While wire rod shipments have increased approximately 80 percent between January 2009 and

August 2009, shipments remain nearly 45 percent below 2008 levels.80 Moreover, citing worsening

demand in the first quarter of 2009, U.S. wire rod producers reportedly are cutting production capacity

and shuttering production facilities, ***.81

Figure IV-1

Wire rod: Prices, by country, January 2008-September 2009

* * * * * * *
 1 Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from China, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-464 and 731-TA-1160

(Preliminary), USITC Publication 4086, July 2009, p. V-1.

 2

 Insteel reported in its 10-Q for the period ending July 20, 2009 that “following an extended downward trend that

began in September 2008, prices for our primary raw material, hot-rolled steel wire rod, appear to have bottomed

out. In view of the recent upturn in scrap prices and announced closure of two U.S. rod mills that represented over

20% of total domestic capacity, wire rod prices appear likely to rise over the remainder of the year, although the

magnitude of the increase and the impact on prices for our products are uncertain at this time. Considering the

recent signs of stabilization in our markets and the progress made in realigning our inventory levels, we do not

expect that our fourth-quarter results will be significantly impacted by the inventory write-downs and mismatching

of higher raw material costs in inventory with lower selling prices that have persisted through the first nine months

of the year. We expect that margins will improve during the fourth quarter as the lower replacement costs for wire

rod are increasingly reflected in cost of sales.”

V-1

PART V: PRICING AND RELATED INFORMATION

FACTORS AFFECTING PRICES

Raw Material Costs

Raw materials accounted for between 72.9 and 83.1 percent of U.S. producers’ costs of goods

sold during 2003-08. The cost of steel wire rod, in turn, accounts for a substantial share of the raw

material costs in the production of PC strand.1

 U.S. producers reported in their questionnaires that steel

wire rod prices have been volatile, and have affected 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. Since May 2009, however, prices for

high carbon steel wire rod have increased by over 16 percent.2

Figure V-1

High carbon steel wire rod: Average wholesale spot price, by month, March 2007-September 2009

Source: American Metal Market, www.amm.com, retrieved October 19, 2009.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2007 2008 2009

Dollars per 1,000 pounds
V-2

U.S. Inland Transportation Costs

U.S. producers reported that U.S. inland transportation costs ranged from 4.0 to 7.5 percent of the

total delivered cost of PC strand, while importers reported transportation costs ranged from 0.8 to 10.0

percent. All U.S. producers and 14 of 18 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. Four U.S. producers reported that 89 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. The vast majority of imports are reportedly sold

within 1,000 miles of the importers’ storage facilities with 13 of 16 importers reporting that at least 50

percent of shipments were within 100 miles of their storage facilities. Firms’ shipments to specified

regions are summarized in table V-1.

Table V-1

PC strand: Geographic market areas in the United States served by domestic producers and

importers of strand from subject and nonsubject sources

Region Producers

Importers of PC strand from

Subject sources Nonsubject sources

Northeast1 5 2 7

Midwest2 5 2 7

Southeast3 5 3 9

Central Southwest4 5 4 13

Mountains5 3 2 9

Pacific Coast6 2 6 10

Other7 2 0 6

 1

 – CT, ME, MA, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, and VT.

 2 – IL, IN, IA, KS, MI, MN, MO, NE, ND, OH, SD, and WI.

 3 – AL, DE, DC, FL, GA, KY, MD, MS, NC, SC, TN, VA, and WV.

 4 – AR, LA, OK, and TX.

 5 – AZ, CO, ID, MT, NV, NM, UT, and WY.

 6 – CA, OR, and WA. 7 – All other markets in the United States not previously listed, including AK, HI, PR, VI, among others. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

PRICING PRACTICES

Pricing Methods

All U.S. producers reported that prices are determined on a transaction-by-transaction basis,

although some producers also base their prices on contracts. Three producers reported that most (***

percent) of their 2008 sales were on a short-term contract basis, while one (***) reported a *** of longterm contract, short-term contract, and spot sales, and one (***) reported that nearly all (*** percent) of

its sales were on a spot basis. U.S. producers’ short-term contracts range from one to three months; four

of the five producers reported that prices and quantities are fixed while one reported that prices can be

renegotiated during the contract. One of the five responding U.S. producers reported that its short-term

contracts have a meet-or-release provision. 
 3

 ***.

 4

 ***.

 5 Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from China, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-464 and 731-TA-1160

(Preliminary), USITC Publication 4086, July 2009, p. V-3 (citing witness testimony).

 6

 The Commission requested pricing data for product 3 (1⁄2 inch, grade 270 (270,000 PSI), low relaxation, covered

prestressed concrete strand that is greased and covered in a polyethylene wrap sold for post-tensioned applications). 

However, price data for product 3 were only reported by one U.S. producer (***) and only in one quarter (second

quarter of 2008). Because the Commission received only one price data point for product 3, these price data were

not presented in a table or in figure V-2. No importers reported price data for product 3. However, in the original

investigations, domestic converters and Mexican and Thai importers reported quarterly price data for sales of

covered PC strand during January 2000-June 2003.

V-3

Most importers (15 of 19) reported that prices are determined on a transaction-by-transaction

basis, while three reported basing prices on contracts, and one reported another method.3

 Importers’

contracts were generally reported to be for three months, although a few firms reported contracts up to six

or even 12 months. Most firms reported that contracts fix both price and quantity and are not

renegotiated.

Purchasers were asked how frequently there are changes in the price of PC strand they are

purchasing. Most responding purchasers reported that PC strand prices change either monthly or

quarterly, based on steel market conditions (e.g., changes in prices and availability of raw materials such

as steel scrap, high carbon steel, and steel wire rod and changes in prices of other steel products). 

Sales Terms and Discounts

Two U.S. producers reported quantity and annual volume discounts, one U.S. producer (***)

reported quantity discounts, and the two other U.S. producers reported no discount policy.4

 Sixteen of 19

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.5 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 that was shipped to unrelated customers in the U.S. market

during January 2003-June 2009. The products for which pricing data were collected are as follows:

Product 1.---1⁄2 inch, grade 270 (270,000 PSI), low relaxation, uncovered prestressed concrete

strand sold for pre-tensioned applications.

Product 2.---1⁄2 inch, grade 270 (270,000 PSI), low relaxation, uncovered prestressed concrete

strand sold for post-tensioned applications.6
 7 Since little or no price data were reported for sales of imported PC strand from Brazil or Mexico in these

reviews, the price data were supplemented with price data for these countries reported in the original investigations.

 8

 The correlation coefficient for U.S. product 1 prices and U.S. wire rod prices was 0.97 and for U.S. product 2

prices and U.S. wire rod prices was 0.88 (correlation coefficients range from 0-1). However, correlation does not

imply causation, as other factors (e.g., demand factors) may be influencing both variables.

V-4

Five U.S. producers and four importers provided usable price data for sales of the requested

products, although not all firms reported pricing for all products for all quarters. Price data reported by

these firms accounted for 59.9 percent of U.S. producers’ shipments of PC strand, 8.8 percent of U.S.

shipments of subject imports from Brazil, 42.3 percent of U.S. shipments of subject imports from India, 

53.3 percent of U.S. shipments of subject imports from Korea, and 50.1 percent of U.S. shipments of

subject imports from Thailand during the period January 2003-June 2009. No price data were reported

for sales of imported PC strand from Japan or Mexico.7

Price Trends

Price data for products 1 and 2 are shown in tables V-2 to V-3 and figure V-2. A summary of

price trends is shown in table V-4.

Prices for U.S. products 1 and 2 increased substantially during 2004, were relatively stable during

2005-07, increased substantially during the beginning of 2008, then fell at the end of 2008 and during the

first half of 2009. The limited available price data for imported Korean and Thai product 1 appeared to

track U.S. product 1 prices through 2003 and the first two quarters of 2004, although Thai product 1

prices diverged downward during the second half of 2004. Available price data for imported Brazilian,

Indian, and Korean product 2 were too limited to show any trends.

 As discussed previously, steel wire rod accounts for a substantial share of raw material costs in

the production of PC strand, and U.S. producers have reported that changes in steel wire rod prices have

affected prices for PC strand. As shown below in figure V-3, the substantial price increases in 2008 and

subsequent price declines at the end of 2008 and the first half of 2009 for U.S. products 1 and 2 occurred

together with similar increases and declines in steel wire rod prices.8

Purchasers were asked if there have been changes in the price of domestic PC strand relative to

prices of imported Brazilian, Indian, Japanese, Korean, Mexican, and Thai PC strand since 2003. Three

of four responding purchasers reported that prices for domestic PC strand have changed by the same

amount as prices for PC strand from each of the subject countries, and one firm reported that there have

been no changes in price. 

Eleven purchasers identified firms they considered to be price leaders in the PC strand market

since 2003. Most responding purchasers identified U.S. producers as price leaders, Insteel in particular

(identified by seven firms). One purchaser (***) maintained that it is doubtful that any one firm has a

significant impact on PC strand market prices, but countries such as China and Brazil do.

Price Comparisons

Margins of underselling and overselling for the period are presented in table V-5. As can be seen

from the table, the very limited available price data for subject country PC strand show more instances of

underselling than overselling for imported PC strand from Brazil and Korea. Alternatively, the limited

available price data for imported PC strand from Thailand indicates that subject product from this country

tended to oversell U.S.-produced PC strand.
V-5

Table V-2

PC strand: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 11 and margins

of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2003-June 2009

United States Korea

Price 

(per lineal foot)

Quantity

(1,000 lineal feet)

Price 

(per lineal foot)

Quantity

(1,000 lineal feet)

Margin

(percent)

2003:

 Jan.-Mar. $132 102,726 $*** *** ***

 Apr.-June 140 114,536 *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 147 111,480 *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 154 111,625 - 0 -

2004:

 Jan.-Mar. 182 127,672 *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 243 125,744 *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 272 124,411 - 0 -

 Oct.-Dec. 283 98,858 - 0 -

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. 284 105,419 - 0 -

 Apr.-June 279 122,147 - 0 -

 July-Sept. 273 127,135 - 0 -

 Oct.-Dec. 267 115,871 - 0 -

2006:

 Jan.-Mar. 263 122,444 - 0 -

 Apr.-June 259 127,141 - 0 -

 July-Sept. 265 109,068 - 0 -

 Oct.-Dec. 260 101,815 - 0 -

2007:

 Jan.-Mar. 254 101,556 - 0 -

 Apr.-June 252 112,694 - 0 -

 July-Sept. 246 104,863 - 0 -

 Oct.-Dec. 241 110,640 - 0 -

2008:

 Jan.-Mar. 251 122,934 - 0 -

 Apr.-June 346 136,478 - 0 -

 July-Sept. 416 107,670 - 0 -

 Oct.-Dec. 375 57,342 - 0 -

2009:

 Jan.-Mar. 288 63,218 - 0 -

 Apr.-June 264 80,986 - 0 -

 1

 Product 1: 1⁄2 inch, grade 270 (270,000 PSI), low relaxation, uncovered prestressed concrete strand sold for

pre-tensioned applications.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-6

Table V-3

PC strand: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 21 and margins

of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2003-June 2009

United States Brazil2 India

Price 

(per 

lineal

foot)

Quantity

(1,000

lineal feet)

Price 

(per

lineal

foot)

Quantity

(1,000 lineal

feet)

Margin

(percent)

Price 

(per

lineal

foot)

Quantity

(1,000

lineal feet)

Margin

(percent)

2003:

 Jan.-Mar. $112 64,803 $*** *** *** - 0 -

 Apr.-June 130 92,329 *** *** *** $*** *** ***

 July-Sept. 141 65,416 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 140 74,054 - 0 - - 0 -

2004:

 Jan.-Mar. 153 69,519 - 0 - - 0 -

 Apr.-June 205 66,784 - 0 - - 0 -

 July-Sept. 232 65,185 - 0 - - 0 -

 Oct.-Dec. 234 35,795 - 0 - - 0 -

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. 224 45,517 - 0 - - 0 -

 Apr.-June 221 81,078 - 0 - - 0 -

 July-Sept. 214 90,721 - 0 - - 0 -

 Oct.-Dec. 200 83,959 - 0 - - 0 -

2006:

 Jan.-Mar. 190 71,479 - 0 - - 0 -

 Apr.-June *** *** - 0 - - 0 -

 July-Sept. 185 63,389 - 0 - - 0 -

 Oct.-Dec. 190 40,915 - 0 - - 0 -

2007:

 Jan.-Mar. 181 47,632 - 0 - - 0 -

 Apr.-June 180 61,028 - 0 - - 0 -

 July-Sept. 182 51,890 - 0 - - 0 -

 Oct.-Dec. 187 39,243 - 0 - - 0 -

2008:

 Jan.-Mar. 226 52,327 - 0 - - 0 -

 Apr.-June 302 25,304 - 0 - - 0 -

 July-Sept. 317 10,431 - 0 - - 0 -

 Oct.-Dec. 238 5,243 - 0 - - 0 -

2009:

 Jan.-Mar. *** *** - 0 - - 0 -

 Apr.-June 214 11,910 - 0 - - 0 -

Table continued on following page.
V-7

Table V-3--Continued

PC strand: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 21 and margins

of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2003-June 2009

Korea Mexico2 Thailand

Price 

(per

lineal

foot)

Quantity

(1,000

lineal

feet)

Margin

(percent)

Price 

(per

lineal

foot)

Quantity

(1,000

lineal

feet)

Margin

(percent)

Price 

(per

lineal

foot)

Quantity

(1,000

lineal

feet)

Margin

(percent)

2003:

 Jan.-Mar. $*** *** *** $*** *** *** $*** *** ***

 Apr.-June *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. *** *** *** - 0 - *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. - 0 - - 0 - *** *** ***

2004:

 Jan.-Mar. - 0 - - 0 - *** *** ***

 Apr.-June - 0 - - 0 - *** *** ***

 July-Sept. - 0 - - 0 - *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. - 0 - - 0 - *** *** ***

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -

 Apr.-June - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -

 July-Sept. - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -

 Oct.-Dec. - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -

2006:

 Jan.-Mar. - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -

 Apr.-June - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -

 July-Sept. - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -

 Oct.-Dec. - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -

2007:

 Jan.-Mar. - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -

 Apr.-June - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -

 July-Sept. - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -

 Oct.-Dec. - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -

2008:

 Jan.-Mar. - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -

 Apr.-June - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -

 July-Sept. - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -

 Oct.-Dec. - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -

2009:

 Jan.-Mar. - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -

 Apr.-June - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -

 1

 Product 2: 1⁄2 inch, grade 270 (270,000 PSI), low relaxation, uncovered prestressed concrete strand sold for

post-tensioned applications.

 2 Price data for January-June 2003 as reported in the original investigations.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-8

Figure V-2

PC strand: Weighted-average prices and quantities of domestic and imported product, by

quarters, January 2003-June 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-4

PC strand: Summary of weighted-average f.o.b. prices for products 1-2, by country

Item Number of

quarters

Low price 

(per lineal foot)

High price

(per lineal foot)

Change in price1

(percent)

Product 1 

United States 26 $132 $416 100.4

Korea *** *** *** -

Product 2

United States 26 112 317 91.4

Brazil *** *** *** -

India *** *** *** -

Korea *** *** *** -

Mexico *** *** *** -

Thailand *** *** *** -

 1 Percentage change from the first quarter 2003 to second quarter 2009. No data were reported for subject

countries for after 2004.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Figure V-3

PC strand: Indexes of average U.S. wire rod prices and weighted-average prices of U.S. products

1 and 2, by quarters, January 2007-September 2009

* * * * * * *
V-9

Table V-5

PC strand: Instances of underselling/overselling and the range and average of margins, January

2003-June 2009

Underselling Overselling

Number of

instances

Range

(percent)

Average

margin

(percent)

Number of

instances

Range

(percent)

Average

margin

(percent)

Brazil 2 *** *** 1 - ***

India 1 - *** 1 - ***

Korea 5 *** *** 3 *** ***

Mexico 1 - *** 1 - ***

Thailand 3 *** *** 5 *** ***

 Total 12 0.2-27.3 8.9 11 0.1-32.6 8.9

Note.– In the original investigations, for sales of low relaxation, uncovered (uncoated) PC strand, grade 270, 1⁄2 inch

diameter (product 1) used for both pre-tensioned and post-tensioned applications:

• imports from Brazil undersold the domestic product in 14 of 14 comparisons;

• imports from India undersold the domestic product in 14 of 14 comparisons;

• imports from Japan undersold the domestic product in 12 quarters, and oversold the domestic product in 4

quarters;

• imports from Korea undersold the domestic product in 14 of 14 comparisons;

• imports from Mexico undersold the domestic product in 13 of 14 comparisons;

• and imports from Thailand undersold the domestic product in 12 of 14 comparisons.

 For sales of product 1 for pre-tensioned applications only:

• imports from Brazil undersold the domestic product in three quarters;

• imports from Korea undersold the domestic product in 12 quarters and oversold the domestic product in one

quarter;

• and imports from Mexico oversold the domestic product in five quarters.

 For sales of product 1 for post-tensioned applications only:

• imports from Brazil undersold the domestic product in seven quarters and oversold the domestic product in

seven quarters;

• imports from India undersold the domestic product in 11 quarters and oversold the domestic product in three

quarters;

• imports from Korea undersold the domestic product in three quarters and oversold the domestic product in 11

quarters;

• imports from Mexico undersold the domestic product in six quarters and oversold the domestic product in eight

quarters;

• and imports from Thailand undersold the domestic product in one quarter and oversold the domestic product in

13 quarters.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Prestressed Concrete Steel

Wire Strand from Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand: Investigation Nos. 701-TA-432 and 731-TA-1024-1028

(Final), INV-AA-191, December 19, 2003, p. V-15 and V-21. Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from

Japan: INV1921-188, OP2-B-178, November 3, 1978, table 11.
 
A-1

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES AND THE 

COMMISSION’S STATEMENT ON ADEQUACY

72834 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 231 / Monday, December 1, 2008 / Notices 

1No response to this request for information is 

required if a currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the 

OMB number is 3117–0016/USITC No. 09–5–192, 

expiration date June 30, 2011. Public reporting 

burden for the request is estimated to average 15 

hours per response. Please send comments 

regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to 

the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20436. 

Background 

The Commission instituted this 

review on July 1, 2008 (73 FR 37489) 

and determined on October 6, 2008 that 

it would conduct an expedited review 

(73 FR 62318, October 20, 2008). 

The Commission transmitted its 

determination in this review to the 

Secretary of Commerce on November 

25, 2008. The views of the Commission 

are contained in USITC Publication 

4047 (November 2008), entitled 

Crawfish Tail Meat from China: 

Investigation No. 731–TA–752 (Second 

Review). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: November 25, 2008. 

William R. Bishop, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E8–28410 Filed 11–28–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–432 and 731– 

TA–1024–1028 (Review) and AA1921–188 

(Third Review)] 

Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire 

Strand From Brazil, India, Japan, 

Korea, Mexico, and Thailand 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of five-year reviews 

concerning the countervailing duty 

order on prestressed concrete steel wire 

strand from India and antidumping duty 

orders on prestressed concrete steel wire 

strand from Brazil, India, Japan, Korea, 

Mexico, and Thailand. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it has instituted reviews 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) 

to determine whether revocation of the 

countervailing duty order on prestressed 

concrete steel wire strand from India 

and the antidumping duty orders on 

prestressed concrete steel wire strand 

from Brazil, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, 

and Thailand would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of 

the Act, interested parties are requested 

to respond to this notice by submitting 

the information specified below to the 

Commission;1 to be assured of 

consideration, the deadline for 

responses is January 20, 2009. 

Comments on the adequacy of responses 

may be filed with the Commission by 

February 13, 2009. For further 

information concerning the conduct of 

these reviews and rules of general 

application, consult the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 

201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 

201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and 

F (19 CFR part 207). 

DATES: Effective Date: December 1, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—On December 8, 1978, 

the Department of the Treasury issued 

an antidumping finding on imports of 

prestressed concrete steel wire strand 

from Japan (43 FR 57599). Following 

five-year reviews by Commerce and the 

Commission, effective February 3, 1999, 

Commerce issued a continuation of the 

antidumping duty order on imports of 

prestressed concrete steel wire strand 

from Japan (64 FR 40554, July 27, 1999). 

Following second five-year reviews by 

Commerce and the Commission, 

effective June 25, 2004, Commerce 

issued a continuation of the 

antidumping duty order on imports of 

prestressed concrete steel wire strand 

from Japan (69 FR 35584). On January 

28, 2004, the Department of Commerce 

issued antidumping duty orders on 

imports of prestressed concrete steel 

wire strand from Brazil, India, Korea, 

Mexico, and Thailand (69 FR 4109– 

4113). On February 4, 2004, the 

Department of Commerce issued a 

countervailing duty order on imports of 

prestressed concrete steel wire strand 

from India (69 FR 5319). The 

Commission is now conducting a third 

review of the antidumping duty order 

concerning Japan and a first review of 

the orders concerning Brazil, India, 

Korea, Mexico, and Thailand to 

determine whether revocation of the 

orders would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury to the domestic industry within 

a reasonably foreseeable time. It will 

assess the adequacy of interested party 

responses to this notice of institution to 

determine whether to conduct full 

reviews or expedited reviews. The 

Commission’s determinations in any 

expedited reviews will be based on the 

facts available, which may include 

information provided in response to this 

notice. 

Definitions.—The following 

definitions apply to these reviews: 

(1) Subject Merchandise is the class or 

kind of merchandise that is within the 

scope of the five-year reviews, as 

defined by the Department of 

Commerce. 

(2) The Subject Countries in these 

reviews are Brazil, India, Japan, Korea, 

Mexico, and Thailand. 

(3) The Domestic Like Product is the 

domestically produced product or 

products which are like, or in the 

absence of like, most similar in 

characteristics and uses with, the 

Subject Merchandise. In its expedited 

first and second five-year reviews of the 

antidumping duty order concerning 

Japan, the Commission found that the 

appropriate definition of the Domestic 

Like Product was the same as 

Commerce’s scope: all steel wire strand, 

other than alloy steel, not galvanized, 

which has been stress-relieved and is 

suitable for use in prestressed concrete. 

The Commission did not make a like 

product determination per se in its 

original determination concerning 

Japan. In its original determinations 

concerning Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, 

and Thailand, the Commission found 

the Domestic Like Product to be all 

prestressed concrete steel wire strand 

co-extensive with Commerce’s scope, 

that is, steel strand produced from wire 

of non-stainless, non-galvanized steel 

that is suitable for use in prestressed 

concrete (both pre-tensioned and posttensioned) applications and that 

encompasses covered and uncovered 

strand and all types, grades, and 

diameters of prestressed concrete steel 

wire strand. 

(4) The Domestic Industry is the U.S. 

producers as a whole of the Domestic 

Like Product, or those producers whose 

collective output of the Domestic Like 

Product constitutes a major proportion 

of the total domestic production of the 

product. In its original determination 

and its expedited first and second 

reviews of the antidumping duty order 

concerning Japan, the Commission 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 231 / Monday, December 1, 2008 / Notices 72835 

defined the Domestic Industry as all 

producers of prestressed concrete steel 

wire strand. Likewise, in its original 

determinations concerning Brazil, India, 

Korea, Mexico, and Thailand, the 

Commission found the Domestic 

Industry to be all producers of 

prestressed concrete steel wire strand. 

The Commission also determined that 

plastic coating did not constitute 

sufficient production-related activity to 

qualify coaters as members of the 

domestic industry producing 

prestressed concrete steel wire strand. 

(5) The Order Date is the date that the 

antidumping and countervailing duty 

orders under review became effective. In 

the review concerning the antidumping 

duty order on prestressed concrete steel 

wire strand from Japan, the Order Date 

is December 8, 1978. In the reviews 

concerning the antidumping duty orders 

on prestressed concrete steel wire strand 

from Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and 

Thailand, the Order Date is January 28, 

2004. In the review concerning the 

countervailing duty order on prestressed 

concrete steel wire strand from India, 

the Order Date is February 4, 2004. 

(6) An Importer is any person or firm 

engaged, either directly or through a 

parent company or subsidiary, in 

importing the Subject Merchandise into 

the United States from a foreign 

manufacturer or through its selling 

agent. 

Participation in the reviews and 

public service list.—Persons, including 

industrial users of the Subject 

Merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in the reviews as parties 

must file an entry of appearance with 

the Secretary to the Commission, as 

provided in section 201.11(b)(4) of the 

Commission’s rules, no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. The Secretary will 

maintain a public service list containing 

the names and addresses of all persons, 

or their representatives, who are parties 

to the reviews. 

Former Commission employees who 

are seeking to appear in Commission 

five-year reviews are advised that they 

may appear in a review even if they 

participated personally and 

substantially in the corresponding 

underlying original investigation. The 

Commission’s designated agency ethics 

official recently has advised that a fiveyear review is no longer considered the 

‘‘same particular matter’’ as the 

corresponding underlying original 

investigation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 

207, the post employment statute for 

Federal employees, and Commission 

rule 201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), 73 FR 

24609 (May 5, 2008). This advice was 

developed in consultation with the 

Office of Government Ethics. 

Consequently, former employees are no 

longer required to seek Commission 

approval to appear in a review under 

Commission rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if 

the corresponding underlying original 

investigation was pending when they 

were Commission employees. For 

further ethics advice on this matter, 

contact Carol McCue Verratti, Deputy 

Agency Ethics Official, at 202–205– 

3088. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and APO service list.—Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

submitted in these reviews available to 

authorized applicants under the APO 

issued in the reviews, provided that the 

application is made no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. Authorized 

applicants must represent interested 

parties, as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), 

who are parties to the reviews. A 

separate service list will be maintained 

by the Secretary for those parties 

authorized to receive BPI under the 

APO. 

Certification.—Pursuant to section 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules, any 

person submitting information to the 

Commission in connection with these 

reviews must certify that the 

information is accurate and complete to 

the best of the submitter’s knowledge. In 

making the certification, the submitter 

will be deemed to consent, unless 

otherwise specified, for the 

Commission, its employees, and 

contract personnel to use the 

information provided in any other 

reviews or investigations of the same or 

comparable products which the 

Commission conducts under Title VII of 

the Act, or in internal audits and 

investigations relating to the programs 

and operations of the Commission 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3. 

Written submissions.—Pursuant to 

section 207.61 of the Commission’s 

rules, each interested party response to 

this notice must provide the information 

specified below. The deadline for filing 

such responses is January 20, 2009. 

Pursuant to section 207.62(b) of the 

Commission’s rules, eligible parties (as 

specified in Commission rule 

207.62(b)(1)) may also file comments 

concerning the adequacy of responses to 

the notice of institution and whether the 

Commission should conduct expedited 

or full reviews. The deadline for filing 

such comments is February 13, 2009. 

All written submissions must conform 

with the provisions of sections 201.8 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules and 

any submissions that contain BPI must 

also conform with the requirements of 

sections 201.6 and 207.7 of the 

Commission’s rules. The Commission’s 

rules do not authorize filing of 

submissions with the Secretary by 

facsimile or electronic means, except to 

the extent permitted by section 201.8 of 

the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67 

FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Also, in 

accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules, each 

document filed by a party to the reviews 

must be served on all other parties to 

the reviews (as identified by either the 

public or APO service list as 

appropriate), and a certificate of service 

must accompany the document (if you 

are not a party to the reviews you do not 

need to serve your response). 

Inability to provide requested 

information.—Pursuant to section 

207.61(c) of the Commission’s rules, any 

interested party that cannot furnish the 

information requested by this notice in 

the requested form and manner shall 

notify the Commission at the earliest 

possible time, provide a full explanation 

of why it cannot provide the requested 

information, and indicate alternative 

forms in which it can provide 

equivalent information. If an interested 

party does not provide this notification 

(or the Commission finds the 

explanation provided in the notification 

inadequate) and fails to provide a 

complete response to this notice, the 

Commission may take an adverse 

inference against the party pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act in making its 

determinations in the reviews. 

Information to be Provided in 

Response to This Notice of Institution: If 

you are a domestic producer, union/ 

worker group, or trade/business 

association; import/export Subject 

Merchandise from more than one 

Subject Country; or produce Subject 

Merchandise in more than one Subject 

Country, you may file a single response. 

If you do so, please ensure that your 

response to each question includes the 

information requested for each pertinent 

Subject Country. As used below, the 

term ‘‘firm’’ includes any related firms. 

(1) The name and address of your firm 

or entity (including World Wide Web 

address if available) and name, 

telephone number, fax number, and email address of the certifying official. 

(2) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of 

the Domestic Like Product, a U.S. union 

or worker group, a U.S. importer of the 

Subject Merchandise, a foreign producer 

or exporter of the Subject Merchandise, 

a U.S. or foreign trade or business 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
72836 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 231 / Monday, December 1, 2008 / Notices 

association, or another interested party 

(including an explanation). If you are a 

union/worker group or trade/business 

association, identify the firms in which 

your workers are employed or which are 

members of your association. 

(3) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is willing to participate 

in these reviews by providing 

information requested by the 

Commission. 

(4) A statement of the likely effects of 

the revocation of the antidumping and 

countervailing duty orders on the 

Domestic Industry in general and/or 

your firm/entity specifically. In your 

response, please discuss the various 

factors specified in section 752(a) of the 

Act (19 U.S.C. 1675a(a)) including the 

likely volume of subject imports, likely 

price effects of subject imports, and 

likely impact of imports of Subject 

Merchandise on the Domestic Industry. 

(5) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. producers of the 

Domestic Like Product. Identify any 

known related parties and the nature of 

the relationship as defined in section 

771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1677(4)(B)). 

(6) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. importers of the Subject 

Merchandise and producers of the 

Subject Merchandise in each Subject 

Country that currently export or have 

exported Subject Merchandise to the 

United States or other countries after 

2002. 

(7) If you are a U.S. producer of the 

Domestic Like Product, provide the 

following information on your firm’s 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2007 (report quantity data 

in pounds and value data in U.S. 

dollars, f.o.b. plant). If you are a union/ 

worker group or trade/business 

association, provide the information, on 

an aggregate basis, for the firms in 

which your workers are employed/ 

which are members of your association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total U.S. production of the Domestic 

Like Product accounted for by your 

firm’s(s’) production; 

(b) The quantity and value of U.S. 

commercial shipments of the Domestic 

Like Product produced in your U.S. 

plant(s); and 

(c) The quantity and value of U.S. 

internal consumption/company 

transfers of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s). 

(8) If you are a U.S. importer or a 

trade/business association of U.S. 

importers of the Subject Merchandise 

from the Subject Country(ies), provide 

the following information on your 

firm’s(s’) operations on that product 

during calendar year 2007 (report 

quantity data in pounds and value data 

in U.S. dollars). If you are a trade/ 

business association, provide the 

information, on an aggregate basis, for 

the firms which are members of your 

association. 

(a) The quantity and value (landed, 

duty-paid but not including 

antidumping or countervailing duties) 

of U.S. imports and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total U.S. 

imports of Subject Merchandise from 

each Subject Country accounted for by 

your firm’s(s’) imports; 

(b) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping and/or 

countervailing duties) of U.S. 

commercial shipments of Subject 

Merchandise imported from each 

Subject Country; and 

(c) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping and/or 

countervailing duties) of U.S. internal 

consumption/company transfers of 

Subject Merchandise imported from 

each Subject Country. 

(9) If you are a producer, an exporter, 

or a trade/business association of 

producers or exporters of the Subject 

Merchandise in the Subject 

Country(ies), provide the following 

information on your firm’s(s’) 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2007 (report quantity data 

in pounds and value data in U.S. 

dollars, landed and duty-paid at the 

U.S. port but not including antidumping 

or countervailing duties). If you are a 

trade/business association, provide the 

information, on an aggregate basis, for 

the firms which are members of your 

association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total production of Subject Merchandise 

in each Subject Country accounted for 

by your firm’s(s’) production; and 

(b) The quantity and value of your 

firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of 

Subject Merchandise and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total 

exports to the United States of Subject 

Merchandise from each Subject Country 

accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. 

(10) Identify significant changes, if 

any, in the supply and demand 

conditions or business cycle for the 

Domestic Like Product that have 

occurred in the United States or in the 

market for the Subject Merchandise in 

each Subject Country after 2002, and 

significant changes, if any, that are 

likely to occur within a reasonably 

foreseeable time. Supply conditions to 

consider include technology; 

production methods; development 

efforts; ability to increase production 

(including the shift of production 

facilities used for other products and the 

use, cost, or availability of major inputs 

into production); and factors related to 

the ability to shift supply among 

different national markets (including 

barriers to importation in foreign 

markets or changes in market demand 

abroad). Demand conditions to consider 

include end uses and applications; the 

existence and availability of substitute 

products; and the level of competition 

among the Domestic Like Product 

produced in the United States, Subject 

Merchandise produced in each Subject 

Country, and such merchandise from 

other countries. 

(11) (Optional) A statement of 

whether you agree with the above 

definitions of the Domestic Like Product 

and Domestic Industry; if you disagree 

with either or both of these definitions, 

please explain why and provide 

alternative definitions. 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.61 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: November 25, 2008. 

William R. Bishop, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E8–28409 Filed 11–28–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–394–A & 399– 

A (Second Review) (Remand)] 

Ball Bearings From Japan and the 

United Kingdom 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of stay of remand 

proceedings. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. International Trade 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) hereby 

gives notice of the stay of its remand 

proceedings in the Commission’s fiveyear reviews of the antidumping duty 

orders on ball bearings from Japan and 

the United Kingdom. 

DATES: Effective Date: November 24, 

2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Russell Duncan, Office of Investigations, 

telephone 202–708–4727, or David 

Goldfine, Office of General Counsel, 

telephone 202–708–5452, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. 

Hearing-impaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
72770 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 231 / Monday, December 1, 2008 / Notices 

submitted not later than five days after 

the time limit for filing the case briefs. 

See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). If requested, 

any hearing will be held two days after 

the scheduled date for submission of 

rebuttal briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(d). 

Parties who submit case briefs or 

rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are 

encouraged to submit with each 

argument a statement of the issue, a 

summary of the arguments not 

exceeding five pages, and a table of 

statutes, regulations, and cases cited. 

See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2). 

The Department will issue the final 

results of this administrative review, 

including the results of its analysis of 

issues raised in any such written briefs 

or at the hearing, if held, not later than 

120 days after the date of publication of 

this notice. See section 751(a)(3)(A) of 

the Act. 

Assessment Rates 

The Department shall determine, and 

CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on 

all appropriate entries. The Department 

intends to issue assessment instructions 

to CBP 15 days after the date of 

publication of the final results of 

review. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we 

will calculate importer–specific ad 

valorem duty assessment rates based on 

the ratio of the total amount of the 

dumping margins calculated for the 

examined sales to the total entered 

value of those same sales. We will 

instruct CBP to assess antidumping 

duties on all appropriate entries covered 

by this review if any importer–specific 

assessment rate calculated in the final 

results of this review is above de 

minimis. The final results of this review 

shall be the basis for the assessment of 

antidumping duties on entries of 

merchandise covered by the final results 

of this review and for future deposits of 

estimated duties, where applicable. 

Cash–Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the notice of final results 

of the administrative review for all 

shipments of RBAO from the PRC 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the date of 

publication, as provided by section 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for subject 

merchandise exported by Qingdao 

Shunxingli, the cash–deposit rate will 

be that established in the final results of 

review; (2) for previously reviewed or 

investigated companies not listed above 

that have separate rates, the cash– 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

company–specific rate published for the 

most recent period; (3) for all other PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise, which 

have not been found to be entitled to a 

separate rate, the cash–deposit rate will 

be PRC–wide rate of 135.18 percent; and 

(4) for all non–PRC exporters of subject 

merchandise, the cash–deposit rate will 

be the rate applicable to the PRC 

exporter that supplied that exporter. 

These deposit requirements, when 

imposed, shall remain in effect until 

further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

This administrative review and this 

notice are in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: November 21, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–28458 Filed 11–28–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Initiation of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Reviews 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 

751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’), the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is 

automatically initiating a five-year 

review (‘‘Sunset Review’’) of the 

antidumping duty orders listed below. 

The International Trade Commission 

(‘‘the Commission’’) is publishing 

concurrently with this notice its notice 

of Institution of Five-year Review which 

covers the same orders. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 1, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

Department official identified in the 

Initiation of Review section below at 

AD/CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 

Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20230. For 

information from the Commission 

contact Mary Messer, Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission at (202) 205–3193. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department’s procedures for the 

conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth 

in its Procedures for Conducting Fiveyear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Orders, 63 FR 13516 (March 20, 1998) 

and 70 FR 62061 (October 28, 2005). 

Guidance on methodological or 

analytical issues relevant to the 

Department’s conduct of Sunset 

Reviews is set forth in the Department’s 

Policy Bulletin 98.3 Policies Regarding 

the Conduct of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Reviews of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Orders: Policy 

Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998). 

Initiation of Review 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.218(c), we are initiating the Sunset 

Review of the following antidumping 

duty orders: 

DOC Case No. ITC Case No. Country Product Department Contact 

A–351–837 ................... 731–TA–1024 Brazil Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391 

A–533–828 ................... 731–TA–1025 India Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391 

A–580–852 ................... 731–TA–1026 South Korea Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391 

A–201–831 ................... 731–TA–1027 Mexico Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391 

A–549–820 ................... 731–TA–1028 Thailand Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391 

A–588–068 ................... AA1921–188 Japan Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391 

C–533–829 .................. 701–TA–432 India Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand Brandon Farlander (202) 482–0182 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 231 / Monday, December 1, 2008 / Notices 72771 

1 In comments made on the interim final sunset 

regulations, a number of parties stated that the 

proposed five-day period for rebuttals to 

substantive responses to a notice of initiation was 

insufficient. This requirement was retained in the 

final sunset regulations at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(4). As 

provided in 19 CFR 351.302(b), however, the 

Department will consider individual requests to 

extend that five-day deadline based upon a showing 

of good cause. 

Filing Information 

As a courtesy, we are making 

information related to Sunset 

proceedings, including copies of the 

pertinent statute and Department’s 

regulations, the Department schedule 

for Sunset Reviews, a listing of past 

revocations and continuations, and 

current service lists, available to the 

public on the Department’s sunset 

Internet Web site at the following 

address: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/sunset/.’’ 

All submissions in these Sunset 

Reviews must be filed in accordance 

with the Department’s regulations 

regarding format, translation, service, 

and certification of documents. These 

rules can be found at 19 CFR 351.303. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(c), the 

Department will maintain and make 

available a service list for these 

proceedings. To facilitate the timely 

preparation of the service list(s), it is 

requested that those seeking recognition 

as interested parties to a proceeding 

contact the Department in writing 

within 10 days of the publication of the 

Notice of Initiation. 

Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews 

can be very short, we urge interested 

parties to apply for access to proprietary 

information under administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) immediately 

following publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation by 

filing a notice of intent to participate. 

The Department’s regulations on 

submission of proprietary information 

and eligibility to receive access to 

business proprietary information under 

APO can be found at 19 CFR 351.304– 

306. 

Information Required from Interested 

Parties 

Domestic interested parties defined in 

section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b) wishing 

to participate in a Sunset Review must 

respond not later than 15 days after the 

date of publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation by 

filing a notice of intent to participate. 

The required contents of the notice of 

intent to participate are set forth at 19 

CFR 351.218(d)(1)(ii). In accordance 

with the Department’s regulations, if we 

do not receive a notice of intent to 

participate from at least one domestic 

interested party by the 15-day deadline, 

the Department will automatically 

revoke the order without further review. 

See 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii). 

If we receive an order–specific notice 

of intent to participate from a domestic 

interested party, the Department’s 

regulations provide that all parties 

wishing to participate in the Sunset 

Review must file complete substantive 

responses not later than 30 days after 

the date of publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation. The 

required contents of a substantive 

response, on an order–specific basis, are 

set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3). Note 

that certain information requirements 

differ for respondent and domestic 

parties. Also, note that the Department’s 

information requirements are distinct 

from the Commission’s information 

requirements. Please consult the 

Department’s regulations for 

information regarding the Department’s 

conduct of Sunset Reviews.1 Please 

consult the Department’s regulations at 

19 CFR Part 351 for definitions of terms 

and for other general information 

concerning antidumping and 

countervailing duty proceedings at the 

Department. 

This notice of initiation is being 

published in accordance with section 

751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218 

(c). 

Dated: November 25, 2008. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretaryfor AD/CVD Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E8–28475 Filed 11–28–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Notice of Scope Rulings 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 1, 2008. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) hereby publishes a list 

of scope rulings completed between July 

1, 2008, and September 30, 2008. In 

conjunction with this list, the 

Department is also publishing a list of 

requests for scope rulings and 

anticircumvention determinations 

pending as of September 30, 2008. We 

intend to publish future lists after the 

close of the next calendar quarter. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Juanita H. Chen or Hallie Zink, AD/CVD 

Operations, China/NME Group, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: 202–482–1904 or 202–482– 

6907, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department’s regulations provide 

that the Secretary will publish in the 

Federal Register a list of scope rulings 

on a quarterly basis. See 19 C.F.R. 

351.225(o). Our most recent notification 

of scope rulings was published on 

August 21, 2008. See Notice of Scope 

Rulings, 73 FR 49418 (August 21, 2008). 

This current notice covers all scope 

rulings and anticircumvention 

determinations completed by Import 

Administration between July 1, 2008, 

and September 30, 2008, inclusive, and 

it also lists any scope or 

anticircumvention inquiries pending as 

of September 30, 2008. As described 

below, subsequent lists will follow after 

the close of each calendar quarter. 

Scope Rulings Completed Between July 

1, 2008, and September 30, 2008: 

Germany 

A–428–801: Ball Bearings and Parts 

Thereof from Germany 

Requestor: Petree & Stoudt Associates, 

Inc.; certain textile–machinery 

components (model numbers SW4122, 

SRH1572, SRH3693.1, FR0394, SW2082, 

SRH1809.1, SRH3694, FR0613,,SW2577, 

SRH1809, SRH3694.1, FR0726, SW2578, 

SRH2129.1, SRH3695.1, FR1081, 

SW3642.X, SRH2129.2, SRH3717, 

FR1108, SW3937, SRH2255, SRH3898, 

FR1235, SW3938, SRH2265, SRH3906, 

FR1387, SW3939, SRH2266, SRH3913, 

FR1570, SW3966.X, SRH2820, 

SRH3953, FR1603, SW3982, SRH3055, 

SRH3956.1, FR1829, SW3995.1, 

SRH3064.1, SRH3977, FR1927, 

SW4021–XXX, SRH3100.1, SRH3983, 

FR1940, SW4040, SRH3366, SRH4009.1, 

FR1967, SW4053, SRH3419, SRH4009, 

FR1969, SW4057, SRH3463, SRH4033, 

FR2006, SW4058.1, SRH3482, SRH4037, 

FR2623, SW4067, SRH3489, SRH4038, 

FR2624, SW4100, SRH3500, SRH4042.1, 

FR2625, SW4107–X, SRH3510, 

SRH4042 , FR2626, SW4110–X, 

SRH3522.1, SRH4050, FR2661–10, 

SW1683, SRH3522, SRH4051, FR3007, 

OW4106, SRH3530, SRH4052, FR3499, 

OW0426, SRH3531, SRH4174, FR3669, 

OW0647, SRH3531.1, SR2523, FR3686, 

OW2090, SRH3532, SR2583, FR3718, 

OW2234, SRH3535, SR3951, FR3916.1, 

OW2787, SRH3540.1, SR3952, FR3916, 

OW2818.2, SRH3540, SR3998, FR3935, 

OW2903, SRH3541, SR4091, FR3964, 

OW3934, SRH3542.1, SR4114, FR3968, 

OW3958, SRH3542, SR4124, FR3969, 

OW3958–10, SRH3543, ZL1678.1, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 53 / Friday, March 20, 2009 / Notices 11967 

1Commissioners Charlotte R. Lane and Dean A. 

Pinkert found that the respondent interested party 

group response with respect to Korea was 

inadequate. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[LLAK910000 L13100000.DB0000 

LXSINSSI0000] 

Notice of Public Meeting, North Slope 

Science Initiative, Science Technical 

Advisory Panel, AK 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

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, North Slope 

Science Initiative (NSSI) Science 

Technical Advisory Panel (STAP) will 

meet as indicated below: 

DATES: The meeting will be held April 

14 and 15, in Fairbanks, Alaska. On 

April 14, 2009, the meeting will begin 

at 9 a.m. at the University of Alaska 

Fairbanks, International Arctic Research 

Center, Room 401. Public comments 

will begin at 3 p.m. On April 15, 2009, 

the meeting will begin at 9 a.m. at the 

same location and will be a joint 

meeting with the North Slope Science 

Initiative Oversight Group. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

F. Payne, Executive Director, North 

Slope Science Initiative, c/o Bureau of 

Land Management, AK–910, 222 W. 

Seventh Avenue, #13, Anchorage, AK 

99513; phone 907–271–3431 or e-mail 

john_f_payne@blm.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NSSI, 

STAP provides advice and 

recommendations to the NSSI Oversight 

Group regarding priority needs for 

management decisions across the North 

Slope of Alaska. These priority needs 

may include recommendations on 

inventory, monitoring, and research 

activities that lead to informed land 

management decisions. The topics to be 

discussed at the meeting include: 

• Emerging issues summary from the 

STAP. 

• Update on the project tracking 

system. 

• Update on the project database. 

• NSSI priority issues and projects. 

• Other topics the Oversight Group or 

STAP may raise. 

All meetings are open to the public. 

The public may present written 

comments to the Science Technical 

Advisory Panel through the Executive 

Director, North Slope Science Initiative. 

Each formal meeting will also have time 

allotted 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, 

transportation, or other reasonable 

accommodations, should contact the 

Executive Director, North Slope Science 

Initiative. 

Before including your address, phone 

number, e-mail address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Dated: March 16, 2009. 

Julia Dougan, 

Acting State Director. 

[FR Doc. E9–6097 Filed 3–19–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1310–JA–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–432 and 731– 

TA–1024–1028 (Review) and AA1921–188 

(Third Review)] 

Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire 

Strand From Brazil, India, Japan, 

Korea, Mexico, and Thailand 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of Commission 

determination to conduct full five-year 

reviews concerning the countervailing 

duty order on prestressed concrete steel 

wire strand (‘‘PC strand’’) from India 

and the antidumping duty orders on PC 

strand from Brazil, India, Japan, Korea, 

Mexico, and Thailand. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it will proceed with full 

reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(5)) to determine whether 

revocation of the countervailing duty 

order on PC strand from India and the 

antidumping duty orders on PC strand 

from Brazil, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, 

and Thailand would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury within a reasonably foreseeable 

time. A schedule for the reviews will be 

established and announced at a later 

date. For further information concerning 

the conduct of these reviews and rules 

of general application, consult the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207). 

DATES: Effective Date: March 6, 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 reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 

6, 2009, the Commission determined 

that it should proceed to full reviews in 

the subject five-year reviews pursuant to 

section 751(c)(5) of the Act. The 

Commission found that the domestic 

interested party group response to its 

notice of institution (73 FR 72834, 

December 1, 2008) was adequate and 

that the respondent interested party 

group responses with respect to Korea 

and Mexico were adequate 1 and 

decided to conduct full reviews with 

respect to the antidumping duty orders 

concerning PC strand from Korea and 

Mexico. The Commission found that the 

respondent interested party group 

responses with respect to Brazil, India, 

Japan, and Thailand were inadequate. 

However, the Commission determined 

to conduct full reviews concerning the 

countervailing duty order on PC strand 

from India and the antidumping duty 

orders on PC strand from Brazil, India, 

Japan, and Thailand to promote 

administrative efficiency in light of its 

decision to conduct full reviews with 

respect to the antidumping duty orders 

concerning PC strand from Korea and 

Mexico. A record of the Commissioners’ 

votes, the Commission’s statement on 

adequacy, and any individual 

Commissioner’s statements will be 

available from the Office of the 

Secretary and at the Commission’s Web 

site. 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.62 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

11968 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 53 / Friday, March 20, 2009 / Notices 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: March 16, 2009. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–6129 Filed 3–19–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[OMB Number 1117–0037] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Proposed Collection; 

Comments Requested 

ACTION: 30-day notice of information 

collection under review. 

Prescription Drug Monitoring Program 

Questionnaire 

The Department of Justice (DOJ), Drug 

Enforcement Administration (DEA) will 

be submitting the following information 

collection request to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and approval in accordance with 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

The proposed information collection is 

published to obtain comments from the 

public and affected agencies. This 

proposed information collection was 

previously published in the Federal 

Register Volume 74, Number 8, page 

1709, on, January 13, 2009, allowing for 

a 60 day comment period. 

The purpose of this notice is to allow 

for an additional 30 days for public 

comment until April 20, 2009. This 

process is conducted in accordance with 

5 CFR 1320.10. Written comments and/ 

or suggestions regarding the items 

contained in this notice, especially the 

estimated public burden and associated 

response time, should be directed to the 

Office of Management and Budget, 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Attention Department of Justice 

Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503. 

Additionally, comments may be 

submitted to OMB via facsimile to (202) 

395–5806. 

Written comments and suggestions 

from the public and affected agencies 

concerning the proposed collection of 

information are encouraged. Your 

comments should address one or more 

of the following four points: 

• Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

• Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agencies estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

• Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

• Minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology, 

e.g., permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

Overview of Information Collection 

1117–0037: 

(1) Type of Information Collection: 

Extension of a currently approved 

collection. 

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: 

Prescription Drug Monitoring Program 

Questionnaire. 

(3) Agency Form Number, if Any, and 

the Applicable Component of the 

Department of Justice Sponsoring the 

Collection: Form Number: None. Office 

of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement 

Administration, Department of Justice. 

(4) Affected public who will be asked 

or required to respond, as well as a brief 

abstract: 

Primary: States. 

Other: None. 

Abstract: This questionnaire permits 

the Drug Enforcement Administration to 

compile and evaluate information 

regarding the design, implementation 

and operation of State prescription 

monitoring programs. Such information 

allows DEA to assist states in the 

development of new programs designed 

to enhance the ability of both DEA and 

State authorities to prevent, detect, and 

investigate the diversion and abuse of 

controlled substances. 

(5) An Estimate of the Total Number 

of Respondents and the Amount of Time 

Estimated for an Average Respondent to 

Respond: It is estimated that 51 persons 

complete the Prescription Monitoring 

Program Questionnaire electronically, at 

5 hours per form, for an annual burden 

of 255 hours. 

(6) An Estimate of the Total Public 

Burden (in Hours) Associated With the 

Collection: It is estimated that there are 

255 burden hours associated with this 

collection. 

If additional information is required 

contact: Lynn Bryant, Department 

Clearance Officer, United States 

Department of Justice, Justice 

Management Division, Policy and 

Planning Staff, Patrick Henry Building, 

Suite 1600, 601 D Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20530. 

Dated: March 11, 2009. 

Lynn Bryant, 

Department Clearance Officer, United States 

Department of Justice. 

[FR Doc. E9–6054 Filed 3–19–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

National Institute of Corrections 

Solicitation for a Cooperative 

Agreement—Direct Supervision: 

Curriculum Development 

AGENCY: National Institute of 

Corrections, Department of Justice. 

ACTION: Solicitation for a cooperative 

agreement. 

SUMMARY: The National Institute of 

Corrections, Jails Division, is seeking 

applications for the development of two 

training-program curricula: one that 

focuses on the role of the housing-unit 

officer and shift supervisor in a direct 

supervision jail and another that focuses 

on the role of the administrator in a 

direct supervision jail. The project will 

be for an eighteen-month period, and 

will be carried out in conjunction with 

the NIC Jails Division. NIC Jails Division 

staff will direct the project and will 

participate in curriculum design, lesson 

plan development, and the creation of 

related training materials. 

DATES: Applications must be received 

by 4 p.m. (EDT) on Friday, April 10, 

2009. 

ADDRESSES: Mailed applications must be 

sent to: Director, National Institute of 

Corrections, 320 First Street, NW., Room 

5007, Washington, DC 20534. 

Applicants are encouraged to use 

Federal Express, UPS, or a similar 

service to ensure delivery by the due 

date, as mail at NIC is sometimes 

delayed due to security screening. 

Applicants who wish to hand-deliver 

their applications should bring them to 

500 First Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20534 and dial (202) 307–3106, ext. 0 at 

the front desk for pickup. 

Faxed or e-mailed applications will 

not be accepted. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A 

copy of this announcement and the 

required application forms can be 

downloaded from the NIC Web page at 

http://www.nicic.gov. 

All technical or programmatic 

questions concerning this 

announcement should be directed to 

Robbye Braxton-Mintz, Correctional 

Program Specialist, National Institute of 

Corrections. She can reached by calling 

1–800–995–6423 ext. 4–4562 or by email at rbraxtonmintz@bop.gov. 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 57 / Thursday, March 26, 2009 / Notices 13189 

6 If one of the below named companies does not 

qualify for a separate rate, all other exporters of 

shrimp from Vietnam who have not qualified for a 

separate rate are deemed to be covered by this 

review as part of the single Vietnam-wide entity of 

which the named exporters are a part. 

7 If one of the listed companies does not qualify 

for a separate rate, all other exporters of shrimp 

from the PRC that have not qualified for a separate 

rate are deemed to be covered by this review as part 

of the single PRC-wide entity of which the named 

exporter is a part. 

1On December 8, 1978, the Department of the 

Treasury published the antidumping duty finding, 

which is equivalent to an antidumping duty order 

published after 1980, on PC strand from Japan. See 

Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from 

Japan: Finding of Dumping, 43 FR 57599 (December 

8, 1978). 

Period to be reviewed 

• Zhoushan Huading Seafood Co., Ltd 

• Zhoushan Industrial Co., Ltd. 

• Zhoushan Industrial Co., Ltd. Cold Storage Factory 

• Zhoushan Jingzhou Aquatic Foods Co., Ltd. 

• Zhoushan Jinyuan Aquatic Foods Co., Ltd. 

• Zhoushan Lizhou Fishery Co., Ltd. 

• Zhoushan Penglai Aquatic Co., Ltd. 

• Zhoushan Putuo Dongyu Frozen Aquatic Products Co., Ltd 

• Zhoushan Putuo Huafa Sea Products Co., Ltd. 

• Zhoushan Putuo Zhuohai Marine Products Co., Ltd. 

• Zhoushan Qiangren Imp & Exp 

• Zhoushan Thousand-Islands Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. 

• Zhoushan Toka Foods Co., Ltd. 

• Zhoushan Xifeng Aquatic Co., Ltd. 

• Zhoushan Yueyang Food Co., Ltd. 

• Zhoushan Zaohai Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. 

• Zhoushan Zhenyang Developing Co., Ltd. 

• ZJ CNF Sea Products Engineering Ltd. Viet Nhan 

Notification 

This notice constitutes public 

notification to all firms requested for 

review and seeking separate-rate status 

in the administrative reviews of the 

antidumping duty orders on shrimp 

from Vietnam and the PRC that they 

must submit a separate rate status 

application or certification, as 

appropriate, within the time limits 

established in this notice of initiation of 

administrative reviews in order to 

receive consideration for separate-rate 

status. The Department will not give 

consideration to any Separate Rate 

Certification or Separate Rate Status 

Application made by parties who fail to 

timely submit the requisite Separate 

Rate Certification or Application. All 

information submitted by respondents 

in these administrative reviews is 

subject to verification. To complete 

these segments within the statutory time 

frame, the Department will be limited in 

its ability to extend deadlines on the 

above submissions. As noted above, the 

Separate Rate Certification and the 

Separate Rate Status Application will be 

available on the Department’s Web site 

at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/nme/nme-seprate.html on the date of publication of 

this notice. 

Interested parties must submit 

applications for disclosure under APO 

in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. 

Instructions for filing such applications 

may be found on the Department’s Web 

site at http://www.trade.gov/ia. 

This initiation and notice are in 

accordance with section 751(a) of the 

Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i). 

Dated: March 18, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–6634 Filed 3–25–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–351–837, A–533–828, A–588–068, A–580– 

852, A–201–831, A–549–820 

Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire 

Strand from Brazil, India, Japan, the 

Republic of Korea, Mexico, and 

Thailand: Final Results of the 

Expedited Sunset Reviews of the 

Antidumping Duty Finding/Orders 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On December 1, 2008, the 

Department of Commerce initiated 

sunset reviews of the antidumping duty 

finding/orders on prestressed concrete 

steel wire strand from Brazil, India, 

Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, 

and Thailand pursuant to section 751(c) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. 

The Department has conducted 

expedited (120–day) sunset reviews for 

these finding/orders in accordance with 

19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2). As a 

result of these sunset reviews, the 

Department finds that revocation of the 

antidumping duty finding/orders would 

be likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of dumping. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 26, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Yang Jin 

Chun or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 5, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–5760 or (202) 482– 

1690, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 1, 2008, the Department 

of Commerce (the Department) 

published the notice of initiation of the 

sunset reviews of the antidumping duty 

finding1/orders on prestressed concrete 

steel wire strand (PC strand) from 

Brazil, India, Japan, the Republic of 

Korea (Korea), Mexico, and Thailand 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). See 

Initiation of Five–year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Reviews, 73 FR 72770 (December 1, 

2008) (Notice of Initiation). 

The Department received notices of 

intent to participate in these sunset 

reviews from American Spring Wire 

Corp., Insteel Wire Products Company, 

and Sumiden Wire Products Corp. 

(collectively, the domestic interested 

parties) within the 15–day period 

specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). 

The domestic interested parties claimed 

interested–party status under section 

771(9)(C) of the Act as producers of a 

domestic like product in the United 

States. 

The Department received complete 

substantive responses to the Notice of 

Initiation from the domestic interested 

13190 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 57 / Thursday, March 26, 2009 / Notices 

parties within the 30–day period 

specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). 

The Department received no substantive 

responses from any respondent 

interested parties. As a result, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department is 

conducting expedited (120–day) sunset 

reviews of the antidumping duty 

finding/orders on PC strand from Brazil, 

India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and 

Thailand. 

Scope of the Finding/Orders 

The product covered in the sunset 

reviews of the antidumping duty orders 

on PC strand from Brazil, India, Korea, 

Mexico, and Thailand is steel strand 

produced from wire of non–stainless, 

non–galvanized steel, which is suitable 

for use in prestressed concrete (both 

pre–tensioned and post–tensioned) 

applications. The product definition 

encompasses covered and uncovered 

strand and all types, grades, and 

diameters of PC strand. 

The product covered in the sunset 

review of the antidumping duty finding 

on PC strand from Japan is steel wire 

strand, other than alloy steel, not 

galvanized, which is stress–relieved and 

suitable for use in prestressed concrete. 

The merchandise subject to the 

finding/orders 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 

merchandise under the finding/orders is 

dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in these reviews are 

addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Expedited Sunset 

Reviews of the Antidumping Duty 

Finding/Orders on Prestressed Concrete 

Steel Wire Strand from Brazil, India, 

Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, 

and Thailand’’ from Acting Deputy 

Assistant Secretary John M. Andersen to 

Acting Assistant Secretary Ronald K. 

Lorentzen dated March 19, 2009 

(Decision Memo), which is hereby 

adopted by this notice. The issues 

discussed in the Decision Memo include 

the likelihood of continuation or 

recurrence of dumping and the 

magnitude of the margins likely to 

prevail if the finding/orders were 

revoked. Parties can find a complete 

discussion of all issues raised in these 

reviews and the corresponding 

recommendations in this public 

memorandum which is on file in the 

Central Records Unit, room 1117 of the 

main Department of Commerce 

building. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memo can be accessed directly 

on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. 

The paper copy and electronic version 

of the Decision Memo are identical in 

content. 

Final Results of Reviews 

We determine that revocation of the 

antidumping duty finding/orders on PC 

strand from Brazil, India, Japan, Mexico, 

Korea, and Thailand would be likely to 

lead to continuation or recurrence of 

dumping at the following weighted– 

average percentage margins: 

Country Company Weighted–Average 

Margin (Percent) 

Brazil ............................................................................................ Belgo Bekaert Arames S.A. 118.75 

...................................................................................................... All Others 118.75 

India ............................................................................................. Tata Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. 102.07 

...................................................................................................... All Others 83.65 

Japan ........................................................................................... Shinko Wire Co., Ltd. 13.30 

...................................................................................................... Suzuki Metal Industry Co., Ltd. 6.90 

...................................................................................................... Tokyo Rope Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 4.50 

...................................................................................................... All Others 9.76 

Korea ........................................................................................... Dong–Il Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 54.19 

...................................................................................................... Kiswire Ltd. 54.19 

...................................................................................................... All Others 35.64 

Mexico .......................................................................................... Aceros Camesa S.A. de C.V. 62.78 

...................................................................................................... Cablesa S.A. de C.V. 77.20 

...................................................................................................... All Others 62.78 

Thailand ....................................................................................... Siam Industrial Wire Co., Ltd. 12.91 

...................................................................................................... All Others 12.91 

Notification Regarding APO 

This notice serves as a reminder to 

parties subject to administrative 

protective order (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely 

written notification of the return or 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and terms of an 

APO is a sanctionable violation. 

We are issuing and publishing the 

final results and notice in accordance 

with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 

777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: March 19, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–6797 Filed 3–25–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–427–801, A–428–801, A–475–801, A–588– 

804, A–412–801 

Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from 

France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the 

United Kingdom: Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On July 1, 2008, in response 

to requests from interested parties, the 

Department of Commerce published a 

notice of initiation of the administrative 

reviews of the antidumping duty orders 

15000 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Notices 

2 Vice Chairman Daniel R. Pearson dissenting 

with respect to Korea. 

States within a reasonably foreseeable 

time.2

Background 

The Commission instituted these 

reviews on June 2, 2008 (73 FR 31507) 

and determined on September 5, 2008 

that it would conduct full reviews (73 

FR 53443, September 16, 2008). Notice 

of the scheduling of the Commission’s 

reviews and of a public hearing to be 

held in connection therewith was given 

by posting copies of the notice in the 

Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 

Washington, DC, and by publishing the 

notice in the Federal Register on 

September 22, 2008 (73 FR 54619). The 

hearing was held in Washington, DC, on 

January 27, 2009, and all persons who 

requested the opportunity were 

permitted to appear in person or by 

counsel. 

The Commission transmitted its 

determination in these reviews to the 

Secretary of Commerce on March 27, 

2009. The views of the Commission are 

contained in USITC Publication 4067 

(March 2009), entitled Polyvinyl Alcohol 

from China, Japan, and Korea: 

Investigation Nos. 731–TA–1014, 1016, 

and 1017 (Review). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: March 27, 2009. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

William R. Bishop, 

Acting Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–7401 Filed 4–1–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–432 and 731– 

TA–1024–1028 (Review) and AA1921–188 

(Third Review)] 

Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire 

Strand from Brazil, India, Japan, Korea, 

Mexico, and Thailand 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Scheduling of full five-year 

reviews concerning the countervailing 

duty order on prestressed concrete steel 

wire strand from India and antidumping 

duty orders on prestressed concrete 

steel wire strand from Brazil, India, 

Japan, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of full reviews 

pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)) 

(the Act) to determine whether 

revocation of the countervailing duty 

order on prestressed concrete steel wire 

strand from India and the antidumping 

duty orders on prestressed concrete 

steel wire strand from Brazil, India, 

Japan, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand 

would be likely to lead to continuation 

or recurrence of material injury within 

a reasonably foreseeable time. For 

further information concerning the 

conduct of these reviews and rules of 

general application, consult the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207). 

Effective Date: Date of Commission 

approval of Action Jacket. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On March 6, 2009, the Commission 

determined that responses to its notice 

of institution of the subject five-year 

reviews were such that full reviews 

pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Act 

should proceed (74 FR 11967, March 20, 

2009). A record of the Commissioners’ 

votes, the Commission’s statement on 

adequacy, and any individual 

Commissioner’s statements are available 

from the Office of the Secretary and at 

the Commission’s Web site. 

Participation in the Reviews and Public 

Service List 

Persons, including industrial users of 

the subject merchandise and, if the 

merchandise is sold at the retail level, 

representative consumer organizations, 

wishing to participate in these reviews 

as parties must file an entry of 

appearance with the Secretary to the 

Commission, as provided in section 

201.11 of the Commission’s rules, by 45 

days after publication of this notice. A 

party that filed a notice of appearance 

following publication of the 

Commission’s notice of institution of 

the reviews need not file an additional 

notice of appearance. The Secretary will 

maintain a public service list containing 

the names and addresses of all persons, 

or their representatives, who are parties 

to the reviews. 

Limited Disclosure of Business 

Proprietary Information (BPI) Under an 

Administrative Protective Order (APO) 

and BPI Service List 

Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the 

Commission’s rules, the Secretary will 

make BPI gathered in these reviews 

available to authorized applicants under 

the APO issued in the reviews, provided 

that the application is made by 45 days 

after publication of this notice. 

Authorized applicants must represent 

interested parties, as defined by 19 

U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to the 

reviews. A party granted access to BPI 

following publication of the 

Commission’s notice of institution of 

the reviews need not reapply for such 

access. A separate service list will be 

maintained by the Secretary for those 

parties authorized to receive BPI under 

the APO. 

Staff Report 

The prehearing staff report in the 

reviews will be placed in the nonpublic 

record on September 10, 2009, and a 

public version will be issued thereafter, 

pursuant to section 207.64 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Hearing 

The Commission will hold a hearing 

in connection with the reviews 

beginning at 9:30 a.m. on September 30, 

2009, at the U.S. International Trade 

Commission Building. Requests to 

appear at the hearing should be filed in 

writing with the Secretary to the 

Commission on or before September 24, 

2009. A nonparty who has testimony 

that may aid the Commission’s 

deliberations may request permission to 

present a short statement at the hearing. 

All parties and nonparties desiring to 

appear at the hearing and make oral 

presentations should attend a 

prehearing conference to be held at 9:30 

a.m. on September 28, 2009, at the U.S. 

International Trade Commission 

Building. Oral testimony and written 

materials to be submitted at the public 

hearing are governed by sections 

201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), 207.24, and 

207.66 of the Commission’s rules. 

Parties must submit any request to 

present a portion of their hearing 

testimony in camera no later than 7 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Notices 15001 

business days prior to the date of the 

hearing. 

Written Submissions 

Each party to the reviews may submit 

a prehearing brief to the Commission. 

Prehearing briefs must conform with the 

provisions of section 207.65 of the 

Commission’s rules; the deadline for 

filing is September 21, 2009. Parties 

may also file written testimony in 

connection with their presentation at 

the hearing, as provided in section 

207.24 of the Commission’s rules, and 

posthearing briefs, which must conform 

with the provisions of section 207.67 of 

the Commission’s rules. The deadline 

for filing posthearing briefs is October 9, 

2009; witness testimony must be filed 

no later than three days before the 

hearing. In addition, any person who 

has not entered an appearance as a party 

to the reviews may submit a written 

statement of information pertinent to 

the subject of the reviews on or before 

October 9, 2009. On October 30, 2009, 

the Commission will make available to 

parties all information on which they 

have not had an opportunity to 

comment. Parties may submit final 

comments on this information on or 

before November 3, 2009, but such final 

comments must not contain new factual 

information and must otherwise comply 

with section 207.68 of the Commission’s 

rules. All written submissions must 

conform with the provisions of section 

201.8 of the Commission’s rules; any 

submissions that contain BPI must also 

conform with the requirements of 

sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the 

Commission’s rules. The Commission’s 

rules do not authorize filing of 

submissions with the Secretary by 

facsimile or electronic means, except to 

the extent permitted by section 201.8 of 

the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67 

FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Even 

where electronic filing of a document is 

permitted, certain documents must also 

be filed in paper form, as specified in II 

(C) of the Commission’s Handbook on 

Electronic Filing Procedures, 67 FR 

68168, 68173 (November 8, 2002). 

Additional written submissions to the 

Commission, including requests 

pursuant to section 201.12 of the 

Commission’s rules, shall not be 

accepted unless good cause is shown for 

accepting such submissions, or unless 

the submission is pursuant to a specific 

request by a Commissioner or 

Commission staff. 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, 

each document filed by a party to the 

reviews must be served on all other 

parties to the reviews (as identified by 

either the public or BPI service list), and 

a certificate of service must be timely 

filed. The Secretary will not accept a 

document for filing without a certificate 

of service. 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.62 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Issued: March 30, 2009. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

William R. Bishop, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–7421 Filed 4–1–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms 

and Explosives 

[OMB Number 1140–0052] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Proposed Collection; 

Comments Requested 

ACTION: 60-Day Notice of Information 

Collection Under Review: Strategic 

Planning Environmental Assessment 

Outreach. 

The Department of Justice (DOJ), 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms 

and Explosives (ATF), will be 

submitting the following information 

collection request to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and approval in accordance with 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

The proposed information collection is 

published to obtain comments from the 

public and affected agencies. Comments 

are encouraged and will be accepted for 

‘‘sixty days’’ until June 1, 2009. This 

process is conducted in accordance with 

5 CFR 1320.10. 

If you have comments especially on 

the estimated public burden or 

associated response time, suggestions, 

or need a copy of the proposed 

information collection instrument with 

instructions or additional information, 

please contact Lilia M. Vannett, Deputy 

Chief, Office of Strategic Management, 

99 New York Avenue, NE., Washington, 

DC 20226. 

Written comments and suggestions 

from the public and affected agencies 

concerning the proposed collection of 

information are encouraged. Your 

comments should address one or more 

of the following four points: 

—Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

—Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies 

estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

—Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

—Minimize the burden of the collection 

of information on those who are to 

respond, including through the use of 

appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other forms 

of information technology, e.g., 

permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

Overview of This Information 

Collection 

(1) Type of Information Collection: 

Extension of a currently approved 

collection. 

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: 

Strategic Planning Environmental 

Assessment Outreach. 

(3) Agency form number, if any, and 

the applicable component of the 

Department of Justice sponsoring the 

collection: Form Number: None. Bureau 

of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and 

Explosives. 

(4) Affected public who will be asked 

or required to respond, as well as a brief 

abstract: Primary: Business or other forprofit. Other: Not-for-profit institutions, 

Federal Government, State, Local, or 

Tribal Government. Under the 

provisions of the Government 

Performance and Results Act, Federal 

agencies are directed to improve their 

effectiveness and public accountability 

by promoting a new focus on results, 

service quality, and customer 

satisfaction. This act requires that 

agencies update and revise their 

strategic plans every three years. The 

Strategic Planning Office at ATF will 

use the voluntary outreach information 

to determine the agency’s internal 

strengths and weaknesses. 

(5) An estimate of the total number of 

respondents and the amount of time 

estimated for an average respondent to 

respond: It is estimated that 1,500 

respondents will complete a 18 minute 

questionnaire. 

(6) An estimate of the total public 

burden (in hours) associated with the 

collection: There are an estimated 450 

annual total burden hours associated 

with this collection. 

If additional information is required 

contact: Lynn Bryant, Department 

Clearance Officer, Policy and Planning 

Staff, Justice Management Division, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

15938 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Notices 

section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for 

subject merchandise exported by 

Baoding Mantong, the cash deposit rate 

will be that established in the final 

results of review; (2) for previously 

reviewed or investigated companies not 

listed above that have separate rates, the 

cash deposit rate will continue to be the 

company specific rate published for the 

most recent period; (3) for all other PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise 

(including Nantong Dongchang), which 

have not been found to be entitled to a 

separate rate, the cash deposit rate will 

be the PRC wide rate of 155.89 percent; 

(4) for all non–PRC exporters of subject 

merchandise, the cash deposit rate will 

be the rate applicable to the PRC 

exporter that supplied that non–PRC 

exporter. These deposit requirements, 

when imposed, shall remain in effect 

until publication of the final results of 

the next administrative review. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

This administrative review and this 

notice are in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, 19 CFR 

351.213, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4). 

Dated: March 31, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–7986 Filed 4–7–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE: 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(C–533–829) 

Final Results of Expedited Sunset 

Review of Countervailing Duty Order: 

Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire 

Strand from India 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On December 1, 2008, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) initiated a sunset review 

of the countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) 

order on prestressed concrete steel wire 

strand (‘‘PC strand’’) from India 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). 

See Initiation of Five–Year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Reviews, 73 FR 72770 (December 1, 

2008). On the basis of a notice of intent 

to participate and an adequate 

substantive response filed on behalf of 

domestic interested parties and an 

inadequate response (in this case, no 

response) from respondent interested 

parties, the Department decided to 

conduct an expedited sunset review of 

this CVD order pursuant to section 

751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(B). As a result of this 

review, the Department finds that 

revocation of the CVD order would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of a countervailable subsidy 

at the level indicated in the ‘‘Final 

Results of Review’’ section of this 

notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 8, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric 

Greynolds or Brandon Farlander, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 3, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington; DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–6071 or (101) 482– 

0182, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 1, 2008, the Department 

initiated a sunset review of the CVD 

order on PC strand from India pursuant 

to section 751(c) of the Act. See 

Initiation of Five–Year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Reviews, 73 FR 72770 (December 1, 

2008). The Department received a notice 

of intent to participate on behalf of 

American Spring Wire Corp., Insteel 

Wire Products Company, and Sumiden 

Wire Products Corporation (collectively, 

‘‘petitioners’’), within the deadline 

specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). 

The petitioners claimed interested party 

status under section 771(9)(C) of the 

Act, as domestic producers of PC strand. 

The Department received a complete 

substantive response from the 

petitioners within the 30–day deadline 

specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). 

However, the Department did not 

receive a substantive response from any 

respondent interested party to this 

proceeding. As a result, pursuant to 

section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the 

Department conducted an expedited 

review of this order. 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise subject to this order 

is prestressed concrete steel wire (‘‘PC 

strand’’), which is steel strand produced 

from wire of non–stainless, non– 

galvanized steel, which is suitable for 

use in prestressed concrete (both pre– 

tensioned and post–tensioned) 

applications. The product definition 

encompasses covered and uncovered 

strand and all types, grades, and 

diameters of PC strand. 

The merchandise under this order 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 merchandise 

under investigation is dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in this review are 

addressed in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum (‘‘Decision 

Memorandum’’) from John M. 

Andersen, Acting Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Operations, to 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, 

dated March 31, 2009, which is hereby 

adopted by this notice. Parties can find 

a complete discussion of all issues 

raised in this review and the 

corresponding recommendation in this 

public memorandum which is on file in 

the Central Records Unit room B–1117 

of the main Commerce building. In 

addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly on the Web at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Final Results of Review 

The Department determines that 

revocation of the countervailing duty 

order would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of a 

countervailable subsidy at the rate listed 

below: 

Producers/Exporters Net Countervailable 

Subsidy (percent) 

All Manufacturers/Producers/Exporters ....... 62.92 

Notification Regarding Administrative 

Protective Order 

This notice serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. 

Timely notification of return/ 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Notices 15939 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and the terms of an 

APO is a sanctionable violation. 

We are issuing and publishing the 

results and notice in accordance with 

sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act. 

Dated: March 30, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–7983 Filed 4–7–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology 

Proposed Information Collection; 

Comment Request; Generic Clearance 

for Program Evaluation Data 

Collections 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Commerce, as part of its continuing 

effort to reduce paperwork and 

respondent burden, invites the general 

public and other Federal agencies to 

take this opportunity to comment on 

proposed and/or continuing information 

collections, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted on or before June 8, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments 

to Diana Hynek, Departmental 

Paperwork Clearance Officer, 

Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 

14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230 (or via the 

Internet at dHynek@doc.gov). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information or 

copies of the information collection 

instrument and instructions should be 

directed to Darla Yonder, Management 

Analyst, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, MS 

1710, Gaithersburg, MD 20899–1710, 

telephone 301–975–4064 or via e-mail 

to darla.yonder@nist.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Abstract 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12862, the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST), a 

non-regulatory agency of the 

Department of Commerce, proposes to 

conduct a number of surveys, both 

quantitative and qualitative, designed to 

evaluate our current programs from a 

customer’s perspective. NIST proposes 

to perform program evaluation data 

collections by means of, but not limited 

to, focus groups, reply cards that 

accompany product distributions, and 

Web-based surveys and dialogue boxes 

that offer customers the opportunity to 

express their views on the programs 

they are asked to evaluate. NIST will 

limit its inquiries to data collections 

that solicit strictly voluntary opinions 

and will not collect information that is 

required or regulated. Steps will be 

taken to assure anonymity of 

respondents in each activity covered 

under this request. 

II. Method of Collection 

NIST will collect this information by 

mail, fax, electronically, telephone and 

person-to-person sessions. 

III. Data 

OMB Control Number: 0693–0033. 

Form Number: None. 

Type of Review: Regular submission. 

Affected Public: Business or other for 

profit organizations, not-for-profit 

institutions, individuals or households, 

Federal Government, State, Local, or 

Tribal Government. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

12,000. 

Estimated Time per Response: Varied 

dependent upon the data collection. The 

response time may vary from two 

minutes for a response card or two 

hours for focus group participation. The 

average time per response is expected to 

be 30 minutes. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 3,022. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost to 

Public: $0. 

IV. Request for Comments 

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden 

(including hours and cost) of the 

proposed collection of information; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including through the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or other forms of information 

technology. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized and/or 

included in the request for OMB 

approval of this information collection; 

they also will become a matter of public 

record. 

Dated: April 3, 2009. 

Gwellnar Banks, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. E9–7897 Filed 4–7–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology 

Proposed Information Collection; 

Comment Request; Generic Clearance 

for Usability Data Collections 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Commerce, as part of its continuing 

effort to reduce paperwork and 

respondent burden, invites the general 

public and other Federal agencies to 

take this opportunity to comment on 

proposed and/or continuing information 

collections, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted on or before June 8, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments 

to Diana Hynek, Departmental 

Paperwork Clearance Officer, 

Department of Commerce, Room 7845, 

14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230 (or via the 

Internet at dHynek@doc.gov). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information or 

copies of the information collection 

instrument and instructions should be 

directed to Darla Yonder, Management 

Analyst, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, MS 

1710, Gaithersburg, MD 20899–1710, 

telephone 301–975–4064, or via e-mail 

to darla.yonder@nist.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Abstract 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12862, the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST), a 

non-regulatory agency of the 

Department of Commerce, proposes to 

conduct a number of data collection 

efforts—both quantitative and 

qualitative—to determine requirements 

and evaluate usability and utility of 

NIST research for measurement and 

standardization work. These data 

collection efforts may include, but may 

not be limited to electronic 

methodologies, empirical studies, video 

and audio data collections, interviews, 

and questionnaires. For example, data 

collection efforts will be conducted at 

search and rescue training exercises for 

rescue workers using robots. Other 

planned data collection efforts include 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
1

 These producers are American Spring Wire Corp., Insteel Wire Products Co., and Sumiden

Wire Products Corp.

2

 Commissioners Charlotte R. Lane and Dean A. Pinkert found that the respondent interested

party group response with respect to Korea was inadequate.

EXPLANATION OF COMMISSION DETERMINATIONS ON ADEQUACY

in

Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Brazil, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand

Inv. Nos. 701-TA-432 and 731-TA-1024-1028 (Review) and AA1921-188 (Third Review)

On March 6, 2009, the Commission determined that it should proceed to full reviews in the

subject five-year reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. §1675(c)(5)).

 The Commission received a consolidated response to its notice of institution from three domestic

producers that account for a significant percentage of domestic production of prestressed concrete steel

wire strand (“PC strand”).1

 The Commission found the individual response of each of these domestic PC

strand producers, which contained company-specific data, to be adequate. With respect to the orders

concerning PC strand from Brazil, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand, the Commission

determined that the domestic interested party group response was adequate.

The Commission also received adequate individual responses concerning the order on PC strand

from Mexico, filed jointly by Aceros Camesa S.A. de C.V. and Deacero S.A. de C.V., producers and

exporters of subject merchandise in Mexico. With respect to the order on PC strand from Korea, the

Commission received an adequate individual response from Dong-Il Steel Mfg., Ltd., a producer of

subject merchandise in Korea.

The Commission found that the respondent interested party group responses were adequate with

respect to the orders on PC strand from Mexico and Korea because respondents from each of these

countries accounted for a significant share of the production of subject merchandise in their respective

countries.2

Because the group and individual responses from both domestic interested parties and respondent

interested parties were adequate in the reviews of the orders concerning PC strand from Mexico and

Korea, the Commission determined to conduct full reviews in these proceedings.

The Commission did not receive a response from any respondent interested parties in the reviews

concerning subject imports from Brazil, India, Japan, or Thailand, and therefore determined that the

respondent interested party group response from each of these countries was not adequate. The

Commission nevertheless voted to conduct full reviews concerning subject imports from Brazil, India,

Japan, and Thailand to promote administrative efficiency in light of the Commission’s determination to

conduct full reviews of the other orders in these grouped reviews.

A record of the Commissioners’ votes is available from the Office of the Secretary and on the

Commission’s website (http://www.usitc.gov).
B-1

APPENDIX B

COMMISSION’S HEARING WITNESS LIST

B-3

CALENDAR OF PUBLIC HEARING

 Those listed below appeared as witnesses at the United States International Trade Commission’s

hearing:

Subject: Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Brazil, India, Japan,

Korea, Mexico, and Thailand

Inv. Nos.: 701-TA-432 and 731-TA-1024-1028 (Review) and AA1921-199

(Third Review)

Date and Time: September 30, 2009 - 9:30 a.m.

Sessions were held in connection with these reviews in the Main Hearing Room (room 101), 500 E

Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.

EMBASSY APPEARANCE:

Embassy of Mexico

Washington, D.C.

The Honorable Jose Luis Paz, Minister of Trade and NAFTA Office

Salvador Behar, Legal Counsel for International Trade

OPENING REMARKS:

Support of Continuation (Kathleen W. Cannon, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP)

Opposition to Continuation (Jeffrey S. Levin, Mondial Trade Compliance

Services & Solutions, Inc.)

In Support of the Imposition of

 Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders:

Kelley Drye & Warren LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

The Domestic Industry

Howard Woltz, III, President and CEO,

Insteel Wire Products Co.

Richard Wagner, Vice President and General Manager,

Insteel Wire Products Co.
B-4

In Support of the Imposition of

 Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders (continued):

Jon Cornelius, General Manager, PC Strand

Division, Sumiden Wire Products Corp.

Gina Beck, Economic Consultant, Georgetown

Economic Services

Paul C. Rosenthal )

) – OF COUNSEL

Kathleen W. Cannon )

In Opposition to the Imposition of

 Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders:

Mondial Trade Compliance Services & Solutions, Inc.

Bethesda, MD

on behalf of

Aceros Camesa S.A. de C.V. (“Camesa”)

Deacero S.A. de C.V. (“Deacero”)

Enrique R. Fernandez, Vice President of

International Relations and Trade Affairs,

Deacero

Miguel A. Gomez, Senior Vice President of Sales,

WireCo WorldGroup (Camesa)

Thomas A. Danjczek, President, Steel Manufacturers

Association

Jeffrey S. Levin ) – OF COUNSEL

REBUTTAL/CLOSING REMARKS:

Support of Continuation (Paul C. Rosenthal, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP)

Opposition to Continuation (Jeffrey S. Levin, Mondial Trade Compliance

Services & Solutions, Inc.)
C-1

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA

Table C-1

PC strand: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2003-08, January-June 2008, and January-June 2009

(Quantity=1,000 pounds, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per thousand pounds; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-June Jan.-June

Item 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 2009 2003-08 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 805,929 859,433 907,092 1,112,214 980,504 942,713 557,809 229,130 17.0 6.6 5.5 22.6 -11.8 -3.9 -58.9

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . . 70.0 66.8 68.6 56.4 59.4 56.2 58.4 79.9 -13.8 -3.2 1.8 -12.1 3.0 -3.2 21.5

 Importers' share (1):

 Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -2.7 -2.6 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.4 -0.4 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0

 Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.0 -4.2 -4.5 -0.0 0.3 -0.1 0.1 -0.3

 Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 1.0 -4.6 -4.6 -0.0 0.1 0.1 -0.1 0.8

 Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.8 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.8 -0.2 -0.6 -0.1 -0.0 0.0 0.0

 Subtotal, 5 subject. . . . . . . . . . 13.2 0.9 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 1.0 -12.7 -12.4 -0.7 0.3 0.0 -0.0 0.6

 Subject Japan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 -0.0 -0.0 0.1 -0.1 -0.2

 Subtotal, 6 subject. . . . . . . . . . 13.3 1.0 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.0 -12.7 -12.3 -0.7 0.3 0.1 -0.1 0.4

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . 16.7 32.2 31.1 42.9 39.8 43.1 41.0 19.1 26.4 15.5 -1.1 11.8 -3.1 3.3 -21.9

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.0 33.2 31.4 43.6 40.6 43.8 41.6 20.1 13.8 3.2 -1.8 12.1 -3.0 3.2 -21.5

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215,223 353,511 425,623 465,112 407,169 549,768 284,301 118,835 155.4 64.3 20.4 9.3 -12.5 35.0 -58.2

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . . 71.3 71.9 70.8 63.9 65.9 60.7 63.0 82.4 -10.6 0.6 -1.1 -6.9 2.0 -5.2 19.4

 Importers' share (1):

 Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -2.1 -2.1 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.3 -0.3 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.0 -3.3 -3.7 -0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 -0.3

 Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.8 -5.2 -5.3 -0.0 0.1 0.1 -0.1 0.7

 Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.7 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.7 -0.2 -0.5 -0.1 -0.0 0.0 0.0

 Subtotal, 5 subject. . . . . . . . . . 12.3 0.7 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.9 -11.7 -11.6 -0.6 0.3 0.1 -0.0 0.4

 Subject Japan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.0 -0.0 0.1 0.0 -0.0 0.1 -0.2 -0.3

 Subtotal, 6 subject. . . . . . . . . . 12.5 1.0 0.4 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.9 -11.7 -11.5 -0.5 0.3 0.2 -0.2 0.1

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . 16.3 27.2 28.8 35.3 33.1 38.5 36.2 16.7 22.3 10.9 1.6 6.6 -2.2 5.4 -19.5

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.7 28.1 29.2 36.1 34.1 39.3 37.0 17.6 10.6 -0.6 1.1 6.9 -2.0 5.2 -19.4

U.S. imports from:

 Brazil:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21,511 449 0 0 0 0 0 0-100.0 -97.9 -100.0 (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,610 168 0 0 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -96.4 -100.0 (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $214 $373 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) 74.1 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 India:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,210 34 2 2 235 209 0 0 -93.5 -98.9 -93.9 -22.7 14,326.6 -11.2 (2)

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 704 41 17 9 81 156 0 0 -77.9 -94.1 -59.7 -48.7 843.4 92.3 (2)

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $219 $1,208 $7,934 $5,265 $344 $746 (2) (2) 239.9 450.5 556.7 -33.6 -93.5 116.7 (2)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Korea:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36,934 316 258 3,958 2,831 3,325 1,661 86 -91.0 -99.1 -18.2 1,432.8 -28.5 17.5 -94.8

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,995 167 196 1,506 1,399 2,201 1,081 54 -72.5 -97.9 17.6 668.8 -7.1 57.3 -95.0

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $216 $527 $759 $380 $494 $662 $651 $624 205.7 143.6 43.8 -49.8 29.9 33.9 -4.2

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Mexico:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38,257 867 555 1,526 2,283 1,514 759 2,214 -96.0 -97.7 -36.0 175.1 49.6 -33.7 191.5

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,534 290 187 729 1,036 885 377 997 -92.3 -97.5 -35.7 290.5 42.1 -14.5 164.5

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $301 $335 $337 $478 $454 $584 $496 $450 93.9 11.1 0.5 41.9 -5.1 28.8 -9.3

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Thailand:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,791 5,800 624 45 0 0 0 0-100.0 -14.6 -89.2 -92.7 -100.0 (2) (2)

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,572 1,819 240 25 0 0 0 0 -100.0 15.7 -86.8 -89.8 -100.0 (2) (2)

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $231 $314 $385 $543 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) 35.5 22.7 41.0 (2) (2) (2)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal, 5 subject:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106,703 7,466 1,439 5,530 5,349 5,048 2,421 2,300 -95.3 -93.0 -80.7 284.3 -3.3 -5.6 -5.0

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26,415 2,485 640 2,268 2,516 3,241 1,458 1,051 -87.7 -90.6 -74.3 254.6 10.9 28.8 -27.9

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $248 $333 $444 $410 $470 $642 $602 $457 159.4 34.5 33.5 -7.7 14.7 36.5 -24.2

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Japan:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 768 1,545 1,564 1,580 1,952 1,380 1,224 0 79.7 101.1 1.3 1.0 23.5 -29.3 -100.0

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399 876 1,092 1,100 1,343 916 874 0 129.8 119.7 24.7 0.7 22.1 -31.8 -100.0

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $519 $567 $698 $696 $688 $663 $715 (2) 27.8 9.2 23.1 -0.3 -1.1 -3.6 (2)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal, 6 subject:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107,471 9,011 3,003 7,111 7,301 6,429 3,644 2,300 -94.0 -91.6 -66.7 136.8 2.7 -11.9 -36.9

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26,813 3,361 1,732 3,368 3,859 4,157 2,333 1,051 -84.5 -87.5 -48.5 94.5 14.6 7.7 -55.0

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $249 $373 $577 $474 $529 $647 $640 $457 159.2 49.5 54.6 -17.9 11.6 22.3 -28.6

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134,423 276,723 282,247 477,667 390,402 406,312 228,681 43,806 202.3 105.9 2.0 69.2 -18.3 4.1 -80.8

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34,990 95,994 122,471 164,334 134,966 211,890 102,835 19,839 505.6 174.3 27.6 34.2 -17.9 57.0 -80.7

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $260 $347 $434 $344 $346 $521 $450 $453 100.3 33.3 25.1 -20.7 0.5 50.8 0.7

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241,894 285,733 285,250 484,778 397,703 412,741 232,325 46,106 70.6 18.1 -0.2 69.9 -18.0 3.8 -80.2

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61,803 99,355 124,203 167,702 138,825 216,047 105,168 20,889 249.6 60.8 25.0 35.0 -17.2 55.6 -80.1

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $255 $348 $435 $346 $349 $523 $453 $453 104.9 36.1 25.2 -20.6 0.9 50.0 0.1

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on next page.

C-3
Table C-1--Continued

PC strand: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2003-08, January-June 2008, and January-June 2009

(Quantity=1,000 pounds, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per pound; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-June Jan.-June

Item 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 2009 2003-08 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . . 742,295 754,653 791,653 810,653 902,782 903,795 454,684 456,277 21.8 1.7 4.9 2.4 11.4 0.1 0.4

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . . 578,004 608,562 621,919 673,195 601,732 558,885 327,355 172,375 -3.3 5.3 2.2 8.2 -10.6 -7.1 -47.3

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . . 77.9 80.6 78.6 83.0 66.7 61.8 72.0 37.8 -16.0 2.8 -2.1 4.5 -16.4 -4.8 -34.2

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 564,035 573,700 621,842 627,436 582,801 529,972 325,484 183,024 -6.0 1.7 8.4 0.9 -7.1 -9.1 -43.8

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153,420 254,156 301,420 297,410 268,344 333,721 179,133 97,946 117.5 65.7 18.6 -1.3 -9.8 24.4 -45.3

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $272 $443 $489 $474 $460 $630 $550 $535 131.5 62.9 10.4 -3.0 -2.9 36.8 -2.8

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . 38,343 59,605 44,596 68,014 61,262 67,082 47,677 51,281 75.0 55.5 -25.2 52.5 -9.9 9.5 7.6

 Inventories/total shipments (1) . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . . 315 335 364 385 357 331 337 253 5.1 6.3 8.7 5.8 -7.3 -7.3 -24.9

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . . . 762 744 784 856 771 694 392 244 -8.9 -2.5 5.5 9.1 -9.9 -10.0 -37.6

 Wages paid ($1,000) . . . . . . . . . 11,658 12,764 14,302 16,963 14,145 13,264 7,933 4,592 13.8 9.5 12.0 18.6 -16.6 -6.2 -42.1

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $15.30 $17.17 $18.24 $19.82 $18.34 $19.11 $20.25 $18.79 24.9 12.2 6.2 8.7 -7.5 4.2 -7.2

 Productivity (pounds per hour) . . 758.3 818.5 793.2 786.7 780.1 805.0 835.7 705.3 6.2 7.9 -3.1 -0.8 -0.8 3.2 -15.6

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . $20.17 $20.97 $23.00 $25.20 $23.51 $23.73 $24.23 $26.64 17.7 4.0 9.6 9.6 -6.7 1.0 9.9

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 564,937 610,678 605,636 661,470 613,704 589,793 341,238 188,242 4.4 8.1 -0.8 9.2 -7.2 -3.9 -44.8

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150,480 249,170 299,892 312,046 283,088 354,082 191,146 100,343 135.3 65.6 20.4 4.1 -9.3 25.1 -47.5

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $266 $408 $495 $472 $461 $600 $560 $533 125.4 53.2 21.4 -4.7 -2.2 30.1 -4.8

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . . 135,503 193,659 235,830 248,909 230,394 302,334 153,600 101,280 123.1 42.9 21.8 5.5 -7.4 31.2 -34.1

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . . 14,977 55,511 64,062 63,137 52,694 51,748 37,546 (937) 245.5 270.6 15.4 -1.4 -16.5 -1.8 (3)

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,887 13,251 13,233 14,648 13,317 13,795 7,128 6,603 39.5 34.0 -0.1 10.7 -9.1 3.6 -7.4

 Operating income or (loss) . . . . 5,090 42,260 50,829 48,489 39,377 37,953 30,418 (7,540) 645.6 730.3 20.3 -4.6 -18.8 -3.6 (3)

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $240 $317 $389 $376 $375 $513 $450 $538 113.7 32.2 22.8 -3.4 -0.2 36.5 19.5

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . $18 $22 $22 $22 $22 $23 $21 $35 33.6 24.0 0.7 1.3 -2.0 7.8 67.9

 Unit operating income or (loss) . $9 $69 $84 $73 $64 $64 $89 ($40) 614.2 668.1 21.3 -12.7 -12.5 0.3 (3)

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90.0 77.7 78.6 79.8 81.4 85.4 80.4 100.9 -4.7 -12.3 0.9 1.1 1.6 4.0 20.6

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 17.0 16.9 15.5 13.9 10.7 15.9 (7.5) 7.3 13.6 -0.0 -1.4 -1.6 -3.2 -23.4

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Not applicable.

 (3) Undefined.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics.

C-4
D-1

APPENDIX D

RESPONSES OF U.S. PRODUCERS, U.S. IMPORTERS, U.S. PURCHASERS,

AND FOREIGN PRODUCERS CONCERNING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE

ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY FINDING/ORDERS AND

THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

D-3

U.S. PRODUCERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE

ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY FINDING/ORDERS 

AND THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

The Commission requested that U.S. producers describe any anticipated changes in the character

of their operations or organization relating to the production of PC strand in the future if the

countervailing and/or antidumping duty finding/orders on PC strand from Brazil, India, Japan,

Korea, Mexico, and/or Thailand were to be revoked (Question II-4). The following are quotations

from the responses of U.S. producers.

***

“Yes. The need for domestically produced PC strand would be reduced if the order is revoked, resulting

in plant closures and layoffs.”

***

“Yes. If the countervailing duties and ‘Order’ were revoked, it is highly probable that imports would

increase from these countries which would lead to an excess of PC strand in the market and

ultimately translate into lower revenue, production and employment at ***.”

***

“Yes. Our firm would be negatively impacted on employment, cost, cash flow and profit. We presently

compete with companies now under order for PC strand in other wire product lines. Their

behavior in these product lines continues to be aggressive and injurious to our firm.”

***

“Yes. If revoked I expect market pricing to be negatively impacted and our mill to run at less than full

capacity in the future.”

***

“Yes. *** would reduce or stop future investment in its U.S. PC strand operations. *** cannot justify

investments if fair trade cannot be reasonably assured.”

***

“Yes. If orders were revoked with respect to any of the subject countries, *** would expect to

experience additional pricing and volume pressure as import quantities rise in the U.S. market. Given the

low level of capacity utilization presently affecting the company it is likely that additional cost reduction

measures would be pursued, including ***. The low level of capacity utilization that has persisted for

several quarters results in high unit fixed costs that are not sustainable for the long term.”
D-4

The Commission requested U.S. producers to describe the significance of the existing

countervailing and/or antidumping duty finding/orders covering imports of PC strand from Brazil,

India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and/or Thailand in terms of its effect on your production capacity,

production, U.S. shipments, inventories, purchases, employment, revenues, costs, profits, cash flow,

capital expenditures, research and development expenditures, and asset values. (Question II-20). 

The following are quotations from the responses of U.S. producers.

***

“After orders were imposed we saw our revenue, shipments and profits increase until China entered the

marketplace.”

***

“The orders against subject countries have benefitted ***. Following the effective dates of the orders,

subject countries withdrew from the market and, for a time, market pricing recovered to levels that

supported profitable operations and made investment feasible. *** took this opportunity to invest

approximately $*** to upgrade its manufacturing technology, lower operating costs, and improve the

quality of its products. Unfortunately this recovery was cut short by the dramatic growth of imports from

China that captured 40% of the market using underselling tactics.”

***

“Before orders were imposed market pricing was less than cost. After orders were imposed market

pricing increased and profits returned. During 2005 production and capacity increased. In 2006

to 2009 imports from China has again eroded market pricing and profits are not achievable.”

***

“The imposition of the AD/CVD orders against the named countries allowed *** to re-gain lost

market share and improve profitability until China began dumping PC strand into the U.S. market.”

***

“We have been involved in the PC strand industry for ***. Had it not been for the orders being in place

***.”

***

“With the current imposition of the government’s orders, we have been able to hire employees and allow

*** to develop and grow as a PC strand manufacturer. The only time we deviated from this was when

imports from China started entering the market at well below market selling prices and our sales,

production and employment began to fall.”
D-5

The Commission requested U.S. producers to describe any anticipated changes in production

capacity, production, U.S. shipments, inventories, purchases, employment, revenues, costs, profits,

cash flow, capital expenditures; research and development expenditures, or asset values relating to

the production of PC strand in the future if the countervailing and/or antidumping duty

finding/orders on PC strand from Brazil, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and/or Thailand were to be

revoked (Question II-21). The following are quotations from the responses of U.S. producers.

***

“If orders were revoked with respect to any of the subject countries, *** would expect to experience

additional pricing and volume pressure as import quantities would likely rise in the U.S. market. Given

the low level of capacity utilization presently affecting the Company, it is likely that additional cost

reduction measures would be pursued. The low level of capacity utilization that has persisted for several

quarters results in high unit fixed costs that are not sustainable for the long term.”

***

“Our firm would be negatively impacted on employment cost, cash flow and profit. We presently

compete with companies now under order for PC strand in other wire product lines. Their behavior in

these product lines continues to be aggressive and injurious to our firm.”

***

“In the event the orders are revoked it will lead to a slowdown in the sale of domestically produced PC

strand, thereby causing plant closures and layoffs.”

***

“If revoked I expect market pricing to be negatively impacted and our mill to run at less than full capacity

in the future.”

***

“We would anticipate that our production and shipments would decrease. Ultimately this would lead to

layoffs and possible halt to any future capital expenditures or similar type spending.”

***

“If these orders are revoked, the named countries would likely resume importing large quantities of low

priced imports of PC strand causing further injury to ***.”
D-6

U.S. IMPORTERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE

ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY FINDING/ORDERS 

AND THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

The Commission requested U.S. importers to describe any anticipated any changes in the character

of their operations or organization (as noted above) relating to the importation of PC strand in the

future if the countervailing and/or antidumping duty finding/orders on PC strand from Brazil,

India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and for Thailand were to be revoked (Question II-4). The following

are quotations from the responses of importers.

***

“No.”

***

“No.”

***

“No. *** would import from ***.”

***

“Yes. Purchasing will shift and be allocated to the most competitive price offered.”

***

“No.”

***

“Yes. We are not aware that there were any duty orders on products from these countries. As a general

rule, we buy from whichever vendor is the lowest cost supplier of a landed product (taking into account

all aspects of our cost, including purchase price, freight, duties, etc.). Accordingly, if there are duties now

that were removed and, as a result, the vendors in those countries were the lowest cost supplier (taking

into account all expenses) we would buy from those vendors if we could compete with manufacturers

selling directly to our customer base.

***

“No.”

***

“No.”

***

“No.”
D-7

***

“Yes. *** would examine importing product from ***, should the order be revoked.”

***

“No.”

***

“No.”

***

“No.”

***

“Yes. We would meet with as many of these mills as we could to source the highest quality pc strand at

the best price.”

***

“*** would have the chance to re-export also standard PC products to the USA.”

***

“No.”

***

“No.”

***

“Yes. We currently purchase high carbon wire from ***. The suppliers we partner with also sell PC

strand to their own country. We could easily start selling their PC strand if these duties were removed.”

***

“No.”

***

“No.”
D-8

***

“Yes. If these orders are revoked, the named countries would likely resume importing large quantities of

low priced imports of PC strand causing further injury to ***.

***

“No.”

The Commission requested U.S. importers to describe the significance of the existing

countervailing and/or antidumping duty finding/orders covering imports of PC strand from Brazil,

India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and/or Thailand in terms of its effect on their imports, U.S. shipments

of imports, and inventories (Question II-9). The following are quotations from the responses of

importers.

***

“No effect”

***

“The existing ones do not influence us due to the market dominance of the PC strand coming from the

PRC.”

***

“Don’t know at this time. With the economy in such a slump we are not aggressively pursuing the PC

strand market. However, removal of the orders could cause further injury to domestic producers.”

***

“The market is driven by demand. Worldwide there is enough supply to cover said demand in the U.S. 

The suppliers may change, but the market’s behavior doesn’t.”

***

“We were not aware that there were any duty orders on products from these countries. We have only

been the importer of record for PC Strand since 2006, so we do not have a pre-duty experience to

compare. As a general rule, we buy from whichever vendor is the lowest cost supplier of a landed

product (taking into account all aspects of our cost, including purchase price, freight, duties, etc.). 

Accordingly, if there are duties now that were removed and, as a result, the vendors in those countries

were the lowest cost supplier (taking into account all expenses) we would buy from those vendors if we

could compete with manufacturers selling directly to our customer base.”

***

“We were unable to import from *** after the antidumping duty was imposed and started ordering from

*** instead.”
D-9

***

“We have stopped importing from *** after the imposition of the orders.”

***

“Replacement of PC strand suppliers from countries included in this petition by Chinese suppliers. No

issues with China quality and especially capacity.”

***

“N/A”

***

No response

***

“We have not imported PC strand from Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico and Thailand. Therefore, we have

no knowledge to answer this question.”

***

“The current orders do not make it economically viable for ***.

***

“N/A”

***

“We began our business after the issuance of the anti-dumping orders against the six countries. We have

imported PC strand ***. There are currently a significant number of PC strand manufacturers around the

world that manufacturer and sell PC strand at prices similar or better than prices in these six countries and

China.”

***

“*** has no intention at this time to import PC strand.”

***

No response

***

“No effect-we are not currently purchasing additional strand from any sources due to our high inventory

levels of PC strand.”
D-10

***

“None.”

***

“The existing orders limit the potential sources for PC strand, however, during the time period the

questionnaire covers, there was a steady and competitive supply of PC strand coming in from China. It is

doubtful these countries would have been able to compete with Chinese PC strand during this time.”

***

“The imposition of these orders would normally allow *** to occasionally import PC strand from ***

into the U.S., but due to Chinese PC strand importers underselling behavior, *** has not been able to

compete using imported *** PC strand.”

***

“We have not imported any PC strand after imposition of the orders.”

***

No response.

The Commission requested U.S. importers to describe any anticipated changes in imports, U.S. 

shipments of imports, or inventories of PC strand in the future if the countervailing and/or

antidumping duty finding/orders on PC strand from Brazil, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and/or

Thailand were to be revoked. The following are quotations from the responses of importers.

***

“Yes. Additional PC strand sources if current AD petition against China is voted.”

***

“No.”

***

“No.”

***

“No.”

***

“No. I don’t believe these countries contain PC strand manufacturers that are the most competitive PC

strand manufacturers in the world. For example, I believe Spain and Portugal contain PC strand

manufacturers that are currently the most competitive in the word.”
D-11

***

“Yes. If the orders were revoked prices in the U.S. market would probably decline substantially ***

uncompetitive. Revocation of the orders could cause ***. If no other choices existed, *** some of its

market share.”

***

“No.”

***

“Yes. If together with the PRC also *** etc. would be revoked then we could again be a smaller importer

into the USA (maximum *** metric tons).”

***

“No.”

***

“No.”

***

“No.”

***

“Yes. *** would examine importing product from ***, should the order be revoked.

***

“No.”

***

“No.”

***

“Yes. We don’t have enough information about cost of products from these countries to answer. As a

general rule we buy from whichever vendor is the lowest cost supplier of landed product (taking into

account all aspects of our cost, including purchase price, freight, duties, etc.). Accordingly, if there are

duties now that were removed and, as a result, the vendors in those countries were the lowest cost supplier

(taking into account all expenses) we would buy from those vendors if we could compete with

manufacturers selling directly to our customer base.”
D-12

***

“No. May reconsider the sources from *** again.”

***

“Yes. If the duties are revoked, we would be able to import some limited quantities. The demand is

already all time low, and very small quantity of imports would be required for some time.”

***

“No.”

***

“Yes. As a steel trading company we are always looking for competitive offshore material. If the order

was revoked (considering the current investigation against China) it would increase our supply options.”

***

“Yes. If these orders are revoked, the named countries would likely resume importing large quantities of

low priced imports of PC strand causing further injury to ***.

***

“*** has closed their business from ***.

***

“Yes. If these countries were allowed to ship PC strand to the U.S., we would definitely use their

product. The are competitive on higher carbon wire that we currently sell and would also be competitive

on PC Strand. India is practically dumping stainless steel wire into the U.S. now.”
D-13

U.S. PURCHASERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE

ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY FINDING/ORDERS 

AND THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

The Commission’s questionnaires in these reviews requested comments from U.S.

purchasers regarding the effects of revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty

finding/orders on (1) the future activities of their firms and (2) the U.S. market as a whole. The

following comments were received:

***

(1) The future activities of their firms:

“Domestic price increased and limited availability.”

(2) The U.S. market as a whole:

No response was given.

***

(1) The future activities of their firms:

“None.”

(2) The U.S. market as a whole:

“Revocation of order may help stabilize costs. Healthy competition in the world market may help

the US market.”

***

(1) The future activities of their firms:

“We bid work competitive with steel companies, any price increases hurt our business.”

(2) The U.S. market as a whole:

“Present companies will lose business with price increases.”

***

(1) The future activities of their firms:

“Less price stability in the market.”

(2) The U.S. market as a whole:

“More damage to domestic industry; less price stability.”
D-14

***

(1) The future activities of their firms:

“Prices will drop dramatically.”

(2) The U.S. market as a whole:

“Domestic strand suppliers will be forced to lower their prices to compete with foreign

suppliers.”

***

(1) The future activities of their firms:

“American PC strand producers appear regionalized and have strong grip on pricing. Expect

higher pricing if no competition exist. Freight cost also a factor.”

(2) The U.S. market as a whole:

No response was given.

***

(1) The future activities of their firms:

“None.”

(2) The U.S. market as a whole:

“Increase the prevailing price of strand.”

***

(1) The future activities of their firms:

No response was given.

(2) The U.S. market as a whole:

“Should make domestic producers demand decrease. This will reduce price to end users.”
D-15

***

(1) The future activities of their firms:

No response was given.

(2) The U.S. market as a whole:

No response was given.

***

(1) The future activities of their firms:

“Would buy from them if price was good.”

(2) The U.S. market as a whole:

“Those countries would sell more to the US.”

***

(1) The future activities of their firms:

“Continue to purchase from traders that procure from other countries; traders could offer product

from other countries (countries in question). Purchase price is key.”

(2) The U.S. market as a whole:

“Unknown impact. More competition could have an adverse effect on the US market.”

***

(1) The future activities of their firms:

“No change.”

(2) The U.S. market as a whole:

No response was given.
D-16

***

1) The future activities of their firms:

No response was given.

(2) The U.S. market as a whole:

No response was given.

***

(1) The future activities of their firms:

No response was given.

(2) The U.S. market as a whole:

No response was given.

***

(1) The future activities of their firms:

“Keep markets unimpeded by tariffs or duty orders.”

(2) The U.S. market as a whole:

No response was given.

***

(1) The future activities of their firms:

“We have not evaluated or analyzed the likely effects of such a revocation on the future activities

of our firm. We do not anticipate that such a revocation would have any material effect on our firm's

future activities.”

(2) The U.S. market as a whole:

“We have not evaluated or analyzed the likely effects of such a revocation on the US market as a

whole. We would not expect such a revocation to have any material effect on the US market as a whole.”
D-17

***

(1) The future activities of their firms:

“PC strand would probably be cheaper if we were allowed to buy foreign strand. It would create

more competition.”

(2) The U.S. market as a whole:

“PC strand would probably be cheaper if we were allowed to buy foreign strand. It would create

more competition.”

***

(1) The future activities of their firms:

No response was given.

(2) The U.S. market as a whole:

No response was given.

***

(1) The future activities of their firms:

“The additional supply will likely result in lower prices.”

(2) The U.S. market as a whole:

“The additional supply will likely result in lower prices.”

***

(1) The future activities of their firms:

“No effect.”

(2) The U.S. market as a whole:

“No effect.”
D-18

***

(1) The future activities of their firms:

“If strand from more sources is available we will be able to obtain good supply (of PC strand) at a

competitive price with equal opportunity for a small company in comparison to large companies. More

construction work will be created due to competitive pricing. This will create more jobs in our company”

(2) The U.S. market as a whole:

“We believe that similar market effect will take place. Other small post-tensioning companies

will have access to strand purchases at fair value.”

FOREIGN PRODUCERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE

ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY FINDING/ORDERS 

AND THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

The Commission requested foreign producers to describe any anticipated changes in the character

of their operations or organization relating to the production of PC strand in the future if the

countervailing and/or antidumping duty finding/orders on PC strand from Brazil, India, Japan,

Korea, Mexico, and/or Thailand were to be revoked (Question II-4). The following are quotations

from the responses of foreign producers.

***

“Yes. If the order {is} revoked *** will have the opportunity to be competitive in the U.S. market due to

its parent company *** and their distribution channels.”

***

“No. *** currently owns two facilities in the U.S. where PC strand is not produced. *** does not have

any current plans for PC strand production in the U.S.”

***

“No.”

***

“No.”

***

“No.”

***

“No.”
D-19

***

No response.

***

“No. Our company had never exported any LRPC strand to the United States of America {to} date.”

The Commission requested foreign producers to describe the significance of the existing

countervailing and/or antidumping duty finding/orders covering imports of PC strand from Brazil,

India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and/or Thailand in terms of its effect on their production capacity,

production, home market shipments, exports to the United States and other markets, and

inventories (Question II-13). Firms were asked to compare their operations before and after the

imposition of the finding/orders. The following are quotations from the responses of foreign

producers.

***

No response.

***

“No influence.”

***

“It does not affect our operations. Because we have never exported to the USA in the past.”

***

“None.”

***

“Duties has prohibited exports of PC Strand to the U.S.”

***

“The existing duty does not have any effect on *** regarding production capacity, production, and

inventories of PC Strand, since it only caters its home market (***).”

***

“No material change in production capacity, production, home market shipments. Since FY2003 *** has

been developing new export market (***). And *** has not sold uncoated and uncovered PC strand to

U.S. market.”

***

“Not applicable.”
D-20

The Commission requested foreign producers to describe any anticipated changes in production

capacity, production, home market shipments, exports tot he United Stats and other markets, or

inventories relating to the production of PC strand in the future if the countervailing and/or

antidumping duty finding/orders on PC strand from Brazil, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and/or

Thailand (Question II-14). The following are quotations from the responses of foreign producers.

***

“Yes. The parent company (***) would consider the importation of PC Strand made by *** into the

U.S.”

***

No response.

***

“No.”

***

“No.”

***

No response.

***

“*** does not anticipate any changes in its operations if the antidumping duty is revoked since it only

caters its home market, where the duty has no relevance. Even though the duty is revoked, trying to enter

the U.S. market seems almost impossible due to the dominant position held by Chinese imports. 

Considering figures from 2008, more than 90% of U.S. total imports of PC strand are from China at an

average price of $0.4664 USD per pound, which makes it practically impossible to compete with. 

Additionally, the Buy American restrictions makes it difficult to enter the U.S. market considering that

most of the infrastructure projects will be held by the states and not by the federal government, which will

require only American-made steel.”

***

“No.”

***

“No.”
E-1

APPENDIX E

COMBINED PRICING DATA
E-2
E-3

Table E-1

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 2003-June 2009

United States Brazil Korea

Price 

(per 

lineal

foot)

Quantity

(1,000

lineal feet)

Price 

(per

lineal

foot)

Quantity

(1,000 lineal

feet)

Margin

(percent)

Price 

(per

lineal

foot)

Quantity

(1,000

lineal feet)

Margin

(percent)

2003:

 Jan.-Mar. $124 167,529 $*** *** *** $*** *** ***

 Apr.-June 135 206,865 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 145 176,896 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 148 185,679 - 0 - - 0 -

2004:

 Jan.-Mar. 172 197,191 - 0 - *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 230 192,528 - 0 - *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 259 189,596 - 0-- 0-

 Oct.-Dec. 270 134,653 - 0 - - 0 -

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. 266 150,936 - 0 - - 0 -

 Apr.-June 256 203,225 - 0 - - 0 -

 July-Sept. 248 217,856 - 0 - - 0 -

 Oct.-Dec. 239 199,830 - 0 - - 0 -

2006:

 Jan.-Mar. 236 193,923 - 0 - - 0 -

 Apr.-June *** *** - 0 - - 0 -

 July-Sept. 236 172,457 - 0 - - 0 -

 Oct.-Dec. 240 142,730 - 0 - - 0 -

2007:

 Jan.-Mar. 231 149,188 - 0 - - 0 -

 Apr.-June 227 173,722 - 0 - - 0 -

 July-Sept. 225 156,753 - 0 - - 0 -

 Oct.-Dec. 227 149,883 - 0 - - 0 -

2008:

 Jan.-Mar. 244 175,261 - 0 - - 0 -

 Apr.-June 339 161,782 - 0 - - 0 -

 July-Sept. 407 118,101 - 0 - - 0 -

 Oct.-Dec. 363 62,585 - 0 - - 0 -

2009:

 Jan.-Mar. *** *** - 0 - - 0 -

 Apr.-June 258 92,896 - 0 -0 - -

Table continued.
E-4

Table E-1

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 2003-June 2009

United States Mexico Thailand

Price 

(per 

lineal

foot)

Quantity

(1,000

lineal feet)

Price 

(per

lineal

foot)

Quantity

(1,000 lineal

feet)

Margin

(percent)

Price 

(per

lineal

foot)

Quantity

(1,000

lineal feet)

Margin

(percent)

2003:

 Jan.-Mar. $124 167,529 $*** *** *** $*** *** ***

 Apr.-June 135 206,865 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 145 176,896 - 0 - *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 148 185,679 - 0 - *** *** ***

2004:

 Jan.-Mar. 172 197,191 - 0 - *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 230 192,528 - 0 - *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 259 189,596 - 0 - *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 270 134,653 - 0 - *** *** ***

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. 266 150,936 - 0 - - 0 -

 Apr.-June 256 203,225 - 0 - - 0 -

 July-Sept. 248 217,856 - 0 - - 0 -

 Oct.-Dec. 239 199,830 - 0 - - 0 -

2006:

 Jan.-Mar. 236 193,923 - 0 - - 0 -

 Apr.-June *** *** - 0 - - 0 -

 July-Sept. 236 172,457 - 0 - - 0 -

 Oct.-Dec. 240 142,730 - 0 - - 0 -

2007:

 Jan.-Mar. 231 149,188 - 0 - - 0 -

 Apr.-June 227 173,722 - 0 - - 0 -

 July-Sept. 225 156,753 - 0 - - 0 -

 Oct.-Dec. 227 149,883 - 0 - - 0 -

2008:

 Jan.-Mar. 244 175,261 - 0 - - 0 -

 Apr.-June 339 161,782 - 0 - - 0 -

 July-Sept. 407 118,101 - 0 - - 0 -

 Oct.-Dec. 363 62,585 - 0 - - 0 -

2009:

 Jan.-Mar. *** *** - 0 - - 0 -

 Apr.-June 258 92,896 - 0 - - 0 -

Note: For India, two quarters of data were reported; in second quarter 2003 the price was $***, the quantity was *** and

margin of overselling was *** percent and in third quarter 2003 the price was $***, the quantity was *** and the margin of

overselling was *** percent. Price data for Brazil and Mexico for January-June 2003 as reported in original investigations.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.